Natural Born Citizen – A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

August 21, 2009

‘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

There are two United States Supreme Court decisions that show that the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is not found in the Fourteenth Amendment or in any other part of the Constitution, but rather in the common law. The Supreme Court decided these cases after the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868. In both cases, the Court decided whether the person was a “citizen” of the United States, and not whether that person was an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Chief Justice Waite, in Minor v. Happersett, in 1875, stated: “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens,as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). Additionally, it is important to note that, even though the Fourteenth Amendment was already in place, Justice Waite stated that there is doubt as to whether a child born in the United States to foreign parents is a citizen (Id. at 167-68) and that the Fourteenth Amendment did not affect the citizenship of men or women. Id. at 170. It is also critical to note that Justice Waite did not refer to the English common law when defining a “natural born citizen,” for we shall see that the English common law did not consider the citizenship of the child’s parents when declaring that child a “natural born subject.” Rather, Justice Waite refered to the “common law” that as we shall see below has its origins in the law of nations and natural law and which became U.S. common law.

Justice Grey, 23 years later in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) repeated what Justice Waite said in Minor about the need to resort to common law when defining “natural born Citizen:” “In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the fourteenth amendment now in question, said: ‘The constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.’ And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision.” U.S. v Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898).

In both of these cases, the Supreme Court did not look to the Fourteenth Amendment to define what a “natural born Citizen” is. Rather, both courts said that the meaning of that term must be found by resort to the “common law.” What do both of these Supreme Court decisions tell us? First, they show that there is a difference between a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” and an Article II “natural born Citizen.” If the two terms were the same, the Supreme Court in both of these cases would not have said that the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is not contained in the Constitution, for the Fourteenth Amendment was already part of the Constitution and the Court could have easily said that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is contained right in the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, the Supreme Court in both of these cases also said that the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is not contained in the Constitution but rather in the “common law.” Here we have clear evidence that the United States Supreme Court itself has recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment does not define what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is and has stated that its definition may be found only in the “common law.” Hence, we can see that simply being declared a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment does not make one an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Congressional Acts has changed the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” for these sources address only the question of what is a “citizen” and do not touch upon what is a “natural born Citizen.” “The Fourteenth Amendment and the domestic citizenship statutes necessarily mean that Congress left determination of what categories of citizenship are “natural born” to other law. . . .” Gabriel J. Chin, Why Senator McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship, Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 08-14 (2008). Also, for one to be declared an Article II “natural born Citizen,” one must satisfy the “common law” definition for that term. The question then becomes to what “common law” are we to look for the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen?”

Given the profound differences between the citizenship rules associated with the English common law and those connected with American national citizenship, it is evident that the Founders did not use English common law to define what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is but rather used the law of nations for that purpose which became incorporated into and became federal common law. George Mason, the “Father of the Bill of Rights” and one of the “Founding Fathers” of the United States, proclaimed: “The common law of England is not the common law of these states.” ( Debate in Virginia Ratifying Convention, 19 June 1788). To the extent that the English common law was relied upon in the colonies and States, that law was at the time that the Constitution was adopted “to a greater or less extent, recognized as the law of the States by which the Constitution was adopted.” The English common law would, however, be applied to determine questions of citizenship only if the written law was silent, i.e., there was no statute or federal or state court decision on the subject. Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863). But the Founders did not rely upon the English common law to define the new national United States citizenship that they created for the new Constitutional Republic. Rather, the Founders replaced the English common law with the law of nations which became the new U.S. federal common law and the law of the federal government.

Upon independence from Great Britain, the United States “were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement. Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199. 199, 281 (1796). In The Nereide, Justice Marshall stated that the “Court is bound by the law of nations, which is part of the law of the land.” 13 U.S. 388, 423 (1815). “The courts have always considered the law of nations to be part of the law of the United States.” M. J. Glennon, Constitutional Diplomacy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press 1990), at 245. There are numerous other authorities that state that the law of nations became the national law of the United States. Even William Blackstone recognized the importance of the law of nations which he considered “universal law” and the life blood of a nation wanting to be part of the “civilized world.” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 67 (1769). Hence, the law of nations, when not codified into any Act of Congress, became the common law of the United States.

The Framers did not define an Article II “natural born Citizen” because they did not see a reason to. It was a term that was well defined by the law of nations and well-know by civilized nations. Given that citizenship affects “the behavior of nation states with each other” (Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), all civilized nations knew what the definition of citizenship was. The Founders believed that the common law was discoverable by reason and was forever present, a “discoverable reflection of universal reason.” Sosa. So since the Constitution did not define “citizen” or “natural born Citizen,” “resort must be had to the customs and usages of civilized nations” found in the law of nations, as defined by scholars, jurists, and commentators of the time who devoted “years of labor, research and experience” to the subject. The Paquete Habana, 175 U.S. 677, 700(1900).

We know from the historical record and from the way the Constitution is framed that the Founders relied heavily upon Emmerich de Vattel and his highly acclaimed treatise, The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature (1758), as a crucial and fundamental guide in knowing what the law of nations was. Alexander Hamilton was the key organizer of the movement to hold the Constitutional Convention that produced the Constitution. No one played a more important role than Hamilton in the adoption of the Constitution. Of all the Founders, he was the one most influenced by Vattel. In 1784, Hamilton, as the lawyer for the defense, arguing in the case of Rutgers v. Waddington, quoted prolifically from E. Vattel’s, The Law of Nations. The Waddington case shows how Vattel shaped Hamilton’s thinking. Hamilton argued that the law of nations was part of the common law and that the decisions of the New York Legislature must be consistent with the law of nations. Hamilton used Vattel as the standard for defining the law of nations. Hamilton argued that state law was superseded by national law and the law of nations. He also argued that the intent of the state legislature had to be that their laws be applied in a fashion that was consistent with national law and the law of nations. Judge James Duane in his ruling described the importance of the new republic abiding by the law of nations, and explained that the standard for the court would be Vattel. He ruled that the New York statue passed under the color of English common law must be consistent with the law of nations.

Thomas Lee (University of Chicago Law), in his essay, “The Safe-Conduct Theory of the Alien Tort Statute,” said: “The treatise by the Swiss thinker Emmerich de Vattel entitled The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns was the supremus inter pares of the international law texts the founding group used during the crucial decade between 1787 and 1797. The Founders also read and cited other leading authorities, most notable Hugo Grotius and Samuel Pufendorf, but Vattel was their clear favorite. ”

Vattel, in his masterpiece legal treatise, The Law of Nations or Principles of the Law of Nature, in Book I, Chapter XIX, analyzed citizenship and related topics. The Founders knew that Vattel defined a “citizen” simply as any member of society. They also knew from reading Vattel that a “natural born Citizen” had a different standard from just “citizen,” for he or she was a child born in the country to two citizen parents. That is the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” as recognized by numerous U.S. Supreme Court and lower court decisions (The Venus, 12U.S. 253(1814), Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242 (1830), Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856), Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) , Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F. Cas. 582 (C.C.W.D. Ark 1879), United States v. Ward, 42 F. 320 (1890); Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), Ludlam, Excutrix, & c., v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1863) and more) and the framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the 14th Amendment, the Naturalization Act of 1795, 1798, 1802, 1885, and our modern 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401. It should be noted that during the Founding and throughout American history, there has always been a distinction between a general “citizen” on the one hand and a “natural born citizen” on the other. The law of nations did not make any specific requirements for one to be a “citizen” of a nation, for such a person was basically just a member of the civil society. Before and after the revolution, the Founders considered anyone who resided in the colonies or States and who adhered to the revolutionary cause to be a “citizen,” regardless of place of birth or condition of the parents. But the law of nations did provide for a strict definition of a “natural born citizen,” i.e., a child born in the country of citizen parents. And the Founders also adopted that stricter definition for an Article II “natural born Citizen” which applied only to one wanting to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

The Founders also understood what “natural allegiance” was. They knew that “liegance, and faith and truth, which are her members and parts, are qualities of the mind and soul of man, and cannot be circumscribed within the predicament of ubi.” (p. 76). Calvin’s Case (1608) (7 Coke, 1, 6 James I.) They understood that an English “natural born subject” residing out of the kingdom or jurisdiction of the king still owed allegiance to the king of England. Id. Hence, they understood that “natural allegiance” or “allegiance by birth” does not depend upon locality or place; that it is purely mental in its nature, and cannot, therefore, be confined within any certain boundaries. . .” Ludham, 26 N.Y. at 363. They understood that natural allegiance or allegiance by birth did not depend upon boundaries or place but rather upon parentage. Id. at 364. The Founders understood that “as long as the parents continue to owe allegiance to the crown of England, so long will their children, by the rules of the common law, whether born within or without the kingdom, owe similar allegiance, and be entitled to the corresponding rights of citizenship.” Id. at 365. Finally, the Founders also understood that even though a child may be born on U.S. soil, if he was born of a British father, the Crown of England owed that child the same protection that it owed the father. Id. at 370-71.

Simply stated, the definition of “natural born subject” as found in the English common law simply did not work for the Founders. Great Britain was a monarchy and the new nation was a Constitutional Republic. Great Britain did not have a President to be democratically elected by the people but the new nation did. Great Britain was not concerned with foreign influence making its way into the hereditary monarchy but the Founders were concerned about the Office of President being attacked from within and without with foreign influence infecting not only the voters but also the political leaders themselves. The Founders understood that citizenship and allegiance went together. The born-in-country-to-two-U.S.-citizen-parents formula was the best way for them to assure that only a person with undivided allegiance and loyalty to the United States would be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. This test was not tied to the physical territory alone, which the Founders understood and which Lord Coke confirmed did not assure anyone’s natural allegiance. The Founder learned from Vattel that under the law of nature, the condition of a child follows the condition of his parents and not the place of his birth. Vattel, Sec. 215. Hence, their test combined both the soil with the allegiance of the child’s parents into the child at the time of birth. For the Founders, this was the best way to assure sole and absolute allegiance in the new-born child.

The Founders knew that the States had their own laws on how they defined citizens and how they naturalized aliens. United States v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. 785, 791 (1866). They also knew that these laws were not uniform. The Founders in Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 4 took away from the States the power to naturalize a person and gave it exlusively to Congress so that it could make uniform the laws of naturalization. The Founders also wanted a uniform definition of “citizen” and “natural born Citizen,” for how could they have wanted uniform laws regarding naturalization and not the same for citizenship. Further evidence that they wanted this uniformity may be found in Article IV, Sec. 2 which states: “The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” This clause shows that the Founders also wanted to take away from the States not only the power to naturalize but also the power to define citizenship, for “a person becoming a citizen in one State, would thereby become a citizen of another, perhaps even contrary to its laws, and the power thus exercised would operate beyond the limits of the State.” Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. 1, 36 (Wheat) (1824). The law of nations provided them with those definitions which were also accepted by other civilized nations and which allowed them to establish a national standard for citizenship that would be incorporated and become part of United States national law.

Article I, Section 8, cl. 4, which gives Congress the power to make uniform the naturalization laws, also provides further evidence that the Framers were not influenced by English law (statutory and common) in defining what a “natural born Citizen” is. Prior to the Founding and throughout its period, English Parliament had the power to and did exercise that power to declare children born in or out of the Kingdom to English “natural born subject” parents “natural born subjects” themselves. But the Framers gave to Congress in Section 8 the power to only make uniform the naturalization laws and no power to make anyone a “natural born Citizen.” The “natural born Citizen” part of the Naturalization Law of 1790 was probably only a stopgap measure to grandfather children, born abroad to U.S. citizens during that time period, to be eligible to be President. It had the same effect as the “citizen” grandfather clause of Article II. It used the words “natural born Citizen” rather than just the word “citizen” because the Constitution had already been adopted and its Article II grandfather clause which used the word “citizen” no longer applied for children born after 1789 and its effect would only be retroactive, for those children were declared “natural born Citizens” only retroactively. Since its effect was only retroactive, only to cover a small period of time, and needed to grandfather additional children to be President, Congress probably saw no harm in declaring those children “natural born citizens,” even though it had no constitutional authority to do so. Hence, by the time 1795 arrived, the Third Congress, knowing well its limited powers on the subject matter probably decided that there was no longer any need for the grandfather effect that had been needed in 1790, removed the words “natural born,” and left in just “citizen.” At that point, whether a child born out of the country to U.S. citizen parents was a “natural born Citizen” would be decided, like what an Article II “natural born Citizen” was, not by any Act of Congress or the English common law but by the law of nations (jus gentium) that was based on natural law and which became incorporated into our federal common law. The Third Congress would not have removed the words “natural born” from the clause if the Framers and Congress accepted the English notion that Parliament had the authority to declare who was a “natural born subject.” The Framers had to view “natural born Citizen” differently than how the British viewed a “natural born subject.” Such a different view of the term explains why the Framers only gave Congress the power to naturalize and not the power to declare anyone a “natural born Citizen.”

