Barack
Obama Is Ineligible to be President, For He Is Neither a “Natural Born Citizen”
Nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
Constitution”
“He
is not and cannot be an Article II ‘natural born Citizen’”
Attorney Mario Apuzzo
Sunday,
October 28, 2012
By
Attorney Mario Apuzzo
Note:
On October 28, Mario Apuzzo posted on his web site (www.puzo1.blogspot.com) the most thorough
and painstakingly-researched analysis of the “Natural Born Citizen” clause of
Article II
of the United States Constitution that has ever been produced. The length is
such that it is not feasible to reproduce the entire document, but the
Conclusion summarizes the significant points of the work sufficiently, and its
significance is of such extraordinary import to the nation, that every American
citizen should be aware of its content prior to voting in the presidential
election.
____________________________________________________________________________________
XI. CONCLUSION
A friendly alien Frenchman with his alien wife located in England and their son
born there had an allegiance or tie to the King which was strong enough under
English common law to make the alien parents “subjects” of the King and their
son a “natural born subject” of the King. Assuming those alien parents to be in
the United States and their child to be born here before Wong Kim Ark, under
American “common-law” and Congressional Acts, as confirmed in 1875 by the
unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor that allegiance and tie was not strong
enough to make the alien parents “citizens of the United States” or to make the
son a “natural born Citizen.” Minor (Minor v. Happersett) even stated that
“there have been doubts” whether that child was even a “citizen” (let alone a
“natural-born citizen”).
Our citizenship laws changed with the Fourteenth Amendment and its
interpretation and application by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). While the
U.S. domiciled and resident parents under American “common-law” and
Congressional Acts were still not “citizens of the United States,” under the
Fourteenth Amendment their son became a “citizen of the United States” from the
moment of birth, for the parents and their son at the moment of his birth were
held to be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States through their
being physically present on U.S. territory and thereby being obligated to obey
the laws of the United States. So, while under Wong Kim Ark the son became a
“citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth, with his parents not
being “citizens,” he did not become a “natural born Citizen,” which status
Minor explained was reserved only to the children born in the United States to
parents who were not only aliens but U.S. “citizens” at the time of the child’s
birth.
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 uses the clause, “natural born Citizen,” not
“born Citizen.” Wong Kim Ark had to decide whether Wong was a Fourteenth
Amendment "citizen of the United States" from the moment of birth or
what may be called a “born Citizen,” not whether he was a "natural born
Citizen," which according to Minor is not defined by our Constitution.
Minor looked to American "common-law" to define an Article II
"natural born Citizen." Wong Kim Ark looked to the English common law
to define a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States" from
the moment of birth (“born Citizen”).
Obama’s supporters have failed to demonstrate any contradiction in the
evidence and argument that I have presented here, i.e., that a “natural born
Citizen” is a child born in the United States to parents who were both U.S.
“citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. On the contrary, they are the
ones who have failed to provide any real historical and legal evidence to
support their position that a “natural born Citizen” is any child born a
“citizen of the United States,” which is not even the correct standard under
Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. They put forth an unsubstantiated historical
and legal position and hold it together with personal attacks and other
fallacious reasoning.
Today for presidential eligibility purposes, Article II still requires a
"natural born Citizen" and rejects a "citizen of the United States"
as the proper constitutional standard for a would-be president to meet in
order to be eligible for that office. In this connection, the Fourteenth
Amendment only produces a "citizen of the United States," which the
plain text of Article II shows is insufficient to be eligible to be President.
What this means is that one who is neither a “natural born Citizen” nor a
“Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this
Constitution, shall [not] be eligible to the Office of President.” Article II,
Section 1, Clause 5.
The Founders and Framers were subject from birth to the natural allegiance of
Great Britain. Having been naturalized by the Declaration of Independence and
by adhering to the American Revolution, they became “Citizens of the United
States,” but not “natural born Citizens.” They therefore grandfathered
themselves to be eligible to be President. But the grandfather clause has long
expired and now one has to be a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to be
President.
Obama, like the
Founders and Framers, was born subject from birth to the natural allegiance of
Great Britain. He therefore would need the grandfather clause to be eligible to
be President because like the Founders and Framers, he is not a “natural
born Citizen.” The difference for Obama is, however, that while the clause was
available to the Founders and Framers, it is not available to him. Obama, not
being a “natural born Citizen, is therefore not eligible to be President and
Commander in Chief of the Military.
As we have seen, the Founders and Framers inserted the "natural born
Citizen" clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 as part of presidential
eligibility for the nation's safety and preservation. Hence, the
"natural born Citizen" clause has a very specific constitutional
meaning in the context of presidential eligibility. The historical record and
U.S. Supreme Court case law convincingly demonstrate that that meaning is a
child born in the United States to parents who were U.S. "citizens"
at the time of the child's birth. That meaning does not and should not without
constitutional amendment be changed based on the allegation that we should not
prevent "good" people from becoming President. If our nation desires
to amend the clause so that more people may be eligible for President, then let
the people change the clause through national debate and by prescribed
constitutional amendment. But until that is done, and to be guided by the
wisdom of the Founders and Framers who gave us the clause for the purpose of self-preservation,
the clause should be enforced the way the Founders and Framers so intended it
to be.
