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

March 30, 2011

>Standing Under Proposed State Presidential Vetting and Eligibility Laws

>

Standing Under Proposed State Presidential Vetting and Eligibility Laws

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 30, 2011

The Founders and Framers understood that under natural law and the law of nations, as explained by Emer de Vattel in his, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758), a nation’s most fundamental duty is self-preservation. They therefore included the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution so that each and every citizen would be protected by having someone assume and exercise the great and singular civil and military powers of the President and Commander in Chief with only their and the nation’s values and safety at heart. To accomplish that end, the Founders and Framers required that anyone born after the adoption of the Constitution be born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents.

We have seen with the many Obama eligibility law suits filed in our federal courts, citizens have attempted to protect themselves by enforcing the “natural born Citizen” clause. One of these law suits is Kerchner v. Obama, 612 F.3d 204, 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 13608 , cert. denied, 131 S.Ct. 663 (2010). In these legal actions, the federal courts have simply denied anyone the right to enforce the “natural born Citizen” clause and to challenge Obama’s eligibility because as they have said, no one had standing to bring any such lawsuits. Generally, one has standing to bring a legal action if one can show that one has suffered an injury in fact caused by the defendant’s conduct and for which the court can give one a remedy.

Several of our states are now working on drafting and passing presidential vetting and eligibility election statutes. As one example, Arizona H.B. 2177 and S.B. 1157 both have standing clauses. These clauses state: “A member of the House of Representatives, a member of the Senate or any other citizen of this state has standing to initiate an action to enforce this section.”

As we can see, unlike our judicial branch of government, Arizona legislators have rightfully recognized the right of a citizen to protect his or her life, liberty, safety, security, tranquility, and property from a potentially illegal President sitting in the Office of President and Commander in Chief from which he or she would wield enormous power over that individual which would cause that person an injury in fact on a daily basis.

If one of these state laws passes, such a citizen would have standing to file a legal action in which he or she would be able to enforce the “natural born Citizen” clause by enforcing the state eligibility statute.

As I have already stated in my article entitled, “The States Have a Right and Duty to Assure Their Citizens That a Presidential Candidate Is an Article II ‘Natural Born Citizen,’” the states have every right and duty to pass presidential vetting and eligibility legislation. To give these laws any teeth and to avoid any possible political games by any Secretary of State, it is critical that such legislation include a standing clause. Without Congress, the courts, the political parties, and the media willing to enforce the “natural born Citizen” clause, how else are responsible Americans to make sure that their President is eligible for that office? Let us all give our states the support they need to enact such necessary and proper legislation.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 30, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

March 28, 2011

>Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) were on the Peter Boyle Radio Show on KHOW 630 in Denver CO – Monday 28 Mar 2011 @ 8 a.m. EST

>

Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) were on the Peter Boyle Radio Show on KHOW 630 in Denver CO – Monday 28 March 2011 @ 8 a.m. EST.

The topic will be the lack of constitutional eligibility of the putative president Obama and Obama’s unwillingness to provide any hard evidence and documents to controlling legal authorities to back up his claim of a Hawaiian birth. Also, Donald Trump’s recent statement calling on Obama to release his alleged long form birth certificate, if Obama has one.

Factual and legal issues will be discussed. Obama was born to a British Subject foreign national father and Obama himself was thus a British Subject at birth. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” as is required by the U.S. Constitution Article II, Section 1 for that reason since his father was not a U.S. Citizen, not even an immigrant to the USA, nor even a permanent resident. Obama’s birth may have been registered in Hawaii but with the contrary statements coming out of Kenya, and in past years before he ran for President such as these, it is likely that he was not physically born in Hawaii but only falsely registered there as being born in Hawaii by his maternal grandmother after the fact to get her new foreign born grandson U.S. Citizenship using a simple mail-in form available back in Hawaii in 1961. The false registration of his birth would account for the short-form certification of live birth record and the 1961 newspaper accounts of the birth being registered with the Hawaiian Health Department which placed those public service announcements in the weekly papers for all birth registered, real or falsified. See Atty Mario Apuzzo’s “Catalog of Evidence” for and against Obama’s claimed Hawaiian birth nativity story.

Listen to this show on Podcast at this link:
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/DENVER-CO/KHOW-AM/03282011PETE6A.mp3

For information on the Peter Boyle Radio Show see:
http://www.khow.com/pages/boyles.html

Posted by:
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

March 27, 2011

>Atty Apuzzo & CDR Kerchner were on Les Naiman Show, WGTK 970, Louisville KY, hosted by Les Naiman, Sunday 27 Mar 2011 6 PM EST

>

Les Naiman Show

Atty Mario Apuzzo and CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) were on the Les Naiman radio show, WGTK 970 in Louisville KY, hosted by Les Naiman, on Sunday, 27 March 2011 at 6 p.m. EST. The subject will be the Obama eligibility issue and the recent statements by Donald Trump that Obama must release his long form birth certificate, if there is one in Hawaii.