If the Framers used the English common law as their guide in defining “natural born Citizen,” the First Congress in the 1790 Act would not have made “natural born Citizen” status only retroactive. The Third Congress would not have changed “natural born citizen” of the 1790 Act to say just “citizen” in the 1795 Act. The framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 would have used the term “natural born citizen” rather than just “citizen.” Congress in all its citizenship acts would have used “natural born Citizen” rather than just “citizen” in describing a child born on U.S. soil and within the jurisdiction of the United States. The English bestowed “natural born subject” status on both its born subjects and those it naturalized. Hence, what is most revealing of our nation as a whole not accepting English common law to define a “natural born Citizen” is the Fourteenth Amendment’s use of the term “citizen” rather than “natural born Citizen” to describe a child born on U.S. soil or naturalized and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Congress in 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1408 uses the same exact test to declare a child a born “citizen” rather than a “natural born citizen.” If the English common law model were the standard for the Framers, why would our legislative history reveal that other than in Article II and for only a short time in the 1790 Act, our nation has never used the term “natural born Citizen” in any of our laws. Why did we conserve “natural born Citizen” status in such a fashion? Why did we not easily bestow the status upon children born within or without the United States to United States citizen parents as the English under their laws bestowed “natural born subject” status upon children born within or without the Kingdom to “natural born subject” parents? The answer is that we, as a nation, had a different standard than they did for the term, a standard that emanated from natural law which became the law of nations (jus gentium) and which was incorporated into American common law.

After the Constitution was adopted, every State still had the right to enact laws that denied citizenship at birth to some children born in that State, such as children of African or Native-American descent, and children whose parents were not U.S. citizens. These States would not have denied citizenship to any such individual if the nation had adopted the doctrine that everyone born on U.S. soil is a “natural born Citizen.” Additionally, all States were unanimous in granting citizenship at birth to children who met both the jus soli ( born on United States soil) and the jus sanguinis criterion (born to U.S. citizen parents). Some states routinely denied citizenship at birth to children who met only one of these criteria but never both. This difference among the States would not have occurred if the United States had adopted the English common law jus soli concept as part of its national citizenship law. This difference of opinion that existed as to what constituted a “natural born Citizen” or even a “citizen” was commented upon by the Court in Minor v. Happersett.

The Fourteenth Amendment put to rest the sole question of what constituted a “citizen” of the United States. For birthright citizenship, by combining both jus soli and “subject to the jurisdiction,” it can be reasonably argued that the amendment as intended by its framers required both jus soli and jus sanguinis to be united in the child at time of birth. However, the way the Wong Kim Ark Court interpreted the amendment, it is now viewed as requiring for the most part only jus soli. But the amendment only goes to define what a “citizen” is and in no way has amended what is an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Further proof that the Founders in defining citizenship did not accept English common law but rather the law of nations which was based on natural law can be found in the Congressional debates concerning the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. When commenting on the proposed amendment on May 30, 1866, Senator Howard said: “This amendment which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Govern- of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866, P. 2890, col. 2. The doctrine that children, if legitimate, follow, in regard to their political rights and duties, the condition of their fathers, is founded on natural law. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. at 368. Note that Senator Howard said that the amendment was only declaratory of “natural law” which became “national law” which in turn became the “law of the land.” The Senator is telling us that citizenship was defined by federal law which under Article VI of the Constitution was the supreme law of the land. He did not refer to any British common law or individual state law as being the basis for how citizenship was defined. Rather, his reference to “natural law” connects to the law of nations which was based on “natural law.” And the law of nations, as incorporated into the laws of the new Republic, did become the new national law of the United States. Moreover, in providing the list of those parents who would disqualify children born on U.S. territory from becoming a citizen, Senator Howard included parents who were foreigners, aliens, ambassadors, or foreign ministers. Note that the list included “foreigners” and “aliens.” Hence, the exclusion was not only for the children of ambassadors and enemy aliens, as was the rule of the English common law, but also for the children of “foreigners” and “aliens.” This exclusion was also repeated by Senator Johnson who stated that the child would have to be born on U.S. soil to “parents who at the time were subject to the authority of the United States.”

Furthermore, everything that the Founders established about citizenship in the United States is not consistent with British common law that treats the subject. The English common law did not use the concept of “natural born subject” as a means to protect the head of the military and civilian government of Great Britain from foreign influence. Rather, the British were very liberal in granting “natural born subject” status so as to create for its monarchy-based empire as many subjects as possible. We saw an extreme of this policy when Great Britain insisted on impressing American sailors into its military which practice lead to the War of 1812. But John Jay, in writing to General George Washington on July 25, 1787, was very specific that the Commander in Chief of the military would have to be a “natural born citizen” (underlining born in the original) so as to assure that no foreigner would hold that office. The Founders accepted Jay’s recommendation and included in Article II the “natural born Citizen” clause. Hence, Americans were very cautious in granting “natural born Citizen” status because they had a democratically elected President and Commander in Chief of the Military and representative form of government which they needed to protect from foreign influence. This was consistent with the law of nations.

The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129 (quoted and cited in Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. at 790). With such recognition, a naturalized citizen would have been eligible to be President of the new Republic. But we know that the Founders considered a naturalized citizen to be only a “citizen” (able to be President under Article II’s grandfather clause and Senator or Representative under Article I) and not a “natural born Citizen” (which status was required of a would-be President for births after 1789). How the English common law converted persons into “natural born subject” retroactively to the time of birth can explain why John Jay underlined the word “born” when recommending to General Washington that the Commander in Chief be a “natural born Citizen.” This rejection of a natuturalized citizen as equivalent to a”natural born Citizen” was consistent with the law of nations. The 14th Amendment also made the same recognition. Not being a “natural born Citizen,” the Founders did not permit naturalized citizens to be President. But again, the Framers, after 1789 (when the grandfather clause expired and Article II required a child to be a “natural born Citizen” and not only a “citizen”) would not have allowed such children to be President, for they would have been naturalized “citizens” and not “natural born Citizens.”

English common law did not distinguish between “natural born subject” and “subject.” The Founders, the framers of the 14th Amendment, all Congresses in their Acts, and virtually all courts in their decisions have treated “natural born Citizen” and “citizen,” as two separate and distinct terms. This dichotomy is consistent with the law of nations which did make such a distinction. This distinction shows that “citizens” could be created by the Fourteenth Amendment and Congressional Acts but an Article II “natural born Citizens” could only be created by satisfying the natural law standard as expressed in the law of nations (place of birth and parentage).

Unless they were ambassadors/diplomats or alien enemies, the English common law considered irrelevant the citizenship of the child’s parents when determining whether a child born on English soil was a “natural born subject.” The Founders knew from the law of nations that in England, the “single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” Vattel, Sec. 214. This would have been consistent with the monarchy’s desire to make as many “natural born subjects” as possible for its growing empire. The U.S. common law went beyond these two exceptions and did consider relevant the condition of the child’s parents when determining whether the child was to be afforded U.S. citizenship at birth. See the cases cited above. Under the law of nations, such a child born in the country to foreign parents was considered to have been naturalized under English law. But again, the Framers would not have allowed such a naturalized child to be considered a “natural born Citizen,” for they permitted the latter to be President but not the former. The maxim that was applied in this connection is recognized in the law of nations and was partus sequitur patrem (the child follows the condition of the father). Shanks v. Dupont, Barry v. Mercein, 46 U.S. 103 (1847); Ludlam, 26 N.Y. at 376; Ex parte Reynolds, and United States v. Ward.

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.

While the English common law recognized that “the king cannot reckon upon the full and absolute obedience” of persons who were either born with or voluntarily chose to have a dual allegiance, the English were not concerned in the least that their notion of “natural born subject” created, in not taking into consideration the citizenship of the child’s parents, dual allegiance problems. Reeve, History of the English Law. But American courts recognized that U.S. citizens born on U.S. soil to foreign parents or born abroad to U.S. citizen parents had double allegiance which significantly affected that person’s allegiance and political and military rights and obligations. U.S. law explicitly warns about the dangers and problems of dual allegiance. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 344-48 (1939); Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717, 723-26, 733-36 (1952). America even went as far as passing curfew and exclusion laws during World War II which deprived freedom of movement and association to 14th Amendment American “citizens” of Japanese descent (their mothers and fathers were Japanese nationals) because of “pressing public necessity” and the need to provide America with every possible protection against espionage and sabotage which jeopardized America’s survival. The Court stated that this government action was justified because the “segregation of the disloyal from the loyal” within American 14th Amendment “citizens” of Japanese descent was not possible. See Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1945). In other words, we could not place at risk the survival of our country for the sake of trying to determine who was loyal or disloyal to the cause. Our nation took the drastic action that it did against 14th Amendment “citizens” of Japanese descent because they were dual nationals and children of aliens or foreigners. Hence, even though these persons were 14th Amendment citizens, we still considered and treated them as being subject to a foreign power. Can we just imagine what would have happened if President and Commander in Chief Truman would have been a 14th Amendment “citizen” with a Japanese father. To be consistent, I guess our nation would have had to place him in a concentration camp too with the rest of the other 14th Amendment citizens of Japanese descent. Would our hypothetical President Truman have dropped the bomb on Japan? Would he have if his Japanese mother or father lived in Japan?

Pre-revolutionary English statutes that provided that the foreign born children of British “natural born subjects” were deemed “natural born subjects” did not require that the parents had to reside in Great Britain at or prior to the time of the child’s birth. U.S. statutes, on the contrary, required that the father had to be a resident of the U.S. at the time of the child’s birth in order for the father to be able to transmit his U.S. citizenship to his foreign born child. These statutes also attached importance to when the child was born, for they were made only retrospective until changed many years later. The Naturalization Act of 1790 declared these children to be “natural born Citizens,” and later in the Naturalization Act of 1795 just “citizens,” but only retrospectively. It was not until the act in 1885 that Congress declared these foreign-born children to be “citizens,” both retrospectively and prospectively. See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657 (1927). Hence, U.S. law, in these foreign born children cases, attached just as much importance to the actual U.S. residence of the father and when the child was born than it did to the foreign born child descending from the U.S. citizen parents. Also, American statutes considered these children only “citizens” and not “natural born Citizens.” This limitation was contrary to the English statutes which deemed these children “natural born subjects.” As an aside, consider that the Senate in formulating Resolution 511 relied in part upon the Naturalization Act of 1790 to declare McCain a “natural born Citizen.” This was error for two reasons: (1) the act was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, which removed the “natural born” language and just kept in “citizen;” and (2) Congress declared the foreign born children of U.S. citizens to be “natural born Citizen” only retrospectively. In other words, only those children already born at that time were so declared, not children to be born in the future like McCain.

The gap in citizenship for children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents that was left by Congress between 1802 and 1855 shows that when the courts have been faced with citizenship issues with no statute or constitutional provision to help them resolve that issue, they have not hesitated to resort to common law for an answer. We have seen that “history shows a virtually unbroken tradition of transmitting American citizenship from parent to child “at birth,” under statutes that imposed certain residence requirements. Supra, at __; see also Bellei, supra, at 835, 91 S.Ct., at 1071. A single gap occurred when, for a brief period of time, the relevant statutes (perhaps inadvertently) failed to confer citizenship upon what must have been a small group of children born abroad between 1802 and 1855 whose citizen-fathers were also born between 1802 and 1855. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308, 311-312, 81 S.Ct. 1336, 1338-1339, 6 L.Ed.2d 313 (1961); Weedin, supra, at 663-664, 47 S.Ct., at 773-774; Wong Kim Ark, supra, at 673-674, 18 S.Ct., at 466-467. But even then, some courts, recognizing the importance of the right, found common-law authority for the transmission to those children of their parent’s American citizenship. Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 362-372 (1863); see also Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sand.Ch. 583, 659-663 (N.Y.1844).” Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998) (J. Breyer dissenting).

At the time of the Wong decision, Congress had decided that only Caucasians and African races could become citizens by naturalization. On May 6, 1882, Congress had already passed the Chinese Exclusion Act which meant that Chinese laborers and miners were excluded from entering America and Chinese already in America were denied the opportunity to naturalize. By declaring Wong a “citizen,” Justice Gray circumvented the will of Congress and of the People that prevailed at that time. This was an usurpation of legislative powers as expressed by the will of the People of that time. Our naturalization laws today do not discriminate because of, among other things, race or nationality. Hence, there is no further need today to correct the social wrong that the Wong Kim Ark Court may have perceived but which it had no constitutional authority to correct. That the Wong Kim Ark Court was willing to make Wong a Fourteenth Amendment U.S. “citizen” by (1) legislating from the bench important national immigration policy; (2) disregarding the correct meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” as expressed by one of the framers of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (Rep. John A. Bingham confirms the understanding and the construction the Framers used in regards to birthright and jurisdiction while speaking on the proposed civil rights act of 1866 that was being discussed in the House on March 9, 1866: “I find no fault with the introductory clause, which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”) and of the Fourteenth Amendment (Senator Jacob M. Howard of Michigan, the author of the amendment’s citizenship clause, described the clause as excluding not only Indians but “persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers”); (3) disregarding the existing U.S. Supreme Court cases of The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 73 (1873) (“the phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States”) and Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (which Justice Gray had himself written 14 years earlier and in which he said that “[t]he evident meaning of these last words [subject to the jurisdiction] is, not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance”); and (4) in defining national U.S. citizenship, incorrectly utilizing the inapplicable English common law that prevailed in the British American colonies prior to independence and in the new states thereafter and prior to the adoption of the Consitution rather than correctly using the law of nations which controlled such a national and internation question and that was accepted by the new nation after adoption of the Consitution and which became U.S. common law, does not prove in any way that the Founders used English common law to define “natural born Citizen.” Also, Wong Kim Ark did not address what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. Rather, it only declared Wong a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment (a member of American society), under the unique facts of that case which the Court believed cried out for a change in our Chinese immigration policy but which change should have been provided by Congress under Article I, Sec. 8, cl. 4 of the Constitution and not by the Court.

