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

April 17, 2011

>Obama Has Made the United States and Its Leaders the Laughing Stock of the World

>

Obama Has Made the United States and Its Leaders the Laughing Stock of the World

by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 16, 2011


I recently reported that Arizona has become the first state in the nation to pass a vetting and eligibility bill covering all federal and state candidates for public office, including those vying for the office of President. The bill now goes to Governor Jan Brewer for her signature. If she does not sign it, the bill will also become law. The only way the bill will not become law is if she vetoes it. She has until Thursday to act.

The April 16 edition of The Arizona Republic has a series of articles regarding the Arizona eligibility bill. The lead article on the front page is entitled, “Arizona’s ‘Birther’ Bill Faces Legal Challenges.” In the article, Professor Paul Bender, an Arizona State University constitutional law professor, is quoted as saying the bill is unconstitutional because: “You can’t have 50 states using 50 different standards to determine whether the presidential standards are met.” Read more: http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/2011/04/16/20110416arizona-birther-bill-legal-challenges.html#ixzz1Jjh3cUKL

I do not agree with Professor Bender. I have covered this issue in my article entitled, 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, which can be read at: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/03/states-have-constitutional-power-to.html. Arizona is not adding any additional standard to the Constitutional presidential eligibility requirement. Rather, it is only enforcing the ones that are already spelled out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, i.e., a “natural born Citizen,” 35 years old, and a resident for 14 years. That a candidate presents proof of place and date of birth in order to satisfy the “natural born Citizen” and 35-years-old age requirements is not only reasonable but also necessary and proper. Such a requirement does not change the constitutional standard. In fact, Arizona could also ask for information on the citizenship of the candidate’s parents. Apart that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to U.S. citizen parents, let us not forget that one of the reasons the U.S. Senate voted in Senate Resolution 511 that John McCain was a “natural born Citizen” is because he was born to U.S. citizen parents.

So let us review the position of Obama’s enablers regarding addressing Obama’s eligibility to be President:

They tell us that the courts have no jurisdiction over the matter.

They tell us that no one among the people, including candidates, has standing to bring any case in court to protect themselves regarding whether their President and Commander in Chief, who has a constitutional duty to protect their lives, liberty, and property, is a “natural born Citizen.”

They concede that a person must be a “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President, but then add that Obama has a right to privacy over his birth certificate. It just so conveniently happens that this so-called right to privacy prevents the people from learning whether he really is a “natural born Citizen.”

Congress tells us that the courts have resolved the problem, even though no court has ever ruled on the merits of the question but rather dismissed most of the eligibility law suits because of standing.

The courts tell us that they have no jurisdiction and that Congress should have resolve the problem and in default thereof the people have to resolve the constitutional question of whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen” in the voting booth.

Dr. Chiyome Fukino, the former Director of the Hawaii Department of Health, has recently told us after almost three years that she has seen in the past Obama’s real birth certificate. She recently told us exactly where it is located in the Hawaii Department of Health offices. Even though Dr. Fukino knows that the real birth certificate is “located in a bound volume in a file cabinet on the first floor of the state Department of Health,” and despite being the Governor of the State of Hawaii, Abercrombie could not find it when recently he went looking for it. Even Tim Adams, former Hawaii election clerk, said that during the 2008 election campaign, no one could find Obama’s real birth certificate. Hence, no current Hawaii official has seen the real birth certificate and only one person in the whole world has done so in the past. For more comment on Dr. Fukino, see my article entitled, An Analysis of the Current Revelations of Hawaii’s Dr. Chiyome Fukino to NBC News Regarding Obama’s Place of Birth, at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/04/analysis-of-current-revelations-of.html.

Hawaii tells us that no one can get a copy of Obama’s real birth certificate, including Obama himself. The reason they give is that Hawaii simply does not provide such copies anymore.

Obama, our Commander in Chief of the Military, would rather send one of his highly decorated military officers, LTC Terry Lakin, who acted out of duty to the Constitution, to federal prison and cause him to lose military career, pay, and pension rather than show his real birth certificate.

And let us not forget our illustrious media which has been telling us that Obama has long since released to the world his birth certificate even though Governor Abercrombie and the 2008 election officials could not find it and Dr. Fukino is the only person in the world who allegedly saw Obama’s real birth certificate.

Even though the Constitution clearly states that a presidential candidate must be a “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President, lawmakers in several states have not been able to pass simple, common sense legislation that requires that candidates show proof of citizenship.

Now some states like Arizona, which have decided to take the common sense challenge, are attempting to address this issue and constitutional law Professor Bender tells us that what it is attempting to do is unconstitutional because it has added to the constitutional eligibility requirements by having the nerve to ask for proof that the presidential candidate is a “natural born Citizen,” 35 years old, and a 14-year resident of the U.S., which we all know are constitutional eligibility requirements spelled out in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of that very same Constitution.

And if you should complain about any of this, you are a racist.

We can thank Obama for making the United States and our leaders the laughing stock of the world.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 16, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

Advertisements

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 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

March 15, 2011

>Atty Mario Apuzzo & CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) were guests on the Howie Mandel Radio Show hosted by Jim ‘Howie’ Mandel – Tues 15 Mar 2011, 10:00 ET

>Atty Mario Apuzzo & CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) were guests on the Howie Mandel Radio Show hosted by Jim ‘Howie’ Mandel – Tues 15 March 2011, 10:00 p.m. ET. The subject will be the Obama eligibility issue and states’ rights issues in trying to pass Presidential Eligibility Assurance Acts and get them into effect before the 2012 primary and general election cycle. The Republican Party leadership in the State of GA is blocking the passage of a Presidential Eligibility Act to properly vet candidates in future elections for compliance to Article II, Section 1, the presidential eligibility clause. Why are the Republican leaders of the GA House of Reps blocking a simple law to support and defend a part of our U.S. Constitution given that Congress, the Courts, and the media have done nothing? Why are all our institutions throwing the Constitution under the bus and continuing to cover up for Obama’s refusal to prove his true legal citizenship identity beyond reason doubt which he has not done to 2/3 of the American people. That issue and more will be discussed. Tune in.

Listen to the show at this link: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/howieunveilsgodsshield/2011/03/16/what-is-going-on-in-the-world-today

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

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.