Even if Obama were born in Hawaii, he is still not eligible to be President.
A “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the U.S. or its jurisdictional equivalent
to a U.S. citizen father and mother. Emerich de Vattel, The Law of Nations,
Sec. 212-217 (1758); Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)
(to name just a few sources). It is reported that Obama was born to Stanley Ann
Dunham and Barack H. Obama. While his mother was a U.S. “citizen,” under the
British Nationality Act 1948, Obama Sr. was a British citizen and never a U.S.
domiciliary or legal permanent resident let alone a U.S. citizen. Under that
same British Act, Obama himself was also born a British citizen by descent from
his father. Under such birth circumstances, before the Fourteenth Amendment was
adopted, Minor informed that under the “common-law” with which the Framers were
familiar, Obama would have been an “alien or foreigner.” Minor also explained
that “there have been doubts” whether Obama would even have been a “citizen of
the United States” (let alone a “natural born Citizen”).
Under the Fourteenth
Amendment, as interpreted and applied by Wong Kim Ark, he can be a Fourteenth
Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth who can be born with dual and
conflicting allegiances and loyalties. But he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen,” for a “natural born
Citizen,” being the presidential citizenship standard, is born only subject to
the allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States and as such is born with
no political, military, legal, or moral obligations to any foreign power nor
can any foreign power expect any. Such allegiance, attachment, and loyalty
to the U.S. from birth are what the Founders and Framers expected of all future
presidents and commanders in chief of our military. Indeed, the Founders and
Framers demanded that a would-be President, born after the adoption of the
Constitution, be born with sole allegiance to and unity of citizenship in the
United States.
Barack Obama, being born to a non-U.S. “citizen” father, if born in Hawaii,
is only a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from the time of
his birth in 1961, but not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” It simply
is not humanly possible for Obama to be a “Citizen of the United States, at the
time of the Adoption of this Constitution” which was 1787. Under Article II, he
must therefore be a “natural born Citizen” if he wants to be eligible to be
President. But under the well-settled definition of a “natural born Citizen” as
confirmed by both Minor and Wong Kim Ark, Obama is not a “natural born
Citizen.” Hence,
being neither a “natural born Citizen” nor a “Citizen of the United States, at
the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” Obama is not constitutionally
eligible under Article II to be President and Commander in Chief of the
Military.
Should we as a nation be concerned that Obama is not a “natural born
Citizen?” First, the “natural born Citizen” clause is part of the supreme
law of the land which can be changed only by constitutional amendment. Second,
The Founders and Framers understood that a nation’s first duty is
self-preservation and survival. The Founders and Framers had personally
witnessed the power and influence of oppression from abroad. They inserted
the “natural born Citizen” clause into presidential eligibility to assure that
the nation’s civil and military leader would be forever freed from such
influence and be attached from birth to the new American republican ideals and
values of life, liberty, and property. Indeed, the “natural-born citizen”
clause was designed to assure that the President and Commander in Chief of the
Military would be born and presumably be raised by his or her parents with
unwavering allegiance only to the United States.
The purpose of the
clause was to make sure that the President served only the interests of the
American people and not, whether done consciously or unconsciously, those of
some foreign nation or interest, however defined. Third, the United
States is a constitutional republic which practices representative democracy.
This means that the people, who are the ultimate sovereigns and who hold the
ultimate power over their own destinies and pursuit of happiness, have given
part of that power to representatives who will govern over them for the purpose
of providing the people the most protection possible. The “natural born
Citizen” clause is intended to give the people as best it can assurance that
their President will act in their best interests. Being a requirement of
presidential eligibility involving allegiance and citizenship, it is a national
security measure. It is both inclusive and exclusive in absolute terms. The
“natural born Citizen” clause therefore provides strong protection to our
nation’s republican and democratic form of government. It provides protection from
monarchial, foreign, and radical influence, in whatever forms they may take.
This means that the clause protects the life, liberty, property, safety,
security, and tranquility of every U.S. “citizen” and resident.
I will now leave you with a story from ancient Roman history which
specifically speaks about the love and loyalty that a military general, a
“natural born citizen” of Rome, had for his country and how it affected his
ability to command his armies in time of war.
The clause “natural
born Citizen” appears in, 3 The Roman Antiquities of Dionysius
Halicarnassensis, Book VIII, p. 358 (Edward Spelman trans. London 1758). I
first learned of this source from John Woodman at his blog. The clause appears
in a story involving Marcius Coriolanus who had been banished by his Roman
“fellow-citizens” for what they said was plotting tyranny. Marcius, a former
Roman general, takes revenge on Rome. He convinces a Volsci general, Tullus
Attius, to give him the command of the Volsci, who he leads on a tour of conquest
of Roman cities and territories. At the end, Marcius is going to make his final
push into the city of Rome and conquer her. Roman ambassadors were sent to
speak to Marcius to get him to reconsider his planned war on Rome. Id. at 340.