That the Framers adopted the law of nations definition of what a “natural born citizen” is does not mean that they adopted for the new Constitutional Republic every aspect of the law of nations. This also does not mean that the English common law was totally rejected in the new nation. As we have already stated above, English common law did become the law of the individual states in many aspects and was used in many ways by state and local governments. But the English common law was not adopted for the operation of the new nation and federal government. Vattel was looked to for guidance in writing the Declaration of Independence (he wrote that the people have the right to overthrow a tyrannical sovereign for purpose of promoting their happiness) and for the new nation’s federal constitution and form of federal government. The Framers were concerned with prescribing the eligibility standards for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the military, an office that is found only in the federal constitution. Additionally, the term “natural born Citizen” is only found in relation to this office. (Under Article I, Sec. 2 and 3, respectively, Senators and Representatives need only be “citizens.”) Along with “natural born Citizen” (in the original 1758 French text called, “Les naturels, ou indigenes,” first translated into English in 1759 as “the natives or indigenes,” and eventually into “natural born citizen” in 1797), concepts such as individuals and states are free in nature, purpose of government (promote commerce, revenue, agriculture, tranquility, happiness, stability, and strength), constitutional republic, written constitution, amending the constitution, separation of governmental powers, supremacy of the Constitution and federal law, independent judiciary, judicial review, naturalization, and punishing offenses against the law of nations, concepts which the Founders incorporated into the new Constitution, can all be found in Vattel’s treatise on the law of nations.

The Founders knew that the new nation was currently populated with many persons who came to the colonies and states as newly-arrived immigrants. They also knew that the new nation, with its great territorial size and opportunities, would also welcome many future generations of new immigrants. The Founders were also well aware that they created the new Republic and its Constitution also for posterity and wanted to safeguard the new nation for future generations. Hence, for children born after the adoption of the Constitution, the Founders wanted any future President and Commander in Chief of the Military to have absolute and sole allegiance to the new nation by birth. This meant that they wanted that office to be available only to children born in the United States of citizen parents. They rejected any person who may develop foreign influence by divided loyalties from birth. The founders found Vattel’s law of nations definition of a “natural born Citizen” acceptable for what they needed in a future President.

Hence, we can see that it is not reasonable to maintain that the meaning of “natural born Citizen” can be found in the English common law. Rather, that definition may be found in the law of nations as commented on by E. Vattel. All aspects of national citizenship laws during the Founding era and the adoption of the 14th Amendment were consistent with the law of nation’s definition of citizenship.

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, they 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.” 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
August 20, 2009



  1. Well done! This should clear it up for those confused. Thank you, Mario.

    Comment by TruthExists — August 21, 2009 @ 2:24 pm

  2. Mr. ApuzzoThanks for your great work.I have a question:If the Usurper graduated as Barry Soetoro in High School Barry Soetoro Already a member? Log In Barry Soetoro Punahou High School Honolulu, HIClass of 1979 And went to Howard and Admissions said at: …Official high school transcript that shows your cumulative grade point average and class rank (from 9th-11th grade) …. "….Senator Obama is a son of Howard; he received a Doctor of Laws Degree honoris causa during the 140th Opening Convocation for his outstanding work as an advocate, community organizer, civil rights attorney and a leader…." If his High School Diploma was shown at the University or the transcripts with another name, and graduated under another name, how could this be possible ? So was either his name as Barry Soetoro always fake and did not need to change it legally , but what about the name on his diploma from Punahou High School

    Comment by Pagina sobre el padre von Wernich — August 21, 2009 @ 2:49 pm

  3. Mario:Excellent exposition that puts the quietus on the "English common law" nonsense that the O-defenders try to use.Simply superb!!!

    Comment by jayjay — August 21, 2009 @ 3:52 pm

  4. What's the hold up Judge? Hear the case, allow discovery. If Obama is bona fide he has nothing to worry about, it actuallywould strengthen his presidency.To dismiss only creates doubt.

    Comment by sjc — August 21, 2009 @ 7:32 pm

  5. Yes, what is taking the judge so long? Does he plan to shelve the case for the next 3 years? If only there was some way to make judge act. However, today is August 21, 2009. If I am not mistaken this date was referenced in a previous motion. This means the Judge's decision may come very soon.

    Comment by James — August 21, 2009 @ 8:10 pm

  6. Hi all,It's Friday, 21 August 2009, about 4:55 EDT. I just checked the Pacer federal court docket system. And as of about 4:40 p.m. there was no decision by the Judge posted in the docket for the Kerchner v Obama & Congress case regarding the Defendant's Motion To Dismiss or the Plaintiff's Cross-Motion regarding the 2nd Amended Complaint procedural issue. Both are past their return due dates of 3 Aug 09 and 17 Aug 09, respectively. But you cannot rush a Federal Judge. Thus, unless we hear something later tonight, because maybe they are working late in Camden NJ, it is likely that we will not hear anything on this case until next week.Charles KerchnerLead PlaintiffKerchner v Obama & Congress

    Comment by cfkerchner — August 21, 2009 @ 8:57 pm

  7. You claim:"The Framers did not define an Article II "natural born Citizen" because they did not see a reason to. It was a term that was well defined by the law of nations and well-known by civilized nations…. Hence, the law of nations, when not codified into any Act of Congress, became the common law of the United States."The problem is that the Supreme Court is on the record as stating exactly the opposite in the most important citizenship case in U.S. history:"The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words 'citizen of the United States,' and 'natural-born citizen of the United States.' By the original Constitution… 'no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President.' The Fourteenth Article of Amendment, besides declaring that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,' also declares that 'no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.' And the Fifteenth Article of Amendment declares that 'the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color or previous condition of servitude.' "The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that 'all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.' In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274. "In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: 'The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.' And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167."United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 654-655 (U.S. 1898)

    Comment by John — August 21, 2009 @ 9:26 pm

  8. This delay seems awfully suspect…methinks there's a few prepatory phone calls being made before this decision is rendered. Also, it there is some 'National security issue' for releasing this subpoena, who's to say that a gag order isn't imposed and that we NEVER hear another word about it?

    Comment by Joseph — August 22, 2009 @ 1:14 am

  9. To John, You cite cases (Minor and Wong Kim Ark) and say that they emphasized that to understand the Constitution's use of the words "citizen" and "natural born Citizen" resort must be had to the "common law." What common law are we talking about? I said that the law of nation was incorporated into U.S. law and became common law. So where do we disagree?Also, do not forget that we are talking about using "common law" to define two separate and distinct terms, "citizen" and "natural born Citizen." Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

    Comment by Puzo1 — August 22, 2009 @ 6:46 am

  10. John — remember that the 14th amendment was ratified 6 years prior to Happersett and 30 years prior to WKA, in MvH it is set forth that the definition of NBC was not in the Constitution and must be ascertained elsewhere–and since the 14th had been in the Constitution for 6 years, one would be very hard pressed to come up with any other definition than jus soli jus sanguinis, since all 14th definitions are precluded from being that for NBC…i.e.NO child of alien(s)NO native born-onlyNO out-of-countryNO naturalizedNO by-statutemay be considered a NBCSo, what's left?jus solijus sanguinisI cannot construct any other permutations of birthplace and parental citizenship that could possibly be NBC. There's only one possible mathematical remnantjus soli, jus sanguinis

    Comment by cajapie — August 22, 2009 @ 12:36 pm

  11. The Candid Blogger said to Mario Apuzzo, Esq.: "You KNOW you are wrong. Any constitutional scholar can debunk your off-the-wall theory. You make reference to the 'Law of Nations, Vattel 1798. This was a book written by a citizen of Switzerland.This book had nothing to do with the common-law of England, which were the principles of law that guided the founding fathers when they wrote the Constitution.Under the English common law at the time that our Constitution was ordained and established, a 'natural born' subject was a person who was born on English soil, and under the jurisdiction of the king. Even a child born to an alien was considered a natural born subject as long as they were born under the jurisdiction of the king.The principle, Jus soli (right of the soil) was most likely brought to England by William the Conqueror after his conquest of the Britons in 1066. Jus soli had long been the rule that determined whether a person was considered ‘natural born’ by the French, and the Normans.The competing principle discussed in Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations’ was based on another rule that the Germanic peoples adhered to, the rule of Jus sanguinis (right of the blood). Under this principle, a persons ‘natural born’ citizenship was determined by the citizenship of his parents, or more specifically, the father.Any interpretation of the true meaning of the term ‘natural born citizen’, as it is meant in the context of a person’s Constitutional eligibility for the office of President of the United States, must be viewed in the light of the English common law, not on the words that were authored by a citizen from a country with a different common law view.The courts of the United States are required, by previous decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, to view those words in light of their meaning under English common law at the time that the Constitution was ordained and established. That meaning has already been provided in the Wong Kim Ark case of 1898. A person who is born in the United States and under the jurisdiction of the United States is a citizen of the United States, at birth, even if both parents were aliens.To modify the meaning of our Constitution by using definitions that were not germane to the principles and laws that our Constitution was based on is not a true conservative principle. It is, in fact, a position that would only be taken by a radical activist.Are you a radical activist opposed to conservative principles?"

    Comment by Puzo1 — August 22, 2009 @ 4:38 pm

  12. To Candid Blogger: Part I of IIYou simply state that English common law controlled who could be President but you do not offer any support for your argument. Just repeating a point does not prove the point. You have to engage in more analysis and provide some support for your argument to be taken seriously. I sure would like to hear from one of those "constitutional scholars" who you say can debunk what I have presented. Justice Gray's use in Wong Kim Ark of English common law was not to justify that Wong was eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Rather, his use was to justify that Wong was a citizen, i.e., a member of American society and nothing more. The "citizen" status that Justice Gray gave to Wong is nothing more that the "citizen" status that the Founders gave to the original citizens who they grandfathered to be President. Those original citizens were either born on colonial or States' soil or born abroad. The Founders were not concerned with who they were or who their parents were. If they inhabited one of the States and adhered to the revolution, they were considered "citizens." Hence, the key to being an original "citizen" was whether the person supported the revolution. Setting a lower standard for citizenship at that time is understandable given the conditions that the revolution created. This was also the start of the new nation and the Founders had to create a people who were to be like them the founders of the new nation. Justice Gray’s problem is that he disregarded the development of U.S. citizenship after the Constitution was adopted, including the history and intent of the framing of the 14th Amendment. After the Constitution was adopted, the citizenship standard changed. Now a "citizen" could be created by either being naturalized by Congress or by being "natural born." The historical evidence shows that a "natural born Citizen" was one that was both born on U.S. soil and born to parents who were citizens. The idea of the Founders would have been that the "parents" would have been the original citizens and their descendents or new citizens made by naturalization and their descendents. This view of citizenship has its foundation in the law of nations and not in English common law. Even the 14th Amendment itself contains this higher standard of citizenship, for it requires both being born “in the United States” and being "subject to the jurisdiction" of the U.S. We learn from the framers of the amendment itself and U.S. Supreme Court decisions (one of which Justice Gray himself wrote before he authored the Wong decision) that "subject to the jurisdiction" meant subject to the absolute and complete jurisdiction in all its aspects (legal and political) and not just territorial jurisdiction (legal). After all, how could a baby be born on U.S. soil if it is not physically present on that territory? Under such a territorial interpretation, to add "subject to the jurisdiction" would have been a redundancy. But since as we know the clause meant more, it was not a redundancy. Moreover, it is clear from the debates on the 14th Amendment that "subject to the jurisdiction" meant to exclude not only children of ambassador and enemy alien parents (which is what the English common law provided) but also those children born to parents who were foreign and alien (which is what the law of nations provided). Finally, blacks, for whom the amendment was passed, were deemed to be "subject to the jurisdiction" because they were born on U.S. soil to parents who were also born on U.S. soil but who just could not be citizens because of the view of slavery at the time. These blacks, unlike American Indians, were not considered as being subject to any foreign power and were therefore eligible to be citizens. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. continued