Listen to it via PodCast at this link: http://lesnaimanshow.podbean.com/2011/03/27/the-les-naiman-show-032711/

Posted by:
CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

March 26, 2011

>President Dwight Eisenhower Had to File a Birth Certificate to Run for President – Unlike Obama, Ike had nothing to hide!

>Via Sonoran News;Ike needed birth certificate to run for president‘Ike had nothing to hide!’

BY LINDA BENTLEY – CAVE CREEK – Glen Fairclough, a reader from Salt Lake City, Utah, sent us an e-mail last week to express his gratitude for publishing the recent article regarding President Obama’s Kenyan birth certificate.

And, while going through digital images online of his hometown newspaper, the Deseret News and Telegram, Fairclough forwarded us a United Press wire article from the Oct. 2, 1952 edition he thought we would find interesting.

The article appeared on page 6A with a dateline of Sherman, Texas. It was headlined: “General’s birth certificate officially filed,” and stated, “A certificate recording Dwight Eisenhower’s birth in Denison on Oct. 14, 1890, was filed Wednesday [Oct. 1, 1952] in the Grayson County Clerk’s office. Read more

Read rest of the story via the link and for further information about Ike’s proven natural born Citizenship status upon his birth in Texas in Oct 1890 to two U.S. citizen parents, unlike Obama who claims he was born in Hawaii but whose father was a foreign national and was not even an immigrant to the USA. And also unlike Ike, Obama has relatives, African newspapers, and government officials in Kenya saying he was born there and not in the USA. Ike never had relatives and government officials in foreign countries stating repeatedly that he was born in their country. Thus, the logical justification to ask to see Obama’s original long form birth registration documents in Hawaii, and any amendments to same. This is logically needed to verify that he indeed was physically born there and not just had a false birth registration done in Hawaii via sworn affidavit of a birth at home with no independent witnesses and submitted by mail by his maternal grandmother who lived there in order to get U.S. Citizenship for her foreign born grandson. Birth registration fraud was easy in Hawaii in 1961 due to the very lax laws in the new state.

Regardless of the lack of claims of foreign birth about Eisenhower, Ike was still required to file a copy of his birth certificate with controlling legal authorities upon running for election as President. So Whoopi Goldberg, was it racist to ask Ike to file a certified paper copy of his birth certificate with controlling legal authorities in order to run for President. Ike wasn’t allowed to just show a picture of it on television. He had to provide a certified paper copy of his birth certificate to the authorities. What is racist about having to prove you are constitutionally eligible to run for President? What is racist about the rule of law of which our U.S. Constitution is the fundamental law of the land. Read more here: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/03/reminder-dwight-d-eisenhower-had-to.html

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

P.S. If Whoopi Goldberg needs another example of others being asked to show documents and birth certificates to prove they are eligible to run for President, she should read about the challenges made to John McCain’s natural born Citizen status in the 2008. John McCain was sued in NH by a man named Hollander charging he was not a natural born Citizen. The Senate Judiciary Committee chaired by Senator Leahy, and of which Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton were voting members, investigated McCain in response to citizen requests. He was required to show his paper certified copy of his birth certificate to them in executive session. But for similar requests in much larger numbers calling for the investigation of Obama’s eligibility, and with lawsuits filed charging Obama was not eligible, that was all ignored by the Democratic Party lead Senate. That is lack of due process and unequal protection under the law of land and the U.S. Constitution. So Whoopi Goldberg’s charges of racism on The View TV show are completely groundless and show her ignorance of history or her willingness to go to the lowest level of politics and debate, and shout and yell and act absurd on air … and play the race card and call and imply that anyone who questions Obama’s eligibility is a racist. See this blog post in early March 2008 by Professor Jonathan Turley questioning McCain’s eligiblity who along with articles in the New York Times started the investigation of John McCain under constitutional grounds which ultimately lead to the Senate investigation and resolution in April 2008: http://jonathanturley.org/2008/03/06/the-supreme-redux-is-john-mccain-ineligible-to-be-president/ . And this one: http://birthers.org/misc/FOMB.html
####

March 23, 2011

>May We See Your Real Birth Certificate, Mr. President?

>

May We See Your Real Birth Certificate, Mr. President?

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 22, 2011

WND in its recent story, Why Short Forms Fall Short, states that Washington D.C. and Virginia Passport Offices do not accept short-form birth certificates as acceptable items of proof of identify, but Hawaii does.

Joseph Farah reports: “I recently conducted a little experiment. I called three passport offices with the following apocryphal tale: I said I needed to apply for a passport but only had a short-form certification of live birth from Hawaii. Would that suffice? The three passport offices I contacted were in Hawaii, Washington, D.C., and Virginia.

Hawaii said “no problem.”

Washington and Virginia both said no way.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=277753

I checked the U.S. Department of State web site on this issue. The U.S. Department of State, in giving instructions to the public on how to apply for a U.S. passport, states that a birth certificate is one method of proof of identify. It then states:

“*A certified birth certificate has a registrar’s raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar’s office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes.”
http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html.