He refuses to reconsider and tells them to brace for war. Id. at 342.
Then the wives of the
Roman ambassadors intervene. Id. They go to Marcius’ mother, Veturia, and his wife,
Volumnia, both Roman citizens, and plead with them to go to and convince their
son and husband not to attack “his country.” Id. at 343. At the request of the
women, Venturia “promised to undertake the embassy in favor of her country” and
goes to her son. Id. at 349. She tells him that she understands that the
Volsci have “communicated to you all the advantages which their natural born
citizens are entitled to.” Id. at 358. But she adds that he has repaid his
debt to his adopted people and that he cannot attack and shed the blood of his
“fellow-citizens.” Id. at 359. She pleads with him that he cannot make war
against his “fellow-citizens” and his country. Id. She tells him of his “unjust
hatred you bear to your country.”
She invokes the law of
nature and says:
"But if you are irreconcilable to her [his country] grant this honor and
favor to me, from whom you have received benefits not of the least value which
none else can claim, and such are of the greatest consideration and esteem, and
with which you have acquired everything else you are possessed of, I mean, your
body, and your mind: These are debts you owe to me, which no place, no time can
over deprive me of; neither can the favors of the Volsci, or of all the rest of
mankind, however extensive, so far prevail, as efface, and surpass, the rights
of nature; but you will be ever mine; and you will owe to me, preferably to all
others, the favor of life, and you will oblige me in everything I desire,
without alleging any excuse: For this is a right, which the law of nature has
prescribed to all, who partake of sense, and reason. Confiding in this law,
Marcius, my son, I beg of you not to make war upon your country; and, if you
offer violence, I oppose you: Either, therefore, first, sacrifice with your own
hand to the Furies your mother, who opposes you, and, then, begin the war
against your county; or, trembling at the crime of parricide, yield to your
mother, and grant, my son, this favor willingly. Supported and assisted by this
law, which no time has ever repealed, I do not think fit, Marcius, to be alone
deprived by you of the honors I am entitled to under it. But, to omit this law,
remember the good offices you have received from me, and consider how many, and
how great they are: You were left an orphan by your father, and an infant, when
I took you under my care; for your sake, I continued a widow, and underwent the
trouble of bringing you up, showing myself not only a mother to you but also a
father, a nurse, a [363] sister, and everything, that is most endearing.”
Id. at 361-63. Veturia eventually convinces Marcius to spare his country. He
tells his mother, “You have saved your country, but ruined me your pious, and
affectionate son.” But Marcius is then killed by angry Volsci for not
completing the capture of Rome.
http://books.google.com/books?id=wwAMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA358&dq=The+Roman+Antiquities+of+Dionysius+Halicarnassensis+natural+born+citizen&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iBS_T8blCIij2QX_v-CACg&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=natural%20born%20&f=false
.
What is most fitting
about this Roman story is that it demonstrates the effects upon a military
leader of divided national loyalties caused by birth circumstances and family.
It shows how the
natural love of and attachment to parent and country causes Marcius, a “natural
born citizen” of Rome, to abandon his military command which he held for the
benefit of another country and not to attack and conquer Rome, a country that
had become the political enemy but for which he had unbreakable love and
attachment from the tie and bond of the law of nature.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
October 28, 2012
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####
Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
P.S. There have been numerous cases that have ruled on one issue or another in
a case somehow involving Obama’s eligibility to be President. Most of these
cases have been dismissed for lack of standing, jurisdiction, ripeness,
mootness, political question, or for some other procedural problem.
A complete list of
these cases as of October 18, 2012 may be found at:
Many of these cases
have also involved state ballot challenges, with administrative and law courts
not reaching the question of the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” Only a
handful of these cases have reached the merits of the question of what is an
Article II “natural born Citizen” and whether Obama meets that definition. Of
these merits cases, they have mistakenly relied upon U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,
which is only a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” case and
not an Article II “natural born Citizen” case, and ruled while applying the
wrong constitutional standard, that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.”
We have not seen any
written opinions by any State Supreme Court or from the U.S. Supreme Court. The
U.S. Supreme Court has refused to hear any of the cases filed there, denying
all petitions for a writ of certiorari without comment.
Also, note that “tesibria”, as virtually all other Obama supporters, mislead
the public regarding Kerchner v. Obama which I filed in 2009 in the Federal
Court in New Jersey. First, the case was dismissed for lack of standing
which she does not note. This means that the court never reached the issue
of what is a “natural born Citizen.” Second, she notes that the Third
Circuit “taxed costs,” like that is supposed to be an indication of something
sinister, and issued a show cause order for defense litigation damages (she
calls them “sanctions”), but fails to note that the court discharged the order
without assessing any such damages.
rincess Juliana International Airport (PJIA) has direct flights to Paris, Amsterdam, Fort Lauderdale, New York, Atlanta, Miami, and Canada.