    Comment by Puzo1 — August 22, 2009 @ 4:42 pm

  13. To Candid Blogger, Part II of IIThat Justice Gray was willing to give Wong a break by disregarding the true meaning of "subject to the jurisdiction" because of Wong's unique factual circumstances simply cannot be relied upon to determine who can be President. To support such a theory is absolute absurdity. About me being a "radical activist," I do not believe that the label fits who I am. What I do not understand is why the Obama supporters, when it comes to judging his citizenship status to be President are so liberal in wanting to give a "foreigner" a chance to be President and in wanting "English" common law (did I say English-remember the revolution) to control who can be President of the U.S., but consider Vattel a mere "citizen of Switzerland" who wrote a "book" in which he espoused the rules of some "foreign" common law and therefore not worthy of any serious attention. Please explain why Obama's and the English common law's foreignness are acceptable to your lot but Vattel's and his law's is not. Maybe you can enlighten me a bit on why such a double standard exists among your ilk who today consider anything and everything against your usurper leader to be racism which I consider to have reached the apex of hypocrisy. By the way, your cry of racism is only dividing our country more which is why I have said that Obama's usurped Presidency has only set back race relations in our country. Where is Obama on the race accusations? Why does he not speak out and state that the American people should be able to criticize and attack him without being attacked in all cases as racists? The reason he does not address the race issue is because he is basking in the sun with the race war that he is fomenting in our county. It just cannot get any better for him. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

    Comment by Puzo1 — August 22, 2009 @ 4:42 pm

  14. Obama addresses Muslims on Ramadan a video message to Muslims getting ready for the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, which begins Saturday in most of the Islamic world, US President Barack Obama on Friday cast US military efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and Washington's support in a two-state solution as part of his drive to forge a new relationship between America and the Muslim world…“All of these efforts are part of America's commitment to engage Muslims and Muslim-majority nations on the basis of mutual interest and mutual respect," Obama said in the message posted on the White House Web site. "And at this time of renewal, I want to reiterate my commitment to a new beginning between America and Muslims around the world.”Obama said Ramadan's rituals are a reminder of the principles Muslims and Christians have in common…“Like many people of different faiths who have known Ramadan through our communities and families, I know this to be a festive time – a time when families gather, friends host iftars, and meals are shared. But I also know that Ramadan is a time of intense devotion and reflection – a time when Muslims fast during the day and perform tarawih prayers at night, reciting and listening to the entire Koran over the course of the month.”“These rituals [sacrificing goats like a voodoo priestess] remind us of the principles that we hold in common, and Islam’s role in advancing justice, progress, tolerance, and the dignity of all human beings.”Obahmadinejihad Press Release Ramadan Kareem Video the new crescent moon ushers in Ramadan [Islam is the ancient pagan religion of worshipping the moon-god, “al-ilah”, aka “allah”], the President extends his best wishes to Muslim communities in the United States and around the world…Islam: The Cult of the Moon God Priestess in the White House

    Comment by Benaiah — August 22, 2009 @ 4:51 pm

  15. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.:The individual calling himself "Candid Blogger" sounds a good bit like the guy who runs a virulent pro-Obama website who there calls himself "Dr. Conspiracy".The only "conspiracy" one can find on that site is a conspiracy to prevaricate, to mislead, to enable a man who refuses to show he is eligible to hold the office he now occupies, and to offer insults and misinformation to anyone who does not follow the liberal pro-O playbook that they all apparently read from since their opinions are almost die-cast one from the other.Your rebuttal to the Obama-centric postings of Candid Blogger are quite good and worthy of one of your published discourses since he merely echos the liberal playbook and/or Rules For Radicals.

    Comment by jayjay — August 22, 2009 @ 5:39 pm

  16. It seems to me that Candid Blogger and his ilk have to go through bizarre contortions away from common sense in order reach his conclusions. How silly is it to argue that all the framers wanted was that a mother “drop” her baby for a moment (since that baby could subsequently be raised in another country) on US soil in order for it to be eligible to be President? How does that make the baby not a foreigner, and more importantly how does that assure that the country is not lead by someone with foreign allegiances? Additionally, why would a foreigner who comes to this country and is naturalized by becoming educated on the ways of the land, and swearing allegiance to the country be less eligible?Candid had made a fatal error in failing to question the framers’ purpose in requiring “Natural Born”, because it is only in applying the results to the purpose where logic resides. The premise that the dropped baby raised by foreigners in another country, and not the sworn-in adult can be President makes no sense whatsoever; it is simply not logical. It also is not a believable premise in light of all the research evidence shown by Mr. Apuzzo and others.

    Comment by TruthExists — August 22, 2009 @ 6:20 pm

  17. Candid Blogger was debunked when his brother kicked him off the top bunk bed and he hit his head.

    Comment by cajapie — August 22, 2009 @ 6:22 pm

  18. jayjay wrote:"a man who refuses to show he is eligible to hold the office he now occupies"This is not true. Obama in his own admission at fightthesmears and openly admitted he held British citizenship at birth.It is now up to the courts or congress to hold him to this truth and follow thr rule of law and qualifications set forth in A2 S1 C5.Mario, this was another great piece of work.I recently was made aware of Justice Story's commentaries on A2 S1 C5. The historical relevance is amazing as he openly refers to the founding fathers as naturalized citizens who had 'permission' to attain election to the executive branch until such time the grandfather clause would become wholly extinctI also think it very relevant that Story was the main founder of Harvard Law School and certainly constitutional law students at Harvard would be familiar with Story and his commentaries on constitutional law as they are mainstay to teaching constitutional law to this day.

    Comment by patlin — August 22, 2009 @ 6:50 pm

  19. Holy Shit! Could This be It???

    Comment by James — August 22, 2009 @ 7:03 pm

  20. Is this the SMOKING GUN Proof!! Obama Kenyan Birth Certificate / Lucas Smith / Coast Province General Hospital

    Comment by James — August 22, 2009 @ 7:28 pm

  21. Birth Certificate with footprint and doctor and more just hit the internet. This is the one they tried to sell on ebay.If the footprint matches Obama then it is a good BC.If the footprint does not match Obama then it is probably fake.I am not the expert here. Just bringing you all the latest news.

    Comment by 8by8 — August 22, 2009 @ 7:52 pm

  22. I wouldn't trust the YouTube guy Lucas Smith….he is the same guy who was pulling the pranks at eBay last month!!!

    Comment by Jackie Smith — August 22, 2009 @ 8:26 pm

  23. If only Obahmadinejihad had a “Civilian National Security Force” like the Mullahs…

    “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order [to silence the American infidels who oppose allah and my benevolent administration and] to achieve the national security objectives [submission to Islam] we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded [as the military].”

    Comment by Benaiah — August 22, 2009 @ 8:29 pm

  24. I wouldn't get too excited about that BC…this guy tried to scam earlier on ebay!!!

    Comment by Jackie Smith — August 22, 2009 @ 8:29 pm

  25. Hi all,I know it is summer and we are all distracted with other things here in August such as vacations and town hall meetings, 🙂 , etc. But I thought I'd remind you all about our fund raising efforts. We have placed 12 full pages of Atty Apuzzo's writings and information about the lawsuit in the Washington Times. See them all here including the Monday, 24 Aug 09 issue upcoming. has been effective. More and more people realize this issue is not just about the missing/hidden long-form BC. Obama's father was never an immigrant to or citizen of this country, not even a permanent resident. Thus Obama can never be considered a natural born citizen of the USA per the founders and framers intent and our U.S. Federal Common Law based on "the natural law of the governance of man and of nations" codified by Vattel, as explained in Atty Mario Apuzzo's latest essay.But I need to remind you that we need your financial support, as well as your generous time and talent assistance on this and other blogs, if we are going to be able to continue the public education and advertising campaign on the real issue about our Usurper Putative President, and master of fraud and deception as to his true legal identity, Mr. O. If you can please visit the fund raising page and make a donation, large or small, it will be greatly appreciated and will keep the advertising appearing regularly. And please do post that fund raising site URL link in other blogs and ask their readers to support our efforts and lawsuit too. We need Time, Talent, and Treasure offered if we are going to save our Constitution and Republic from this Usurper. Synergy at Work! If we all do and give a little we will accomplish a lot!Link to fund raising page: KerchnerLead PlaintiffKerchner v Obama & Congress

    Comment by cfkerchner — August 22, 2009 @ 8:38 pm

  26. Remember it behooves Obama to keep the focus on the birth certificate. All he has to do is keep generating fraudulent false flag leads and then when they're discovered, it removes credibility from the Constitutional efforts, which is their agenda.Obama did lie on 2 state certification forms saying he was a natural born citizen because that was agreed-to by signature, but otherwise in all other cases he only said he was a native born and said he was born a British citizen, and nobody else asked him if he was qualified, even SCOTUS, so other than when forced to do so, he reveals that he knows he's not remotely eligible.I did note at the unauguration he called his father an "immigrant", which he never was, as he just had a student visa and lived transiently in the USA to return to his wife and children in Kenya. But that statement, a lie, was some sort of probable damage control.Obama is a marxist, illegally funded, running a foreign coup, systematically destroying the USA using Cloward Piven and Alinsky methodolgy which he studied, as we as deconstruction of the Constitution…he is an installed usurper and his backers will not relinquish power without terrible consequences. What they can't seem to control is when the American public becomes aware of matters. I cannot tell you the look of SHOCK I get when I say that Barry admits he was born British. They say stupid things like, "Since when was Hawaii in Britain?", the majority of people think US citizenship alone suffices for POTUS eligibility. Then the next level of sophistication/obfuscation states that anyone born a citizen is a natural born citizen. The next level just lies about the definitions of natural born citizen most obviously put forth in SCOTUS precedent and the Congressional Record. So you can see, the powers behind Barry will not be accountable to any laws, yet they buckle severely and can be destroyed by the weight of the American people. Unfortunately, the "people" are easily confused, the matter must be kept highly simplified and not-Enquirer sounding…so NO to birth certificates but YES to British citizenship, because anyone with a lick of common sense knows the founders would have never allowed a British citizen, any foreign citizen, to run the military–as it should still be now. Keep spreading the obvious word, Barack was born British, still IS British, and is effectively destroying the Constitutional Republic. People are gradually evolving from confusion, bewilderment, shock…to outright anger and embracing the reality of the enemy within. This is where Barack and his backers will fail…they can't "birther" the British admission since he made it himself.

    Comment by cajapie — August 22, 2009 @ 10:33 pm

  27. Your analysis of de Vattel is supurb.Thomas Jefferson read de Vattel in the French, and I believe it is his copy that was forwarded to the Library of Congress.De Vattel's title Le Droit des Gens (1758) is properly in English, "The Right of the People," and his title is shown respect in the opening lines of the Preamble, "We, the People," which in French reads, Nous, les Gens des Etats-Unis d'Amérique.I notice that you profound appreciation for such gestures by the Framers in their details.

    Comment by Bob — August 23, 2009 @ 12:12 am

  28. I think that Alan Keyes had the objective clearly in sight when he recently started calling these Obama defenders and supporters by the term "Deathers".It describes them on several levels and offsets the "birther" term very nicely.

    Comment by jayjay — August 23, 2009 @ 12:42 am

  29. Mario,Any chance of getting ahold of Lucas Smith and Obama's Kenyan BC. If you can autheticate it, Obama is history. You don't have argue the "Natural Born" citizenship argument.

    Comment by James — August 23, 2009 @ 1:59 am

  30. I just noticed last night that Orly has an update. It says all parties must be present? ……. …Discovery hearing re. Obama’s Kenyan BC, request for depositions of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates scheduled for September 8th, 8am. I am asking supporters to be there.MINUTES OF IN CHAMBERS ORDER by Judge David O. Carter: ORDER SETTING SEPTEMBER 8, 2009 HEARING ON MOTIONS: (See document for details.) In summary, the Court sets for hearing at 8:00 a.m. on September 8, 2009, (1) the Discovery Motion, (2) the Service Notice, and (3) the Ex Parte Application. All parties are ordered to be present. The Clerk shall serve this minute order on all parties to the action. (rla) (Entered: 08/21/2009)

    Comment by William — August 23, 2009 @ 9:53 am

  31. At no point are you asking for monetary compensation. In other words on the issue of standing you have standing because they have violated our constitution and they need to rectify that violation. Not to be confused with seeking damages. I heard a blurb on tv the other day that the pentagon was going to be taking over war operations. Could this be a complete acceptance that the so called commander in chief has kenya in his best interests. You'll keep up the good work and let's get this foreigner out of here. It has only been seven months and "it" is damaged badly suffering great damage to his port side.