The U.S. Department of State also has this to say about birth certificates from Puerto Rico:

“As of October 30, 2010 the United States Department of State does not accept Puerto Rican birth certificates issued prior to July 1, 2010 as primary proof of citizenship for a U.S. passport.

The Puerto Rican government passed a law that went into effect on October 30, 2010, invalidating all Puerto Rican birth certificates issued prior to July 1, 2010. The law does not affect Puerto Rican born citizens who already have a U.S. passport. As of October 30, 2010 the Department of State only accepts Puerto Rican birth certificates issued on or after July 1, 2010 as primary evidence of U.S. citizenship.”
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=277753 .

And in New Jersey, the Department of Health and Senior Services says this regarding the reliability of some birth certificates which have been proven to be forgeries:

“Birth certificates previously issued by the Jersey City/Hudson County Office of Vital Statistics (with the raised seal from Hudson County):

• Are no longer accepted by the federal government when applying for a U.S. passport;

• May not be accepted by other federal agencies; and

• May not be accepted by the New Jersey Motor Vehicle Commission, depending on year of birth.”
http://www.state.nj.us/health/vital/jerseycity.shtml .

So, as we can see, birth certificates by themselves are not necessarily reliable pieces of evidence of where someone was born. That someone is registered as born in a certain place does not necessarily mean that the person was in fact born there. It is the corroborating information that is stated in the certificates or any other supporting evidence that gives one any reasonable degree of assurance that the birth event occurred as is represented in the document.

As the only proof of his birth place, Obama has presented a 2008 computer image (not a piece of paper) of an alleged 2007 Certification of Live Birth (COLB), which is a short-form birth certificate and not a long-form, hospital generated birth certificate. This computer image does not include the name of the birth hospital or the name and signature of the delivery doctor or of any other witness to the birth. The Hawaii Department of Health has publicly stated that Obama was born in Hawaii. But we have not seen any evidence to support their assertion. Even the two newspaper announcements of his birth in Hawaii are nothing more than a repeat of what someone allegedly told the Hawaii Department of Health in 1961 regarding Obama’s alleged birth in Hawaii. On the contrary, there is much evidence putting into serious doubt Obama’s claim that he was born in Hawaii. See this evidence at, A Catalog of Evidence – Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt that Putative President Obama Was Born in Hawaii, http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html.

Additionally, on July 4, 2010, Lucas Smith provided each member of Congress with his or her own personal copy of the Coast Province General Hospital Kenya Birth Certificate, bearing Certificate No. 32018, which shows that Obama was born on August 4, 1961, at the Coast Province General Hospital in “Mombasa. British Protectorate of Kenya.” On March 12, 2011, Mr. Smith called into the Hagmann-McLeod Report on CFP Radio, a radio show on which Commander Charles Kerchner and I were guests. I directly asked Mr. Smith if he is willing to testify under oath and under penalty of perjury before Congress as to how he obtained this birth certificate. He said that he has always been ready to do so. One may listen to the show via podcast at: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/cfp-radio/2011/03/13/hagmann-mcleod-report . Despite all this, Congress has not asked for any investigation into the authenticity of the Lucas Smith birth certificate. Nor has this Kenyan birth certificate yet been proven to be a forgery.

Obama’s short-form birth certificate, which states that it is only prima facie evidence of place of birth, is not only unreliable, but fails to adequately prove Obama’s place of birth in light of all this other conflicting evidence. Evidently, Obama’s internet-posted COLB has not convinced a great majority of Americans. A new poll and survey shows that 91% of Americans doubt Obama is constitutionally eligible to be President. In other words, only 9% believe Obama has adequately documented his eligibility to be President. See the recent WND story by Bob Unruh, entitled, “Shocking scientific poll on Obama’s eligibility” at http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=276865.

Obama is not only applying for a passport. Rather, he wants to be President and Commander in Chief of the United States. Is it not past time that Obama produce to the American people his certified long-form, hospital generated birth certificate from Hawaii or some other evidence showing that he and his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, were patients on August 4, 1961 in the hospital in which he claims he was born, Kapi’olani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital, now called Kapi’olani Medical Center for Women & Children? Is it not also past time that Congress honestly and thoroughly investigate Obama’s claim that he was born in Hawaii so that we can finally put this pesky issue to rest? Or are the powers that be expecting that Obama will not run for re-election in 2012?

Finally, if Congress is not going to honor its constitutional duty to protect the American people and the Constitution, than it is up to the States to do so. On the States’ constitutional power and duty to address presidential eligibility requirements, see “The States Have the Constitutional Power to Pass Legislation Prescribing Presidential Ballot Access Requirements Including Determining Whether a Candidate Meets the Eligibility Requirements of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5″, at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/03/states-have-constitutional-power-to.html .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 22, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.