    Comment by roderick — August 23, 2009 @ 4:20 pm

  32. Georgetown –Some things on the L. Smith Kenyan BC are factual –1. The name of the Chief Administrator of CPGH, Mombasa, IS Dr. Helton Maganga;2. Dr. James O. W. Ang’awa did practice medicine in Mombasa about 50 years ago — he was the doctor to the Kenyan Olympic Team in Moscow in 1978;3. In 1961, Mombasa was part of the British Protectorate headquartered in Zanzibar.However, it also appears that someone else also had a copy of the L. Smith Kenyan B.C. — giving the impression that it was being "peddled;"Also, the name of the Supervisor of Obstetrics is odd — giving rise to a guess that it was simply pulled out of old Kenyan newspapers. Why? Because the real "John Odongo" was a "rebel leader," and a legendary hero in some quarters — it's a little like finding a doctor named "Stonewall" Jackson — maybe, but not really likely.So, on balance, I would say that this Kenya B.C. is bogus, but also about as much as POTUS is bogus.

    Comment by Bob — August 23, 2009 @ 11:59 pm

  33. Wouldn't Zachary Taylor, born of two British citizen parents but after the Declaration of Independence (and before the ratification) have been a "born citizen" of America, dual citizen because his parents were British yet he was born on American soil?… though not natural born citizen? William Henry Harrison was 100% British because his parents were British and he was born in the British colonies, so then he had to have been a naturalized American citizen right?So Zach Taylor was another dual citizen president, but because he was alive at the time of ratification, the grandfather clause applied…he'd have been the last.Right?

    Comment by cajapie — August 24, 2009 @ 12:10 am

  34. The Lucas Smith BC appears to be quite real. Does anyone have any thoughts?

    Comment by James — August 24, 2009 @ 12:23 am

  35. Cajapie,The date of conferment of original citizenship was 4 July 1776, the date of Declaration of Independence and formation of our new nation. As far as I know the parents of Zachary Taylor were thus original citizens of the USA. And since Taylor was born in VA in 1784, then part of the new nation of the USA and no longer a colony, he would have been a Natural Born Citizen of the USA, i.e., born in the USA, the son of two original U.S. citizens.Harrison was born in 1773 in VA and would have been considered an original citizen as he was living in the new nation on the date of the Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776.This is my understanding of the history of these two Presidents you mention. Thus there is nothing inconsistent or of concern with the natural born citizen clause of our Constitution for either of these men. Both were eligible per my look at their citizenship history.I believe the first natural born citizen President was Van Buren who was born in 1782 in NY of two original citizens. Then we get another original citizen, grandfather clause President in Harrison who was born pre-Independence Day in 1773 in VA (a colony then), then the 2nd NBC with Tyler who was in 1790 in VA (a state in the new nation then). There were no more original citizen Presidents after Harrison as I see it. All Presidents after that were NBCs except of course for the two frauds we all know now and talk about now, especially the in-your-face, nose-in-the-air, and complete fraud and liar of Mr. Obama.Charles

    Comment by cfkerchner — August 24, 2009 @ 1:06 am

  36. WND is reporting that a member of Congress (Rep. Trent Franks of Arizona) is considering a lawsuit over Obama’s eligibility. (I know you guys yourselves can't due to your case) need to FLOOD this man’s office with information on the historical definition of natural born citizenship, and tell him that’s the issue to focus on.

    Comment by Nick — August 24, 2009 @ 1:31 am

  37. So you're saying that though Zachary Taylor's parents were British subjects but born in the colonies, they were "original US citizens"? I'd have thought his parents to have become naturalized US citizens after the Declaration of Independence.Then Zachary Taylor having been born to these naturalized US citizens (after the Declaration) would have been a natural born citizen. WHH though was born to two British subjects on then British soil (the colonies), prior to the Declaration of Independence, so he was just a plain old British subject until 7-4-1776 when he could have "naturalized" as a US citizen and qualified for the grandfather clause. ZT would then actually be the first natural born citizen president because he was born on US soil, not British colony soil, just after the DI at which point his parents became automatic US citizens before his birth, satisfying jus soli jus sanguinis. WHH would merely have been a US citizen naturalized after the DI, but his parents at the TIME of his birth were both still British. Kind of like Jindal's parents who were both still citizens of India at the time of his jus soli US birth. The reason for interest in this is the "point" of the grandfather clause. The founders wanted something American in a president at the time of ratification, be it US citizen parents or being born in country, either was acceptable for a child born before ratification.

    Comment by cajapie — August 24, 2009 @ 2:02 am

  38. Nick: I heard Franks is backing down. He probably got a severed horse head put on his Serta.

    Comment by cajapie — August 24, 2009 @ 2:05 am

  39. James said… The Lucas Smith BC appears to be quite real. Does anyone have any thoughts?- – – – – – – – – – – – – – -My thoughts are that this person has thus far not behaved with integrity, making his representations suspect. If he's legit, he should keep his word with WND and allow some independent investigation. If he wants to profit, he can always write a book later.If he's not legit, he is a 100% liability to everyone and deserves to be ignored.Based on his actions so far, I'd bet that he's a phony.

    Comment by Pragmaticite — August 24, 2009 @ 4:11 pm

  40. Prag,Yes, we need to be careful with any proffered proof which is solely based on pictures and images on the internet.But as I read your post, I thought it was interesting in that your words could apply just as well to Obama and what Obama has proffered by way of "proof" to prove his true legal identity.It's the old double standard with Mr. O again. He gets a pass from the MSM but nothing that questions Mr. O's legal ID gets a pass, nor should it. But Mr. O's internet proffered picture of what he calls a BC, which as we know a certification short summary form he has proffered is not, should not get a pass from the MSM either.Charles

    Comment by cfkerchner — August 24, 2009 @ 4:38 pm

  41. Remember – Lucas Smith does NOT have the ORIGINAL birth certificate. At most he has a Xerox copy that has been duly stamped, authorized, certified, etc.In which case if he got it by some "means", that same "means" is potentially open to other people as well. So I am not alarmed that there may be multiples of these things floating around – each a little different, dates different, stamps in different positions, etc.

    Comment by Carlyle — August 24, 2009 @ 6:53 pm

  42. Article III, Section 3: “Treason against the United States, shall consist only …in adhering to their Enemies”Obahmadinejihad Submits to the Iranian Mullahs…

    “My administration is now committed to diplomacy [appeasement] that addresses the full range of issues before us and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran [Mullahs] , and the international community [57 Islamic States]. This process will not be advanced by threats [except to American infidels who oppose allah and my benevolent administration]. We seek engagement [submission to Islam] that is honest [deceptive] and grounded in mutual respect [deception]…”If only Obahmadinejihad had a “Civilian National Security Force” like the Mullahs…

    “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order [to silence the American infidels who oppose allah and my benevolent administration and] to achieve the national security objectives [submission to Islam] we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded [as the military].”“I’ve now been in 57 States…”

    57 Islamic States… to Appoint Prosecutor to Investigate CIA Infidel Interrogations

    Comment by Benaiah — August 24, 2009 @ 7:48 pm

  43. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: No person except a natural born citizen …shall be eligible to the office of President.The issue of whether or not Obahmadinejihad is “eligible to the office of President” depends upon whether or not he is an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.The phrase “natural born citizen” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution”.The “common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” is plainly expressed in “Scott v. Sandford”, which quotes Vattel, and explicitly states, “The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…”Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)[1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT[418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…United States v. Wong Kim Ark., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)[1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES[16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words ["citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States"], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it [The Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162;… The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.Furthermore, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Minor v. Happersett, confirmed the definition of a “natural born citizen” as “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens”.Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)"No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President" and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization. The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.Suffice it to say, natural born Citizens, “are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”Hence, Obahmadinejihad is NOT a “natural born Citizen” of the United States, even if he was born in Hawaii, as his father was a “foreigner”…The Supreme Court of the United States, in The Venus, recognized Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority on citizenship issues.The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814“Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, The natives, or indigenes, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”Vattel’s Law of Nations: § 212. Citizens and nativesThe citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

    Comment by Benaiah — August 24, 2009 @ 7:51 pm

  44. Obahmadinejihad's Education Reform: The jilbab or expulsion

    Comment by Benaiah — August 24, 2009 @ 8:07 pm

  45. Orchestrated CrisisSwine Flu May Cause 90,000 U.S. Deaths, Report Says“This isn’t the flu that we’re used to,” said Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. “The 2009 H1N1 virus will cause a more serious threat this fall. We won’t know until we’re in the middle of the flu season how serious the threat is, but because it’s a new strain, it’s likely to infect more people than usual.”

    Comment by Benaiah — August 24, 2009 @ 10:17 pm

  46. Benaiah:How right you are … wouldn't want to "waste" such a wonderful opportunity !!!

    Comment by jayjay — August 25, 2009 @ 1:17 am

  47. 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.I'm sure you must've read this by now…Donofrio complimented your legal skills refusing to second guess what your opinion of this might be.I'm curious!

    Comment by cajapie — August 25, 2009 @ 2:08 am

  48. Charles and Mario….Any ideas as to why the court is taking their sweet time to rule on your latest brief?? Do you feel they are being pressured to dismiss it by the FRAUD'S attorneys?? I know in listening to you on the radio shows you believe your case to be very solid and with standing….the longer this goes on it seems to me that they are trying to think of some reason to dismiss this again!!!

    Comment by Jackie Smith — August 25, 2009 @ 1:51 pm

  49. Jackie Smith:That could be the case – but keep in mind it may also be that the delay is explained by the judge actually having to do more work than prior judges (who very quickly accepted the DOJ Cliffs Notes re "standing", "jurisdiction", etc. and turned the cases down quickly).Viewed from that perspective the delay may be a plus toward progressing since the judge would need to have pretty definitive justifications so as to not be overturned at SCOTUS.Also, Leo Donofrio's latest thread has some very helpful information that fits right in completely with the excellent legal treatises that Mario Apuzzo, Esq. has been publishing. Synergy at work.

    Comment by jayjay — August 25, 2009 @ 5:18 pm

  50. In the pursuit of due process and swift justice, aren't you legally or customarily entitled to the court keeping their dates?Or if legitimate delays are encountered, aren't they required to post new dates. They can't just leave things dangling indefinitely, can they?

    Comment by Carlyle — August 25, 2009 @ 5:23 pm

  51. How to [intentionally] lose a war"Earlier this summer, The New York Times reported, Barack Obama gathered a group of historians for dinner at the White House. The president expressed concern that Afghanistan could hijack his presidency just as Vietnam overtook the stewardship of Lyndon B. Johnson. LBJ pursued a grand domestic agenda – civil rights and the Great Society – yet failure in Vietnam defined his presidency.Military analyst Harry G. Summers identified two reasons why the US abandoned the fight in Vietnam: 1. There was no society-wide commitment to victory. American leaders had not psychologically mobilized the home front behind the war, refusing to ask Congress for a declaration of war; 2. The US failed to go after North Vietnam for most of the war, focusing instead on its Viet Cong proxies.These fundamental errors are being repeated in the struggle against Islamist extremism……If patience is running thin on Afghanistan, and there is no stomach to stop Iran, the reasons are obvious. From Lockerbie to Afghanistan, Western decision-makers have compartmentalized Islamist violence – rather than defined it as a strategic menace to the Western values of tolerance and liberty.The lesson of Vietnam is that wars become unwinnable when leaders fail to identify their true enemies, leaving their societies unmobilized, confused and lacking in motivation."Ask yourself the following:Does Barack Hussein Obahmadinejihad sincerely want to win the war on terrorism?Who is a bigger threat to the United States of America, Mullah Muhammad Omar, the leader of the Taliban, or Barack Hussein Obahmadinejihad?

    Comment by Benaiah — August 25, 2009 @ 5:25 pm

  52. Important post from Leo Donofrio today:The Holy Grail of POTUS Eligibility Law Review Articles: Mr. Obama and Mr. Arthur… Meet Attorney George Collins

    Comment by KitKat — August 25, 2009 @ 7:21 pm

  53. Hi Mario,I just came across a comment on Article 1, Section 8 saying Congress can punish "offenses against the Law of Nations". That would include Obama.For me that gives weight to Vattel and his definition of Natural Born being of two US parents and US soil birth.I know this is not news to you but it was to me. I hope it can help in some way. We now need a new Congress in 2010.Thanks for your hard work!

    Comment by Guy4013 — August 25, 2009 @ 10:36 pm

  54. I've noticed that although Lucas Smith's Youtube video of Obama Alleged Kenyan BC is getting incredible views, not much attention is be given to it. We have heard nothing from Orly or Berg about it. Are people trying to track Lucas Smith to find out more? Mario or Charles, have you heard anything more about it. It appears quite valid and may indeed be the real thing.

    Comment by James — August 26, 2009 @ 2:49 am

  55. James, I thought you were more up to speed on current events on the net. Most comments online have been saying this Lucas Smith Kenyan BC (the one pictured with the foot print on it) is a fraud. Here is the latest from as a top headline news piece:

    Comment by cfkerchner — August 26, 2009 @ 5:20 am

  56. I found this at Leo Donofrio's site and taken from The American Law Review, Oct, 1884 and written by George Collins Esq." Birth, therefore, does NOT ifso facto confer citizenship, and it is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his FATHER be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in the case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen, thereof, at the time of such birth".Obama's FATHER was a British citizen, and therefore, Obama can NEVER be a Natural Born citizen of the US.

    Comment by Guy4013 — August 26, 2009 @ 1:38 pm

  57. Charles,Did you see what was buried in the middle of that WorldNetDaily article?:"Moreover, WND sources reported it is unlikely any 1961 birth certificate for President Obama will ever be found at Coast Provincial Hospital in Mombasa, even if one originally existed. Administrators and doctors at the hospital told WND sources that in 2004 a high-level team of Kenya's National Security Intelligence Service came to the hospital and seized all files containing birth certificate documents from the years 1960 through 1963. According to the hospital administrators and doctors interviewed at the hospital, it was not until four months later that Kenya's National Security Intelligence Service returned the seized files to the hospital."What happened in 2004? Barack Obama gave the keynote speech at the Democrat's National Convention and became a "rising star" in the Democrat party.

    Comment by KitKat — August 26, 2009 @ 2:08 pm

  58. If an african-american protests the birthplace of George Bush does that make him a racist?

    Comment by roderick — August 26, 2009 @ 2:25 pm

  59. For Sale: Kennedy Senate SeatSend bids to

    Comment by Benaiah — August 26, 2009 @ 3:31 pm

  60. College kids recruited to join Obahmadinejihad's 'army'Earn credit for pushing 'change,' working on Usurper's 'agenda''s “Civilian National Security Force”…

    “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order [to silence the American infidels who oppose allah and my benevolent administration and] to achieve the national security objectives [submission to Islam] we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded [as the Iranian Revolutionary Guard].”

    Comment by Benaiah — August 26, 2009 @ 3:56 pm

  61. is no longer accepting bids for the ChappaquiddiKennedy Senate Seat, as the Governor of Massachusetts has accepted Obahmadinejihad’s offer to play…“Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick said Wednesday he would support changing state law to allow him to appoint an interim successor to Sen. Edward Kennedy’s seat…

    Comment by Benaiah — August 26, 2009 @ 4:40 pm

  62. Some info and history on natural law, which the Law of Nations is based on, to back up the fact that the framers clearly got their understanding of who an NBC is from Vattel (i.e. natural law).Part I.The concept of natural law has been around since the time of the Greeks (i.e. significantly pre-dating English common law).We know that many of the founders and framers were well versed in ancient western civ.Allegedly, Thomas Jefferson wrote to his nephew that there were three books every gentleman had to have familiarity with; Plutarch's "Lives", Livy's "History of Rome" and Virgil's Aeneid."Aristotle brings to natural law theory an essentially new contribution by deriving the concept of right from the idea of justice, the latter being the appropriate mean that the judge maintains between the parties in court (Nicom. Ethics, Book V, Ch. IV, 8)." "Natural law or the law of nature (Latin: lex naturalis) is a theory that posits the existence of a law whose content is set by nature and everywhere.[1] [Ed. ex. "All men are created equal"] The phrase natural law is opposed to the positive law (which is human-made) of a given political community, society, or nation-state, and thus can function as a standard by which to criticize that law.[2][Ed. i.e. Declaration of Independence]. In natural law jurisprudence, on the other hand, the content of positive law cannot be known without some reference to the natural law (or something like it). Used in this way, natural law can be invoked to criticize decisions about the statutes, but less so to criticize the law itself. Some use natural law synonymously with natural justice or natural right (Latin ius naturale), although most contemporary political and legal theorists separate the two.Natural law theories have exercised a profound influence on the development of English common law,[3] and have featured greatly in the philosophies of Thomas Aquinas, Francisco Suárez, Richard Hooker, Thomas Hobbes, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, John Locke and Emmerich de Vattel [Ed. Both referenced during the Constitutional Convention]. Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States." of the Roman Legal System and Classical Roman Law …As the Roman republic grew and then transformed into an empire, its rulers faced the increasing challenge of governing an evermore diverse and far-flung population. Legal questions and disputes inevitably arose not only among Roman citizens, but with non-citizens living in or traveling through its territories, to whom the ius civile did not apply. This led to the development of the ius gentium ("law of nations") and ius naturale ("natural law"). law had an influence on British Common law (& Blackstone)."By the time of the rediscovery of the Roman law in Europe in the 12th and 13th centuries, the common law had already developed far enough to prevent a Roman law reception as it occurred on the continent.[30] However, the first common law scholars, most notably Glanvill and Bracton, as well as the early royal common law judges, had been well accustomed with Roman law…The impact Roman law had decreased sharply after the age of Bracton, but the Roman divisions of actions into in rem and in personam used by Bracton had a lasting effect and laid the groundwork for a return of Roman law structural concepts in the 18th and 19th century. Signs of this can be found in Blackstone’s Commentaries on the Laws of England,[33]"

    Comment by rx — August 26, 2009 @ 7:41 pm

  63. Part II.Historical Practice and the Contemporary Debate Over Customary International Law"I. Judicial Power in the Early RepublicFirst, the history. Professors Bellia and Clark argue that the founding generation entertained an "initial assumption that the United States—like the states—had received the common law and thus could prosecute and punish common law crimes, including offenses against the law of nations."6 Bellia and Clark acknowledge that this assumption was widely rejected in the course of debates over the constitutionality of the Sedition Act.7 Indeed, when the Supreme Court definitively interred the doctrine of federal common law crimes in the 1812 case of United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, it could say that the question already had long been "settled in public opinion."8A related debate in the early Republic, however, suggests even greater hostility to the idea of federal common lawmaking powers. As Justice Souter has pointed out, "the founding generation . . . join[ed] . . . an appreciation of its immediate and powerful common-law heritage with caution in settling that inheritance on the political systems of the new Republic."10 The colonial and early state governments carefully limited their reception of English common law to those principles that were applicable to local conditions.11 Citizens of the young Republic often viewed the common law with considerable hostility; after all, they had just fought a revolution to throw off English rule…"This ambivalence played out in debates over ratification of the new national Constitution. All participants seem to have understood that the new federal Constitution did not receive the English common law as part of national law,13 unlike many of the state constitutions. Opponents of ratification went so far as to complain that the proposed document failed to guarantee common law rights.14 Federalists responded that receiving the common law into the federal Constitution would trample the diversity of the common law, as received in the several states; even worse, a federal reception would render the common law "immutable" and not subject to congressional revision.15 Hence, "the Framers chose to recognize only particular common-law concepts, such as the writ of habeas corpus, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 9, cl. 2, and the distinction between law and equity, U.S. Const., Amdt. 7, by specific reference in the constitutional text."16 They insisted, however, that any general reception of the English common law into federal law would be "destructive to republican principles."17…More generally, the early American reaction to the common law in both the Federal Constitution and the states suggests a general suspicion of unwritten, judge-defined law and a strong preference for legislative primacy. This is quite consistent, of course, with the Framers' decision explicitly to authorize Congress to "define and punish . . . Offenses against the Law of Nations."18

    Comment by rx — August 26, 2009 @ 7:41 pm

  64. Death Without Dignity…Ted Kennedy was never “ENTITLED” to receive an Advance Care Planning Consultation…Comrade Nancy will live with this for the rest of her life…

    Comment by Benaiah — August 26, 2009 @ 8:43 pm

  65. Sorry Charles, I found after I posted. I am somewhat disappointed at WND. Their report seems little suspect. I really wish Orly or Berg would contact Lucas Smith and get with him to get to the bottom of this. Lucas seems pretty sure he has the real deal. The only way to know is to contact Lucas Smith directly and and find how and where Lucas got Obama's Kenyan BC. Of course, the hospital is going to lie. Offically, they will not reveal Obama was born there.

    Comment by James — August 27, 2009 @ 2:10 am

  66. —————–"Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness, How the Natural Law Concept of G. W. Leibniz Inspired America's Founding Fathers."The Law of Nations and The Constitution Vattel“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.''{–Preamble of The Constitution of the United States}Emmerich de Vattel's text, "The Law of Nations" was crucial in shaping American thinking about the nature of constitutions…. ———————Source: KerchnerLead Plaintiff

    Comment by cfkerchner — August 27, 2009 @ 2:42 am

  67. Does anyone know whether or not there has been any updates from the Allen v. Soetoro FOIA case in Arizona? Thanks,

    Comment by William — August 27, 2009 @ 10:49 am

  68. Yo Ho All Hands Hoist the Colors High…

    In order to effect the timely halt to deteriorating conditions and to insure the common good, a state of emergency declared for these territories by decree of law and Rahmadinejihad Emanuel Noriega, duly appointed representative of his majesty the king…By decree according to martial law the following statutes are temporarily amended: Right to Assembly – SuspendedRight to Habeas Corpus – SuspendedRight to Legal Counsel – Suspended, Right to Verdict by Jury of Peers – SuspendedBy decree all persons found guilty of …opposing Obahmadinejihad… shall be sentenced hang by the neck until dead…

    Comment by Benaiah — August 27, 2009 @ 4:30 pm

  69. This is an interview with a Rod Class who has done 8 years worth of research and this is about an hour long. Worth every minute.

    Comment by Greg Goss — August 27, 2009 @ 8:07 pm

  70. “The wind blows wherever it pleases” (John 3:8 NIV). Moreover, I need to repent of “mocking” the mockers…Hence, the biblical history lesson, "Of Usurpers and Mockers", regarding usurpers and mockers, will be my last post regarding Barack Hussein Obama and the mockers who mock “the truth” (john 14:6 NIV) concerning the threat that SocialIslam poses to our “freedom” (2 Corinthians 3:17 NIV)."Of Usurpers and Mockers" can be found at the following: up the good fight Charles and Mario,Benaiah

    Comment by Benaiah — August 27, 2009 @ 9:14 pm

  71. Hi all,Just thought I'd let you know I am getting nasty emails from the Obot readers of our advertorials in the Washington Times National Weekly edition. I don't answer them. But the more I get, and the nastier they get, the more I know that the advertorials are effective and … getting to them. :-)If you all want to help them continue, I need your contributions. We need time, talent, and a bit of the Treasure too to win this and remove the Usurper from the Oval Office. So if you can, visit the fund raising page and make a donation, large or small. Here is the URL:http://www.protectourliberty.orgExample advertorials:Obama is a Brit: Clause is Important: feel free to pass along the above fund raising web page address and the other links to other blogs and sites. Thanks.Charles

    Comment by cfkerchner — August 27, 2009 @ 10:37 pm

  72. Mr. Apuzzo,While I agree with your analysis in re the Law of Nations, I wonder how might the 7th Amendment play into any court case you might bring? I've repeated the 7th amendment below and to me it seems to simply say that if you have a trial by jury on a common law matter that no higher court shall use anything but common law to re-examine the case. But I am troubled by the use of the words "common law". The term "Law of Nations" clearly appears in the Constitution, and today, I find that so does the term "common law". Can you speak to this? Thanks.In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

    Comment by Andy — August 28, 2009 @ 2:41 pm

  73. Andy, Subject to the amount of money in dispute, the VII Amendment guarantees the people in a civil case the right to a jury trial when the source of the action is found in the common law. Please note that the VI Amendment guarantees a defendant a jury trial in a criminal case. The legislature (Federal or State) can also create causes of action by statute (e.g. civil rights, consumer fraud, and wrongful death actions to name a few). When these latter rights and remedies are created, the legislature can decide whether or not a jury trial will be granted to the litigants. The VII Amendment also declares that a court cannot re-examine the factual findings of a jury, unless done under the rules of the common law. Generally, it is very difficult to over turn the factual findings of a jury. Remember that a jury decides the facts and the judge decides the law. There are specific ways to attack a jury's factual findings which are prescribed by case law. These avenues of relief are very limited. One way is to show that the jury's factual findings are against the weight of the evidence presented during the trial. Normally, if a court finds that there is even some slight evidence supporting the jury's findings, it will not disturb those findings, even if there is other contradictory evidence in the record. What this means is that a jury's factual findings are pretty much the final word, unless a litigant can find a prescribed way to overcome them. There is no money amount at stake in the Obama eligibility issue. We are not asking for any money damages. We are asking for declaratory, mandamus, and quo warranto relief. I do not see a jury trial being available in such an action. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

    Comment by Puzo1 — August 28, 2009 @ 3:47 pm

  74. Hi Andy,You addressed your question to Mario and he'll likely answer when he gets time. But let me add an observation.One thing we need to point out is that the subject of this debate is "natural born citizenship" as found in Article II of our U.S. Constitution. It is not an all or nothing argument. To say that the founders and framers knew about and meant Vattel's definition for the legal term of art Natural Born Citizen does not mean that they adopted every single concept uttered by Vattel and rejected every single utterance of English common law. We must also make clear in any discussion about common law as to whether we are discussing things in our new Constitution for the limited powers of the new Federal government and not confuse them with the operation of state and local governments. Vattel was looked to for guidance for the new nation's constitution and form of government the focus of Vattel's Vol.1, a constitutional republic where the written Constitution is supreme and an independent Judiciary, and also for international law which Vattel wrote about too, especially in his other volumes. In this discussion we are talking about the eligibility clause for the office of President and Commander-in-Chief of the military. That office only exists in the federal constitution. And that office is the only place the term natural born citizen is used in the constitution, the document written to limit the powers of the new federal government. Senators and reps can be ordinary citizens but the President and CINC must be a Natural Born Citizen. And that group of citizens, the NBCs would become the most populous group of citizens. They are the children of the original citizens and subsequent citizens.Being that we were and would continue to be a nation of immigrant, the founders and framers wanted 100% allegiance to the USA by birth for the person eligible for that singular most powerful office in the new federal government once the initial revolutionary founders were gone. They wanted the office of President and CINC to be open to only to people born in the USA to children of citizens. They wanted no possibilities of foreign influence on the person by divided loyalties by birth. The founders and framers looked to the Natural Law and the generally understood laws of nations and Vattel's codification of that Natural Law and Law of Nations and selected the term natural born citizen which was clearly defined in Vattel as being born in the country to Citizens of the country.So we all need to keep in mind the focus of the discussion and the lawsuit, the natural born citizen clause in Article II and what it means and where it came from at the time of the founding of our nation and writing of the U.S. Constitution.Charles

    Comment by cfkerchner — August 28, 2009 @ 4:05 pm

  75. Charles and Mario,It looks like Lucas Smith's BC may have credibility after all. may be Kenya at this time. Who knows? But, you guys need to track him down when he returns. I think Lucas Smith may have the gold.

    Comment by James — August 28, 2009 @ 11:46 pm

  76. This is for all the brilliant legal minds on this site. I am either ignorant or there is a few people in this country who have caught on to something or maybe not.This has to do with the USA being a corporation. Sueing the corporation and all its "employees" in a courtroom in DC called the Superior Court (a true Art. 3 Constitutional Ct.). And the private attorney general act of 1866.The 1970 appointing of General Jurisdiction to this Court and Art. 1, 2, 3 & 14th Amendment of the DC Constitution.Title 28, 3002, 15, a, The US is a Corporation.Corpis Juris Secondum?? Vol. 20 Sect. 1785 The US is a Foreign Corp.Title 5 Sect 103 the Gov. Corp is part of the US.So if someone with a keen legal mind and willingness to look into this a little bit, I would be grateful for a simple explanation. Plz go to this link and listen to at least the first 30 mins. I think you will find it fascinating.

    Comment by Joe — August 29, 2009 @ 4:01 am

  77. Mario/Charles;I have a 14th Amendment argument/question(s). The 14th Amendment reads in part: [All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the “jurisdiction” thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.]Since the 14th Amendment citizenship depends heavily on the meaning of "jurisdiction," we know that the author and primary framers made it clear that the word "jurisdiction", as used in the 14th Amendment pertaining to citizenship, means sole, complete, absolute, exclusive U.S. jurisdiction and the absence of any other jurisdiction or allegiance.In the Elk v. Wilkins case in 1884, it is most important that the last sentence becomes the understanding argument pertaining to citizenship. The Supreme Court said in part: The persons declared to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. “Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being “naturalized”… (Page 112 U. S. 101-102, Elk v. Wilkins, 1884)My questions are as follows: If Obama's citizenship status at birth was "governed" by the laws of a foreign country, how could he, at birth, be subject to “sole” U.S. jurisdiction, which is an essential requirement for 14th Amendment citizenship? Would Obama not be required to take the path of Naturalization since he did not meet the 14th amendment requirements at birth? Would it also not be true, having stated the above, that every child born of illegal immigrants, also need to take the path of Naturalization as well, at a certain point in time in adult life?

    Comment by William — August 29, 2009 @ 9:12 am

  78. Mario, CharlesI would like to echo the suggestions of a couple of readers that you find the time to listen to this: really is fascinating and may be relevant to your case. Might it be possible for the court to grant you standing but claim it has no jurisdiction?

    Comment by typical white person — August 29, 2009 @ 2:08 pm

  79. Joe:Here's a post I made on another blog on the "corporation" information (the same reference that you posted):"I don’t think the “corporation” definition is so obtuse at all. The link you gave is to a part of the law that refers to collection of debts and in that respect the definition of “United States” to mean a corporation makes a lot of sense … think Fannie Mae which though a GSE is, indeed a private corporation – yet it is part of the Federal government.I think the definition so cited is in good order and makes a lot of sense in situ. Extending the definition to claim the founding fathers were part of a hidden board of directors of a corporation would receive little credence in the courts or elsewhere.Shake it off, guys and girls, and get back to the real issue – ELIGIBILITY! The black helicopter crowd can fly without you."

    Comment by jayjay — August 29, 2009 @ 2:44 pm

  80. Hi William, The Elk ruling was rendered moot when native Americans were granted citizenship in the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924. After Elk, there remained the question of how any child of noncitizen immigrants could be born a United States citizen given the parents’ country’s potential claim to citizenship and allegiance. I agree with your analysis. If a child is born of non-citizen parents, he/she cannot be completely (legally and politically) subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The problem here is that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark interpreted "subject to the jurisdiction" in a very expansive and nonsensical way. Hence, Justice Gray's exception for Wong has swalled the rule and rendered the jurisdiction clause meaningless. What Justice Gray did is actually amend the Constitution without a constitutional amendment. Only the future can tell what our nation will eventually do about such an usurpation of the People's authority by the U.S. Supreme Court. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

    Comment by Puzo1 — August 29, 2009 @ 5:01 pm

  81. Just to re-iterate, while the Justice Gray decision was a terrible interpretation of what jurisdiction meant, as Mario pointed out, the decision that Justice Gray passed down was to make Wong Kim Ark a regular citizen … NOT a "natural born" citizen. Thus the Kim Wong Ark decision even though it is bad law from the highest bench as to the meaning of jurisdiction, it did not change or effect the Article II eligibility clause to be Pres and CINC, despite the Obots saying it does. Kim Wong Ark was declared an ordinary citizen, not a natural born citizen. Only nature and the facts at birth under Natural Law can create a natural born citizen. No man-made law can make a natural born citizen. For if man's law has to make it, it is thus not natural. Man can explain and define what a natural born citizen is, as Vattel did in codifying natural law, but man's laws cannot retroactively make a natural born citizen. And Kim Wong Ark did not change that.Here is the link to Atty Mario Apuzzo's essay on the 14th Amendment and Kim Wong Ark for more details, clarification, and information about the Kim Wong Ark decision:

    Comment by cfkerchner — August 29, 2009 @ 5:22 pm

  82. All:I agree with JayJay's comment. We must keep the focus here on the lawsuit and the Article II natural born citizenship issue and not get off on to tangential issues. The focus here should be the lawsuit and the NBC issue. It may be a good time for all followers, especially newbies, in this blog to re-read the blog rules: & Editor

    Comment by cfkerchner — August 29, 2009 @ 5:27 pm

  83. William: Great point, meaning Obama was not even a US citizen at birth because he never became naturalized because he was not "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" because he was under British governance!! The State Department's Foreign Affairs MANUAL whored wording of the 14th amendment "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside" to state "d. All children born in and subject, at the time of birth, to the jurisdiction of the United States acquire U.S. citizenship at birth even if their parents were in the United States illegally at the time of birth." when in fact Section 301 of the INA statute says NO SUCHATING. It reads, "Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401] The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; " same as 14th amendment ( ) which means SOMEONE took CREATIVE WRITING LIBERTIES and was trying to make anchor babies born of foreign parents automatic citizens by circumventing both Congress and the Constitutional amendment process., again, "it's the Constitution, Stupid"–stay away from ANY birth certificate issues, they are nonsense until proven otherwise, a red herring, a decoy, the bots openly vow to create as many ruses as possible and brag about stealing blank birth certificate forms etc.=open criminality, to raise up hopes, dash them, demoralize and discredit and Alinsky#5 ridicule "birthers" with the bots' own artistic creations. I would not focus on anything but what they cannot change and fear most: Obama's open admission against interest that he was born British and thus not "under the jurisdiction" of the USA.Also, Mr. Apuzzo, Orly Taitz is suing on behalf Dr. Connie Rhodes, and I am concerned that she averts the NBC issue, having previously allowed stipulation that a BC would resolve eligibility issues, which it CANNOT because Obama was born British. If he's been lying about parentage, then he's guilty of federal document fraud, defrauding the American people=jail–and if that's what she's alluding to, it's in the "too fing bad" category, we cannot know nor can we deal with soap opera possibilities.

    Comment by cajapie — August 29, 2009 @ 6:25 pm

  84. ALSO in US v Ahumada Aguilar, the child was denied US citizenship though born in the US; so the anchor baby myth is DEBUNKEDBecause in INA: ACT 301 Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401]a person born in the USA is NOT a US citizen if born under the jurisdiction of another nation.If you were born to foreigners on US soil, you are under the jurisdiction of a foreign nation so are not a US citizen!INA ACT 301 says that being born in the US alone is insufficient for US citizenship. v. Ahumada Aguilar,189 F.3d 1121 (9th Cir. 1999);vacated and remanded, 533 U.S. 913;on remand, 295 F.3d 943 (2002)So given that birthplace alone in the US matters not a wit to US citizenship, that his mother was too young to confer, and that his father was verifiably British…the latter is all that matters.Obama was ONLY British at birth, and since he never naturalized, is still only British.The Hawaii part does not matter at all!! It was, the whole time revolving around the citizenship issue.The question if his mother had been old enough to confer US citizenship is WHICH citizenship in a dual citizenship, British or American, supercedes the other? It seems people have been duped by the "Anchor Baby Myth" and highly queasy about taking on the fact that at the time of Obama's birth his mother was not old enough to confer US citizenship. Obama's mother, although a U.S. citizen, was only 18 years old. U.S. immigration law in 1961 explicitly denied U.S. citizenship at birth to children of mixed national parentage, unless the U.S. citizen parent (in this case Obama's mother) had resided in the U.S. for 10 years, 5 of those required to be after attaining the age of 14. The ONLY remaining citizenship is British, and to this day, that's ALL Obama is.Makes the NBC argument far easier!Why the queasiness to take on immigration law from 1961 re: Obama's mother's conferring of US citizenship? Is it because of the assumption that it would no longer be made to apply??????

    Comment by cajapie — August 29, 2009 @ 9:14 pm

  85. Querying the bots, their line now is they say this only applies to "diplomats" being under the jurisdiction of another country while in the USA…NO! If you are a citizen of another country even if you are IN the USA while you give birth, you are under the jurisdiction of that country! They can still conscript you into their military for example, even if you're not on home turf.

    Comment by cajapie — August 29, 2009 @ 9:21 pm

  86. The LEGAL definition of jurisdiction includes jurisdiction OVER A PERSON.

    Comment by cajapie — August 29, 2009 @ 9:27 pm

  87. Shouldn't the State Department Manual's utter lie about anchor babies be brought to account? How would they back up their false assertion?

    Comment by cajapie — August 29, 2009 @ 9:48 pm

  88. 1940 Nationality Act means she conferred US citizenship if she was still a US citizen if she gave birth in the US and had lived in the US for 1 year prior.However, doesn’t the BNA of 1948 mean she became a British citizen upon marriage?"Citizenship by MarriageWomen married to CUKCs had the right to register as CUKCs under section 6(2) of the 1948 Act."{{Did she?}}

    Comment by cajapie — August 29, 2009 @ 11:00 pm

  89. Cajapie, On the 14th Amendment's "subject to the jurisdiction thereof," the clause has its origins in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which provided: "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power . . . are declared to be citizens of the United States.” Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866 (14 Stat. 27). Two years later, this statute was adopted as part of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.As we can see, Congress said “any” when prohibiting the native-born child to be subject to any foreign jurisdiction. Hence, by this statute alone, we can see that if the child was born with allegiance to any other nation, he could not be a citizen of the United States. How else could such a child obtain any other allegiance if he or she were born in the United States than through one or both of his or her parents not being a United States citizen? Also, the debates on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the 14th Amendment show that the power/jurisdiction clause was not designed to exclude only children of American Indians but also those of foreigners and aliens. Clearly, the intent was that a born "citizen" had to be born in the country to citizen parents. Wong Kim Ark managed to destroy this fundamental aspect of American constitutional law, but only as it applies to a "citizen." Good thing that Justice Gray was only being asked whether Wong was a "citizen" under the 14th Amendment and not a "natural born Citizen" under Article II. Based on U.S. common law, the definition of a "natural born Citizen" has never been changed by any court or act of Congress (not to imply that it could constitutionally do so). By the way, Congress keeps toying with the idea of changing the meaning of "natural born Citizen" but then gets cold feet and abandons the project. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

    Comment by Puzo1 — August 29, 2009 @ 11:41 pm

  90. Thanks very much for the explanation as to the origins of that part of INA/14th.Didn't Justice Gray limit WKA to permanently domiciled Chinese who couldn't otherwise naturalize? Isn't it a misnomer to think WKA carries over to other alien parents of jus soli kids? Wouldn't a Constitutional Amendment be required to change the definition of NBC? Too daunting, even with ACORN running the show.

    Comment by cajapie — August 30, 2009 @ 12:30 am

  91. "All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power . . . are declared to be citizens of the United States.” Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866 (14 Stat. 27).So — if ACT 301 does not undo the "any"…well we just may be in businessbecause that means that Obama is not a US citizen at all!(my last post, I was really getting into this chess game today, may have just reinvented the wheel but maybe other readers will profit from the learning curve)

    Comment by cajapie — August 30, 2009 @ 12:43 am

  92. I did read that Obama SR. was forced to return to Kenya by the Kenyan Government. If this is true, than how is that possible as the Obots would say if Obama Sr. was subject to US Juristiction? The answer is that Obama Sr. was not a US Citizen but a Kenyan Citizen. Although Obama Sr. was subjected to US juristiction and had to obey US Law, Kenya could certainly exert juristiction over Obama Sr. since he was one of theirs.

    Comment by James — August 30, 2009 @ 1:03 am

  93. he and they have the dept. Of justice defending him and them. That's hilarious. This is the biggest criminal act ever perpetuated against the united states of america and he and they have the dept. Of justice defending him and them. he and they should have the dept. Of justice prosecuting him and them for fraud.

    Comment by roderick — August 30, 2009 @ 11:28 am

  94. Mario/Charles, Thank you first and foremost for your response, guidance and educational interpretation of the law. My question pertaining to the 14th amendment citizenship clause was in no personal form an intentional deviation from the NBC discussion in this forum. During my research and study of the material, I in fact agree with your position wholeheartedly. Through such study and agreement, I have without doubt persisted in conclusively adding more questions directed to myself and seek expert critique such as you; of course with the risk of not boring you and the risk of your expertise not exceeding my capacity understanding law (and without saying your time, as I know you are truly gifted and engulfed in your work). It became clear (least to me), that Obama simply does not meet the 14th amendment clause, little lone a NBC status. This eureka also allowed me to question myself about the substance and weight of anyone else in the Country that fits his situation or worse. Furthermore, I was hit with the fright of why these people have voting rights in this Country without “any” allegiance whatsoever, having never been naturalized. Having pondered upon the past rulings such as Justice Gray and the WKA case as well as those similar holds a great interest to me for many reasons and in my opinion correlated to Obama, albeit not direct as the NBC case. I’ll explain….. As you mentioned Mario, Justice Gray in the WKA case interpreted "subject to the jurisdiction" in a very expansive and nonsensical way.Within Justice Gray's referenced discussion from WKA, for the purposes of citizenship, he does briefly touch on the principle of allegiance as being an important factor in determining citizenship. In such “briefly mentioned” cases that do not fully disclose interpretations and only apply to such individual cases themselves such as Elk v. Wilkins, Afroyim v. Rusk, Plyler v. Doe and Wong Kim Ark, it is apparent (as you stated Mario) Justice Gray was indeed expansive. I cannot escape the fact that each case dealt with a different and unique situation and therefore should never be construed nor carried over, nor overlapped into a “similar” case, otherwise there lays an inherent risk of misinterpretation. I think Chief Justice Marshal said it best when he stated: “It is a maxim, not to be disregarded, that general expressions, in every opinion, are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used. If they go beyond the case, they may be respected, but ought not to control the judgment in a subsequent suit when the very point is presented for decision.” What this means to me, is that when “jurisdiction” is discussed in these various cases, it is discussed as it pertains to individual cases and should never be carried over to something “similar”; as each are individual(s). Wong Kim Ark and Elk v. Wilkins also cannot apply to Obama and many others. To stretch out a ruling as if it were spandex in a specific case and attempt to “overlap” such ruling into another; those that attempt to do so, do it their own ignorance and peril of Chief Justice Marshal (in my opinion). To conclude, I am not quite confident that Chief Justice Gray has the last say. History, Congressional records of intent, Precedence, and additional rulings will surely come into a proportionate interpretation, correctively directional. Although I post rarely, I would like to take this time to Thank-You Charles, for serving in the Military Protecting Me and My Family throughout the decades and Standing up as a True Patriot of America, We (my family) cannot thank you enough. Mario, Thank-you for also being a True Patriot and such endless Patriotic Spirit you have shown and continue to show towards our U.S. Constitution.

    Comment by William — August 30, 2009 @ 9:02 pm

  95. Justice Gray was appointed by usurper Chester Arthur, that's why his language is so dicey and on surface value to those willing, says something completely different from what it really says.Dual citizenship is a phantom state, at age 18 males must assert their US citizenship for the selective service, so they were never anything but pre-naturalized citizens all along. One third of the US prison population are illegal aliens, so it's obvious that the various forms of jurisdiction can apply selectively to non-citizens. They were imprisoned under legal and geographical jurisdictions, but could not be held to political and personal jurisdiction insofar as the draft.That's the key, the jurisdictional subsets are only partially in force for a dual or pre-naturalized citizen, yet fully enforced for a fully naturalized US citizen (or other types of US citizens). William makes the excellent point about voting rights without allegiance. There's so many benefits of citizenship that non-citzens can enjoy, even voting, no draft, no taxes, free Obamacare, that there's little point in having US citizenship…better to be a CITIZEN OF THE WORLDThank you again Mr. Apuzzo, for all of your work…I feel like I'm simultaneously on a mechanically unsound too-fast roller coaster watching a horror/thriller movie and trying to figure out how we are going to survive. This is surreal, but I look around and most people are fully disconnected from the fact that we are in a Constitutional crisis.

    Comment by cajapie — August 30, 2009 @ 9:34 pm

  96. Coming in rather late on this :23, 2009 2:54 PM Bob said… Some things on the L. Smith Kenyan BC are factual — – – – – – – – -×1024.jpgHas anybody else noticed that the dates by the signatures are written AMERICAN style m/d/y and not BRITISH style d/m/y

    Comment by Alan — September 4, 2009 @ 7:30 pm

  97. Alan:Lucas Smith stated that in Kenya at the time BOTH date formats were used.

    Comment by jayjay — September 7, 2009 @ 8:02 pm

  98. The Federal Courts Are Committing Treason to the Constitution per Chief Justice John Marshall. federal courts and judges are committing treason to the Constitution by not taking jurisdiction and getting to the merits in the various cases before them regarding the Article II eligibility clause question for Obama.It is worth keeping in mind the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall when he wrote in Cohens v. Virginia 19 US 264 (1821):"It is most true that this Court will not take jurisdiction if it should not: but it is equally true, that it must take jurisdiction if it should. The judiciary cannot, as the legislature may, avoid a measure because it approaches the confines of the constitution. We cannot pass it by because it is doubtful. With whatever doubts, with whatever difficulties, a case may be attended, we must decide it, if it be brought before us. We have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be treason to the constitution. Questions may occur which we would gladly avoid; but we cannot avoid them. All we can do is, to exercise our best judgment, and conscientiously to perform our duty. In doing this, on the present occasion, we find this tribunal invested with appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the constitution and laws of the United States. We find no exception to this grant, and we cannot insert one."Link to the treason quote in case context: to Case Summary: to Full Case: Judge in the Kerchner v Obama & Congress lawsuit and the Judges in the other cases should simply read the words of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall from the past and take jurisdiction of the constitutional question of the Article II eligibility clause in the Constitution and proceed to a fact finding hearing and trial on the merits to see if Obama is Constitutionally eligible or not. I say Obama is NOT eligible. But we need the federal courts to take the cases and get a SCOTUS ruling to settle this.Charles F. Kerchner, Jr.CDR USNR (Ret)Lead PlaintiffKerchner et al v Obama & Congress et al

    Comment by cfkerchner — October 12, 2009 @ 7:49 pm

  99. Blogs are so informative where we get lots of information on any topic. Nice job keep it up!!_____________________________Law Dissertation

    Comment by marry — December 12, 2009 @ 10:48 am

  100. The concept of a written Constitution, the whole basis and fundamental law of our nation, does not come from English Common Law. England did not have a written Constitution. Thus even the idea of writing a written Constitution, not just what is contained in it, proves that the founders and framers looked elsewhere other than English Common Law for their sources when creating a new form of government, said new form of government and Constitution said by historians to be a revolutionary new type of government and which has become a beacon and example to the rest of the world. The founders and framers did not find the enlightenment for this new form of government and representative Republic form of government with a written constitution in English Common Law.Emer D. Vattel was indeed one of the key sources and in fact was the major source with his scholarly work, "The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law". In that great legal treatise work of his in 1758 he proposes a new form of government, one in which the People are the sovereigns, and a more perfect form of government, and which has a WRITTEN CONSTITUTION. This United States of America was a new form of national government the world had not seen before and it did not come from English Common Law. See Vattel's, Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Vol.1, Chapter III, 'Of the Constitution of a State, and the Duties and Rights of a Nation in that Respect'.CDR Kerchner

    Comment by cfkerchner — March 12, 2010 @ 9:12 pm

  101. What the newly sworn in President George Washington was doing with the legal treatise and reference book "Law of Nations" in New York in 1789. An account from the times.There was a news account recently that President George Washington 'borrowed' the legal reference book "Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law" and never returned it to the library in New York and now owes a huge past due fine on that book. This new current events story ties into the importance of that book to George Washington and the other founders. Attached is an image and an the account what the new President was doing with the book in 1789 in New York. The new President was found consulting that book by visitors to his office on his first day in office after the inauguration of him in New York in 1789. York was then the capital of the USA. See attached highlighted section of the history book, This Was New York, The Nation's Capital in 1789, by Monaghan & Lowenthal, published by Books for Libraries Press of Freeport NY. I have a copy of this rare book. But it can also be viewed online at Google's book site.The Law of Nations by Vattel is a very important legal treatise and was very important to the founding of our nation. It was first published in 1758. The Law of Nations is mentioned in our Constitution. The "Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law" which is its full name was the preeminent legal treatise of the last half of the 1700s and was depended on heavily by the Revolutionary Patriots in the founding of our nation. Benjamin Franklin cited that it was being heavily used during the Constitutional Conventions when he received three new copies of the newest circa 1775 edition from the editor Dumas in Europe. And John Jay the 1st Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court cited it often. This legal book was cited many times by the various U.S. Supreme Courts in the 1800s and much of it became the common law of our land via Supreme Court decisions citing the wisdom conveyed in this book. And it is this legal treatise by Vattel which defines who the "naturel" citizens are, i.e., the "natural born Citizens" of a country, i.e., a person born in the country to two citizen parents of that country. This was the law of nature and Vattel codified it in his book Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. This book was the source of the wisdom which prompted John Jay to write to George Washington, presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention in the summer of 1787, and request that the requirement of "natural born Citizenship" be put into the new Constitution as an eligibility standard for the office of the President and commander of the military, for future holders of that office after the original generation past, to minimize any chances of foreign influences on that singular most powerful office in our new nation. The founders and framers in their wisdom anticipated the day would come when a citizen of the world funded by foreign money would attempt to take over America. That day has come. Obama is not a natural born Citizen of the USA. He was born a subject of Great Britain. He is not Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 constitutionally eligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of the military for exactly the reasons John Jay stated to George Washington in the summer of 1787. Obama is a Usurper in the Oval Office.CDR Charles KerchnerPennsylvania

    Comment by cfkerchner — April 19, 2010 @ 5:17 pm

  102. Indeed, Natural Law and The Law of Nations was the guiding legal work of that era for the founders of our nation to unify the newly freed sovereign states.The 13 original colonies were free and independent sovereign states. The only set of guidance which could unite free and independent sovereign states were the Laws of Nature which are universal truths and as codified in the legal treatise by Emer de Vattel in his legal book, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. The founders looked to Natural Law and the Law of Nations to unify the 13 free and independent states, not to English Common Law which they just threw off. It's silly that people think our U.S. Constitution was based on English Common Law. How could the common law of one nation, a nation the colonies just rejected, be used to unite 13 newly freed and independent states, each with their own constitutions and laws of citizenship. No to accomplish that, the founders and framers looked to universal law to unite the colony states and form a new more perfect union in the U.S. Constitution. The framers and founders where quite well versed in the Law of Nations and that is what they used to write the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the USA.Here are just a few examples of some key founders and framers who depended on Vattel's "The Law of Nations of Principles of Natural Law" to guide them in setting up a new form of federal government the likes of which the world had never seen before, and which became a beacon to the rest of the world for centuries. Benjamin Franklin used Vattel's Law of Nations: Washington used Vattel's Law of Nations: of course, Thomas Jefferson used Vattel's Law of Nations: truth and real facts and the universal truth of our U.S. Constitution will win the day in the end. Obama is not an Article II "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standards because his father was not a U.S. Citizen and thus Obama was born with dual citizenship. That is not what the framers intended and what Vattel wrote about who is a "natural born Citizen". Obama will be removed as being a Usurper.CDR Kerchner

    Comment by cfkerchner — May 11, 2010 @ 6:47 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Create a free website or blog at

%d bloggers like this: