Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Letter to Mark Levin, Esq., through Landmark Legal

November 24, 2013

1) Fogbow —  Here is more fodder for your insulting commentary. You attack my character and curriculum vitae but cannot touch my citation of history and law. Hmmm. I admit, I failed to enter law school; that was due to succumbing to Guillain-Barre’, which 8 years later I am still recovering from. What is your excuse?

2) On a recent radio broadcast, attorney Mark Levin lambasted so-called ‘birthers’ in his analysis of why Ted Cruz was eligible to the presidency. The broadcast was particularly disturbing because of the tone of voice Levin took, and his acquittal of the subject admitting no discussion or debate, “Case Closed,” so to speak.

The following is my formal response to conservative pundit and activist, Mark Levin:

Re:      Mark Levin’s mistaken citation of the 1940 Aliens and Nationality Act

 

Sirs:

Thomas Jefferson advised reading the constitution as originally constructed.[1] Therefore, Mr. Levin’s reliance on the 1940 Act was fatally flawed; as one must go back to nationality law as the framers knew it.

 

There were two controlling statutes at the time of the writing of Article II, i.e., jurisdiction over a child born of a British father on U.S. soil. According to both the 1772 British Nationality Act and the First Uniform Naturalization Act of 1790, et seq 1855, if Obama was born in the United  States in the time of the framers, he would not be a U.S. citizen, let alone a natural born one.

 

There was no conflict between the two laws; Obama would be a British subject, just as he admitted in his biographies.

 

Place of birth citizenship has roots in an obscure 1608 common law case, but had no place in law governing who was a U.S. citizen at birth, let alone a natural born citizen.[2] There is only one Supreme Court case providing insight into natural born citizenship as judicial notice, Minor vs. Happersett.[3]

 

Therefore, Obama, regardless of the marital status of his U.S. citizen mother, required a U.S. citizen father to be a natural born citizen.

 

True, the abandonment of the father triggered provisions in modern nationality law making Obama a ‘citizen at birth,’ however; the maiden nationality of the wife or mother had no contribution to the nationality of the child until the 1920s and 1930s.

 

The Cause of Our National Cognitive Dissonance

 

During one of Mr. Levin’s radio shows, he disagreed that congress has plenary power over naturalization law. Yet, that is what Art I, Sec 8 assigns.

 

Courts have assumed, unconstitutionally, jurisdiction over naturalization cases. The most tragic was Wong Kim Ark in which the 1898 court ignored 108-years of existing nationality law and wrote new law, in direct conflict with existing law and a gross misinterpretation of the 14th Amendment.

 

Wong Kim Ark created, by legislation from the bench, a new, unstatutory standard of ‘born in the United   States’ citizenship, regardless of the nationality, alienage, or immigration status of the parents. It ignored the legislative history of the 14th Amendment and its preamble more accurately defining the ‘under the jurisdiction’ clause as “born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power,’ e.g., freed negro slaves had no nationality. Their children had no nationality through either jus solis or sanquinis. (See, the 1866 Civil Rights Act.)

 

Another case was Schneiderman (1944) in which the court ignored a challenge to a communist activist’s naturalization that was in direct violation of 8 U.S.C. 1424. The court continued asserting its jurisdiction over naturalization and nationality law through ‘cases and controversies,’ electing to ignore the congress. This continues today in such cases as Plyler vs Doe which ignored Texas law.

 

How to Stop Obama

 

Just before the release of Dr. Jerome Corsi’s book, ‘Where’s the Birth Certificate,’ whitehouse.gov published a forged PDF birth certificate. That the document was altered, in itself, was a violation of federal law. The evidence has been made public by law enforcement investigators. As a photographer, my Adobe software instantly revealed ‘histories’ of manipulation of the PDF, carelessly left in the file by the White House. A mere ‘flattening’ of the image would have erased the art histories of manipulation.

 

Nevertheless, the originalist perception of ‘natural born citizen’ was not merely ‘born on U.S. soil.’ Records from that period reveal the framers discriminating between Alexander Hamilton’s ‘born a citizen’ versus John Jay’s term of art, ‘natural born citizen’ as used in Article II.

 

I have this debated with U.S. congressmen, and my conclusion is that because they are trained as lawyers, they kowtow to judicial precedent over legislative history. The ‘birther’ issue is powerful, nonetheless. It was the way to stop Obama in the first place, and it has the added benefit of repairing our broken immigration system. All congress has to do is revise 8 U.S.C. 1401 with the legislative history of the 14th Amendment[4] and Obama’s presidency is erased, and our borders re-established.

 

Sincerely, [etc.]


[1] “On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823

[2] See ‘The Case of Mr. Smith,’ in which Madison prevailed on the principle of place of birth, but Dr. Ramsey’s treatise on citizenship at birth was the basis for the 1790 First Uniform Naturalization Act. 22 May 1789, Madison’s Papers 12:179–82

[3] “This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that “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.” Minor vs. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

 

Advertisements

Gingrich, Palestine, Obama and the Menorah

December 11, 2011

In 167 B.C., the Jews revolted under the leadership of the Maccabeans and restored Jewish control of Israel and the Temple’s ransacked interior, lighting the oil lamp called the‘shamash’ in the sanctuary. This is the origin of the Jewish holiday of Hannukah; a restoration of Israel and its capital city, Jerusalem.

The Plains of Philistia were historically the hills of Gaza, the namesake of Israel’s ancient enemies, the Philistines. Hadrian called the post-70 AD Israel Palaestina as an insult to the routed Jewish population.

Seven centuries later the region came under Muslim domination and under the Turkish Ottoman Empire fell during WWI. It was then that Great Britain formulated the 1922 Palestine Mandate, reformulating some Arab land to historic Israeli borders and giving the rest of the region to Jordan.

From 1922 to 1947, the national borders of what is now Israel were defined under British Mandate and called Palestine . . . about 64% of the population were Arabs. In 1948, the region’s government was organized as a Jewish state, Israel . . . not Palestine.

Arabs out-populated the Jews 2:1 in 1947 so the Arabs were offered their own state (the first two-state solution), plus the right for a large number to live in Israel. The Arabs refused to make any concessions and attacked the hodge-podge Israeli lands in 1948. That war, and 1967’s, helped Israel create contiguous and defensible borders.

25-years . . . that is as long as Palestine existed as a national entity under British rule, not Palestinian rule. After thousands of years of Jewish heritage, going back to 1500-years before the Birth of Christ, Israel was restored to a largely homeless people who suffered millions of lives brutally lost in the European holocaust.

Recall also that the Arabs sided with Nazi Germany and were part of the losing side in WWII. Indeed, Hitler’s‘Mein Kampf’ is still a best-seller in the region.

A so-called ‘Palestinian’ claim to conquered lands is a very thin stretch indeed.

In a Dutch newspaper interview, PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein  said: “The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian  state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel  for our Arab unity. In reality, today, there is no difference between  Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical  reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since  Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct  Palestinian people to oppose Zionism.” ‘Trau’ (March 31, 1977)

The ‘balkanization’ by ‘Palestinians’ of Israel is a military tactic using an oppressed and violent population to undermine a sovereign nation. From 1.2 million Arabs in 1947, the Arab-Palestinian population has matched Israel’s Jewish population, now each at about 5 million.

The Arabs are intent on destroying Israel, but the little nation is holding on . . . something to remember with Hanukkah in two weeks and Newt Gingrich’s comments last week. Barack Hussein Obama may have ceremonially lit a traditional Temple Menorah in anticipation of Hanukkah, but the ‘shamash’ of Israel’s very existence is struggling, by miracle, to stay lit.

The critics got it wrong lambasting Obama for lighting a temple Menorah . . . the lighting of that symbolic temple artifact on Hannukah from the ‘shamash’ candle relives the struggle of 1948, if not 167 BC, and the fight that continues to preserve Israel. It doesn’t matter Obama did not formally participate on the correct day.

The Transition from Jus Soli — Obama NOT a Natural Born Citizen

October 18, 2011

Why Challenging Wong Kim Ark/14th Amendment Soil Citizenship is Essential, and Critical to the Question of Obama’s Article II Eligibility

Ask anyone, from average citizen to presidential candidate, and they will tell you birth on U.S. soil is all that is required to become a citizen at birth. They will also agree if you suggest that a citizen at birth is the same thing as a ‘natural born citizen.’

If pressed further, they will cite the 14th Amendment’s ‘born in the United States’ clause.

This blog article proves them WRONG.

The 14th Amendment’s “born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause was adapted directly from the 1866 Civil Rights Act as applying to children of black slaves emancipated by proclamation and the successful outcome of the Civil War. As property, slaves had no nationality and therefore their children were also stateless. The 14th Amendment and the 1866 Civil Rights Act guaranteed equal rights of U.S. citizenship by recognizing children of slaves and former slaves born on U.S. soil were “not subject to any foreign power,” and therefore solely ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States.  

According to existing U.S. naturalization law, from 1790 through 1855, minor children of aliens were not U.S. citizens until their parents naturalized, i.e., renounced foreign jurisdiction over their nationality. (Citation omitted. See previous blogs for full text of law.)

However, in 1898 Wong Kim Ark misinterpreted that clause and inserted feudal English law as adjudicated in the 1608 Calvin’s Case, and practiced as a general principle by the American colonies until their First Uniform Naturalization Act of 1790 legislated in the first Congress of the United States.

The ‘soil birthright’ of citizenship declared by Wong Kim Ark (by ignoring the effect ‘under the jurisdiction thereof’ has on nationality law) created our illegal immigration and chain migration, a problem to such an extent that illegal immigration has become the de facto method of immigration. Legal immigration statistics in 2010 show only 1.04 million Legal Permanent Residents[1] on the road to naturalization. In comparison, illegal immigration has been estimated to be 13 million in 2000, increasing 500,000 annually.

Conclusion:  The Wong Kim Ark decision destroyed U.S. naturalization law through violation of constitutional law, jurisprudence, and existing legislated act, thus creating the illegal immigration problem. Chain migration out of illegal immigration is the de facto method; legal immigration practically extinct. Wong Kim Ark[2] is followed law, but invalid and must be repealed.

It is also why most Americans and ‘experts’ automatically think Obama is a ‘natural born citizen’ merely by his claim of Hawaiian birth. 

The Transition from Jus Soli

For over a century, the American colonies were limited to children born on their soil being natural born subjects under the British monarch. From ancient times, jus soli was the eternal allegiance from birth of a child to the protection, ‘within ligeance,’ of the King.

However, with the Magna Carta (1200s), permanent allegiance from birth was disavowed, and the right of children of subjects born outside British territory to be natural born British subjects children was provided by law as far back as 1350.

The 1772 British Nationality Act declared children born of British subjects outside the ‘ligeance’ of the crown be natural born subjects;[3] and that is the law that we must apply to Obama’s birth circumstances. (See quotes below on ‘originalist’ interpretation of the constitution.)

Natural Born Citizen in U.S. Law

The term of art, Natural Born Citizen, appears in the constitution once, as applied to elements of qualifications of eligibility of a presidential candidate. Similarly, the term of art appeared only once in a Supreme Court holding, defining it ‘without doubt’ as children born of two U.S. citizens.[4]

Unfortunately, the term of art ‘natural born citizen’ has become ‘idiomatic’ with a meaning diluted by both time and judicial error, as merely born in the United States. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison warned of such error:

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed. –Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823

In a letter to Henry Lee on June 25, 1824, James Madison wrote:

. . . I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution.

Madison continued, acknowledging the “changes to which the words and phrases of all living languages are constantly subject”, he stated:

What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.

Born, or Naturalized?

Under U.S. law, a citizen at birth may be solely of U.S. citizenship (natural born citizen), or a 14th Amendment citizen at birth as interpreted by Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898). The first is a citizen born. The second is naturalized because the alien nationality of one or both parents must be removed by application of the Aliens and Nationality Act, as revised after 1855.

Nevertheless, Wong Kim Ark did not, nor could not, revise Article II’s natural born citizen clause, nor the common knowledge of the framers as to what constituted a ‘natural born citizen,’ or what laws created a British natural born subject if born on U.S. soil.

Therefore, there is no valid interpretation of law that makes Barack Hussein Obama, II a natural born citizen as intended by the U.S. Constitution, Article II, Sec. I, Clause 5.

The Civil Rights Act became a law April 9, 1866 (14 Stat. 27, c. 31), and provided:

That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.

And this was reenacted June 22, 1874, in the Revised Statutes, section 1992.

The words “not subject to any foreign power” do not, in themselves, refer to mere territorial jurisdiction, for the persons referred to are persons born in the United States. All such persons are undoubtedly subject to the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, and yet the act concedes that nevertheless they may be subject to the political jurisdiction of a foreign government. In other words, by the terms of the act, all persons born in the United States, and not owing allegiance to any foreign power, are citizens.


[2] Wong Kim Ark (1898) is followed law, but in conflict with precedent in Minor vs. Happersett  (1875) as well as legislated act, if not the 14th Amendment itself, specifically ignoring the ‘jurisdiction’ clause, and Sec. 5 reserving enforcement of provisions of the amendment by congress, not the judiciary.

[3]That all Persons born, or who hereafter shall be born, out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, whose Fathers were or shall be, by virtue of a Statute made in the Fourth Year of King George the Second, to explain a Clause in an Act made in the Seventh Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Anne, for naturalizing Foreign Protestants, which relates to the natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, intitled to all the Rights and Privileges of natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England or of Great Britain, shall and may be adjudged and taken to be, and are hereby declared and enacted to be, natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever, as if he and they had been and were born in this Kingdom . . .” British Nationality Act, 1772, 1772 (13 Geo. 3) C A P. XXI

[4] “This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it providesthat “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.” Minor vs. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)

OBAMA INTENTIONALLY DESTROYING THE U.S. ECONOMY AND CURRENCY

August 7, 2011

. . . or, a Tea Party accusation of Obama’s ‘Economic Terrorism.’

Update — Sept 5, 2011  http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/09/05/jimmy_hoffa_at_obama_event_on_gop_lets_take_these_son_of_bitches_out.html

‘Our lowering of the rating was prompted by our view on the rising public debt burden and our  perception of greater policymaking uncertainty’  Standard & Poor’s | Ratings Direct on the Global Credit Portal | August 5, 2011

The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration recently agreed
to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government’s medium-term debt dynamics.

More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking
and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011.

“[F]urther near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process. We also believe that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the Administration agreed to this week falls short of the amount that we believe is necessary to stabilize the general government debt burden by the middle of the decade.”

S& P side-stepped blaming one side of the House, or the other, only identifying the lack of “effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions.”

However, the Obama Administration knew what to do, they just refused to do it. The ‘criteria’ relied on by S&P is a published, public document, cited as “Sovereign Government Rating Methodology and Assumptions,” June 30, 2011. Barack Hussein Obama and Tim Geithner ignored it, adding fuel to the fire by announcing a third round of ‘Quantitative Easing,’ or QE3. No, it is not a glamorous ocean cruise, but an intentional devaluing of the dollar; a further ignoring of warnings of the ratings agencies and guaranteed to endanger the
status of the dollar as a world reserve currency.

Update — August 9, 2011   Experts theorize that George Soros influenced Obama to allow the downgrade scenario so he could leverage, without risk, shorting the U.S. markets and currency. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023809/Did-George-Soros-win-10-1-return-S-Ps-US-credit-rating-downgrade.html

Update — August 9, 2011   At the end of this  article, I cite the funding for Obama’s ‘army.’ In summary, Obama has set up a scenario of the ‘TAXED’ versus the ‘ENTITLED,’ (Prolotariate versus the Bourgeoisies?) . See http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023874/London-riots-Cameron-orders-16k-officers-regain-control-police-use-plastic-bullets.html . . . I strongly urge property owners and those who travel to carry a firearm, and have plenty of ammunition . . . in case you are faced with a mob.

Timeline of Downgrade

April 5, 2011

Congress proposes up to $6 trillion in spending cuts, primarily addressing out of control Medicare and defunding Obamacare. The
Democrats decry benefits limited to the poor while the ‘rich’ are immune from increase taxation.

April 18, 2011   

Mon Apr 18, 20116:20pm EDT

NEW YORK(Reuters) – Standard & Poor’s threatened Monday to downgrade the United States’ prized AAA credit rating unless the Obama administration and Congress find a way to slash the yawning federal budget deficit within two years. S&P . . . slapped a negative outlook on the country’s top-notch credit rating and said there’s at least a one-in-three chance that it could eventually cut it.

July 15, 2011

Cut, Cap and Balance Act

Cut $111 billion in 2012

Cap percentage of spending to 22.5% of GDP and eventually 19.9%. Note, this week our spending reached 100% of GDP, an unsustainable and dangerous level.

Balance — The Act required congressional action on a Balanced Budget Amendment

The Obama administration refused to consider the bill, Senate Majority Leader Reid ‘tabling’ the bill denying debate. The Obama
administration refused to accept cuts in spending, demanding taxing the ‘rich’and every entity, and refusing to renew the Bush tax cuts in 2013.

July 28, 2011

Mack Penny Plan — Cuts the ‘baseline’ spending increases of federal spending to 0%, while cutting spending 1% per year until the budget balanced, estimated to be seven years.

August 2, 2011

With every Republican House bill preemptively denied by the Democratic Senate and the White House, House Speaker Boehner
meets with Democrats at the White House to cobble together a compromise to prevent a discretionary ‘shutting down’ of the government, considered inadequate under S&P criteria.

August 6, 2011

S&P announces the cut in U.S. credit-worthiness from AAA to AA+, with warnings of further downgrade if the government refuses to make cuts according to their international ratings criteria.

Conclusion:

The Republican congress made repeated attempts to meet S&P criteria; the Obama administration blocked it, demanding debt hikes and tax increases.

Who is to blame?

Call it Ideology or political differences, the ignoring of the rating agency’s warnings was intentional and negligent. It is, in my opinion, an Impeachable offense.

Why does Obama desperately need to keep spending?

Remember Obama’s campaign promise of a citizen force of volunteers equal in equipage and funding to the regular army?

One side of the battle line are the taxed . . . the other side are those untaxed and receiving entitlements. Illegal aliens, their ‘border baby’ citizen children, and the heavily unemployed black youth . . . A.C.C.E. (formerly ACORN), and Medicare rip-offs . . . note the black pack
attacks on whites only at the Wisconsin State Fair, and the August 7, 2011 riots burning down Tottingham, England after a black gang-banger was killed by police after he shot at them.

Here is the funding Obama desperately needs, built into our welfare and unemployment payouts, plus this section of Obamacare:

Patient Protection Affordable Care Act – Sec. 5210. Establishing a Ready Reserve Corps.

Subtitle D–Enhancing Health Care Workforce Education and
Training

See the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act, page 1312:

SEC. 5210. ESTABLISHING A READY RESERVE CORPS.

Section 203 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 204)
is amended to read as follows:

SEC. 203. COMMISSIONED CORPS AND READY RESERVE CORPS.

(a) ESTABLISHMENT–

(1) IN GENERAL.–here shall be in the Service a commissioned  Regular Corps and a Ready Reserve Corps for service in time of national
emergency.

(2) REQUIREMENT.–All commissioned officers shall be citizens  of the United States and  shall be appointed without regard to the civil-service laws and compensated without regard to the Classification Act 2 of 1923, as amended.

(3) APPOINTMENT.–Commissioned officers of the Ready  Reserve Corps shall be appointed by the President and
commissioned officers of the Regular Corps shall be appointed by the President  with the advice and consent of the Senate.

(4) ACTIVE DUTY.–Commissioned officers of the Ready  Reserve Corps shall at all times be subject to call to active duty by the  Surgeon General, including active duty for the purpose of  training.

(5) WARRANT  OFFICERS.–Warrant officers may be appointed to the Service for the purpose of  providing support to the health and delivery systems maintained by the Service  and any warrant officer appointed to the Service shall be considered for  purposes of this Act and title 37, United States Code, to be a commissioned  officer within the Commissioned Corps of the Service.

(b) ASSIMILATING RESERVE CORP OFFICERS INTO THE REGULAR  CORPS.—Effective on the date of enactment of the Affordable Health Choices Act,  all individuals classified as officers in the Reserve Corps under this section  (as such section existed on the day before the date of enactment of such Act) and serving on active duty shall be deemed to be commissioned officers of the  Regular Corps.

(c) PURPOSE AND USE OF READY RESERVE.– (1) PURPOSE.–The purpose of the Ready Reserve Corps is to
fulfill the need to have additional Commissioned Corps personnel available on  short notice (similar to the uniformed service’s reserve program) to assist  regular Commissioned Corps personnel to meet both routine public health and  emergency response missions.

(2) USES.–The Ready Reserve Corps shall–

(A) participate in routine training to meet the general and specific needs of the Commissioned Corps;

(B) be available and ready for involuntary calls to active duty during national emergencies and public health crises, similar to the  uniformed service reserve personnel;

(C) be available for backfilling critical positions left  vacant during deployment of active duty Commissioned Corps members, as well as
for deployment to respond to public health emergencies, both foreign and  domestic; and

(D) be available for service assignment in isolated, hardship, and medically underserved communities (as defined in section 399SS)
to improve access to health services.

(d) FUNDING.—For the purpose of carrying out the duties and responsibilities of the Commissioned Corps under this section, there are
authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary to the Office of the Surgeon General for each of fiscal years 2010 through  2014. Funds appropriated under this subsection shall be used for recruitment and training of Commissioned Corps Officers.

I rest my case.

Friends . . . educate yourself and demand your congressman to adopt one of the Republican deficit and spending reduction plans. In addition, arm yourselves. Be prepared to defend yourself, family, and property, if Obama intentionally exacerbates the cuts in Entitlements in order to create riots, either spontaneous or organized.

If you don’t believe he would do this, look up Obama’s inflammatory comments after his friend, Luo-Marxist-Unionist Raila Odinga, lost the 2008 election as President of Kenya . . . thousands were massacred . . . including Christians burned alive while hiding in a church.

Who is a Citizen-at-Birth, or a Natural Born Citizen?

January 7, 2011

“The state of Hawaii has said that President Obama was born there,” the speaker [John Boehner] responded. “That’s good enough for me. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20027684-503544.html

I submit that Speaker John Boehner neglected his due diligence.

Who is a Citizen-At-Birth?

Who is a Natural Born Citizen?

natural-ize — def.  to remove alienage by statutory provision or oath.

natural born citizen — a child born without alienage, e.g., not dealienaged by statutory provision.

 These two questions must be asked by the 112th Congress for two reasons:

 1)      Illegal immigration and the ‘border,’ ‘anchor,’ or ‘jackpot’ baby is creating citizens at birth bankrupting hospitals, communities, and diluting state sovereignty.[1]

2)      By claiming Hawaiian birth, Barack Hussein Obama assumed constitutional eligibility to be President of the United States. However, reading Article II, Sec. 5 of the U.S. Constitution in context of the intent of the framers would deny the son of a British subject natural born citizen eligibility (unless born prior to the “the time of adoption of this constitution.”).

 When Attorney Phillip Berg filed his 2008 lawsuit against Barack Hussein Obama, I was intrigued. However, after two weeks of personal research in my spare time, I had to conclude that Barack Obama was, indeed, a U.S. citizen, but only by statutory provisions.[2]

The next question was if he was a natural born citizen as required by Article II, Sec 5.

The answer was, clearly, No. Obama inherited British and Kenyan nationality at birth through an alien, non-immigrant father.

na-tur-al-ize — def. dealienage by statutory provision at birth or oath.

natural born citizen — def.  a child born without alienage, i.e.,  not requiring ‘dealienage by statutory provision.’

By the time you finish reading this memo, you will wonder how Speaker John Boehner, most of congress,* the media, and many legal scholars got the intent of the framers and the first legislators so wrong.

They lacked curiosity and due diligence, which I hope I can provide you in this memo, and the memos linked within.

*See Appendix A for letters from Congressmen Burgess and McCotter.

 The framers created the term of art ‘natural born citizen’ based on Vattel’s ‘Law of Nations.’

 § 212. Citizens and natives. The 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. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.

* English translation from the original French, ‘indigenes’

Conversely, a society will dilute itself and cease to exist if it allows itself to be populated by children of aliens . . . . . This is why La Raza and the Mexican government so strongly support birthright citizenship; it fulfills their political agenda.

Minor vs Happersette, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) was, at least, honest in its appraisal of ‘natural born citizen’ being unquestionably the child of U.S. citizen parents, and only possibly relying on native-birth alone.

 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.

Chief Justice Waite in Minor vs Happersette (1875)

What about the 14th Amendment?

The 14th Amendment was passed in order to ‘immunize’ the Civil Rights Act of 1866 from congressional repeal or revision.

Here is the preamble to the 1866 Act:

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;”

Here is the preamble to 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.”

Finally, here is the first section of the Aliens and Nationality Act, Title 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;”

Note: That ‘not subject to any foreign power’ is synonymous to the phrase ‘subject to the jurisdiction thereof.’

Note 2:  That accepting Horace Gray’s interpretation, ‘under the jurisdiction thereof’ is a massive REDUNDANCY to ‘born in the United States’ . . . hardly a modifying or conditional clause.

Note 3: Justice Horace Gray violated subject matter jurisdiction AND precedent from an 1884 case, Elk vs Wilkins, which got it RIGHT!

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884)

The main object of the opening sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment was to settle the question, upon which there had been a difference of opinion throughout the country and in this Court, as to the citizenship of free negroes ( 60 U. S. 73; Strauder v. West Virginia,@ 100 U. S. 303,
100 U. S. 306. This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. 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, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired. (p. 111)

It is also worthy of remark that the language used about the same time by the very Congress which framed the Fourteenth Amendment, in the first section of the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, declaring who shall be citizens of the United States, is “all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed.” 14 Stat. 27; Rev.Stat. § 1992. (p. 103)

In fact, all that is necessary for this issue to be resolved is for Congress to debate and exercise its Plenary Power over Uniform Naturalization Law ( U.S. Const. Art. I, Sec. 8 ) to revise 8 U.S.C. 1401 to clarify its relationship to the 1866 Civil Rights Act preamble.

Cf. http://judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=1326&wit_id=3883

 The courts (see a brief analysis of Wong Kim Ark, virtually creating the jus solis standard out of thin air, in Appendix C) have for decades held that mere birth on U.S. soil was the controlling factor. Yet, here is Sec 3 of the 1795 Act describing how a minor child of an alien is naturalized, not by birthright, but successful naturalization of the parent.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States. Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend on persons whose fathers have never been resident of the United States. No person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed.

NOTE:  There is no distinction made between minor children emigrating with the father, or those born on U.S. soil during the father’s naturalization process.

Here is how the 14th Amendment was interpreted as citizenship at birth, regardless of the alienage of the parent father:

The power, granted to Congress by the Constitution, “to establish an uniform rule of naturalization” was long ago adjudged by this court to be vested exclusively in Congress. Chirac v. Chirac (1817), 2 Wheat. 259. For many years after the establishment of the original Constitution, and until two years after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress never authorized the naturalization of any but “free white persons.” Acts of March 26, 1790, c. 3, and January 29, 1795, c. 20; 1 Stat. 103, 414; April 14, 1802, c. 28, and March 26, 1804, c. 47; 2 Stat. 153, 292; March 22, 1816, c. 32; 3 Stat. 258; May 26, 1824, c. 186, and May 24, 1828, c. 116; 4 Stat. 69, 310.

The Fourteenth Amendment, while it leaves the power where it was before, in Congress, to regulate naturalization, has conferred no authority upon Congress to restrict the effect of birth, declared by the Constitution to constitute a sufficient and complete right to citizenship.

Notice that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark slips in his interpretation of Ark’s 14th Amendment right to citizenship at birth a Constitutional definition of citizenship. Chief Justice Fuller, by the way, disagreed. Per my discussion of the writing and purpose of the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing automatic citizenship to freed slaves and their children, the slaves had no subjection to any foreign jurisdiction. Yet, a child of an alien immigrant, legal or otherwise, possessed by nature and the laws of the foreign power alienage.

Alienage, which in Obama’s case was that of his British subject father, requires naturalization law to ‘de-alienage;’ that is the function of naturalization law. Therefore, Ark would have to be a naturalized citizen through his own application. In the same light, Barack Hussein Obama was a naturalized, statutory citizen at birth, through 8 U.S.C. 1401 or 1409.

This law, Mandatory Authority in interpreting who is a U.S. citizen, is clearly based on Emmerich de Vattel. The myriad of references to English law ( foreign law being persuasive, but lacking authority ) relied upon by the judiciary are extensive, but wrong.[3]

How can I prove it?

1) There is an alternative definition of citizenship being inherited, based on Vattel and not English law.

2) The result of jus solis birthright citizenship in a Republic, where those newborns are instantly equal members of the polity, i.e., citizens, yet of foreign nationality from their parent, has been rampant illegal immigration and destruction of our infrastructure and electorate. It is what Justice Joseph Story recognized as a ‘conflict of laws.’   Secretary of State William H. Seward, said: “But the idea of a double allegiance and citizenship united in the same person, and having reference to two separate, independent, and sovereign nations or governments, is simply an impossibility.” See also the Alexander Morse quote in the following section. https://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2009/02/27/barack-hussein-obama-a-natural-born-subject-of-great-britain/

3) Re-interpretation of the law in accordance to Vattel eliminates, i.e., cures current conflicts of nationalities and abuses of immigration, including a president born of a British subject, and of foreign influences favoring totalitarian economics and law.

 John Jay (May 22, 1793): “The Constitution, the statutes of Congress, the laws of nations, and treaties constitutionally made [not English law] compose the laws of the United States.”       (http://books.google.com/books?id=jVkSAAAAYAAJ , Page 479)

In a letter to Henry Lee ( http://tinyurl.com/ya3wj3j ) on June 25, 1824, James Madison wrote:

 What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense . . . And that the language of our Constitution is already undergoing interpretations unknown to its founders . . . Not to look farther for an example, take the word ‘consolidate’ in the Address of the Convention prefixed to the Constitution. It there and then meant to give strength and solidity to the Union of the States. In its current & controversial application it means a destruction of the States, by transfusing their powers into the government of the Union.

The Conundrum of Dual Nationality

Alexander Morse wrote:

 Any doctrine which recognizes a double citizenship or double nationality attempts to perpetuate a political hybrid, which is as abnormal and monstrous as its prototype in the natural world: and the expression even must disappear as soon as that wise and judicious system which Savigny almost created becomes universal. The basis of this system is £he principle which insists that there should be a harmony rather than a conflict of laws. The contrary principle, which seeks to perpetuate a conflict of laws, is a relic of barbarism, and is rapidly disappearing from view.

The jus solis model is best suited to a totalitarian sovereignty. Allegiance is state sanctioned regardless of parentage and only revocable by act of treason; it is for life. By adopting jus solis principles for granting citizenship at birth, the United States judiciary has created conflicts of law with children having the nationality of an alien parent as well as U.S. birthright.

In Justice C.W. Fuller’s dissent in Wong Kim Ark, he opines that English mandate of natural born subjects born to subjects overseas creates a conflict of laws, i.e., children of aliens born within English dominion are natural born subjects, but children of English subjects born overseas are not subjects to the place they were born.

Here is some English law.

Later, this problem of jus solis in a foreign sovereignty not under the King’s dominion is solved, “[t]to encourage also foreign commerce, it was enacted by statute 25 Edw. III st. 2, that all children born abroad, provided both their parents were at the time of the birth in allegiance to the king, and the mother had passed the seas by her husband’s consent, might inherit as if born in England . . . The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges of such.                    The Laws of England: in four books,’  p 232, William Blackstone.

A Violation of Jurisprudence?

The case law Obama supporters rely on goes so far as to define ‘natural born citizen’ directly from English law’s ‘natural born subject,’ declaring no difference between ‘subject’ and ‘citizen.’ This case law is enormous in volume[4] to the point where Blackstone’s commentaries on English common law[5] is cited as precedent, raising  persuasive authority up to the level of mandatory authority.

This is an absolute violation of jurisprudence. Being British, the American colonies followed English law; that is a given. However, English law became secondary in value once the constitution was adopted. In regards to Wong Kim Ark’s adoption of jus solis, the Cooley Act and corresponding Chinese treaty did cause inequities, but it was that inequity that the Supreme Court had jurisdiction over, not the essence of Naturalization law itself. The Supreme Court had Article III jurisdiction over treaty and cases in Equity, but not to make changes to the specifically enumerated plenary power of congress over naturalization law itself.

Note the Connecticut Chief Justice Jesse Root’s comment in ‘The Origin of Government and Laws in Connecticut’ (1798), stating the following:

 We need only compare the laws of England with the laws of Connecticut, to be at once convinced of the difference which pervades their whole system . . . These rights and liberties are our own, not holden by the gift of a despot. Our government and our rulers are from amongst ourselves; chosen by the free, uninfluenced suffrages of enlightened freemen; not to oppress and devour, but to protect, feed, and bless the people, with the benign and energetic influence of their power (as ministers of God for good to them). This shows the ignorance of those who are clamorous for a new constitution, and the mistake of those who suppose that the rules of the Common Law of England are the common law of Connecticut, until altered by a statute.

Compare this to, “From the General Assembly of Virgina to the Senators from that State in Congress, January 11th, 1800:

THE General Assembly of Virginia would consider themselves unfaithful to the trust reposed in them, were they to remain silent, whilst a doctrine has been publicly advanced, novel in its principle and tremendous in its consequences: That the common law of England is in force under the government of the United States.  Deeply impressed with these opinions, the general assembly of Virginia instruct the senators, and request the representatives from this State, in Congress, to use their best efforts To oppose the passing of any law, founded on, or recognising the, principle lately advanced, ‘that the common law of England is in force under the government of the United States,’ excepting from such opposition such particular parts of the common law as may have a sanction from the Constitution, so far as they are necessarily comprehended in the technical phrases which express the powers delegated to the government; …. and excepting, also, such other parts thereof as may be adopted by Congress as necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers expressly delegated.

Additionally, it was not until British Nationality Act of 1772 that a child, whose father was a British Subject, born abroad was given equal status as a natural-born subject (this done via act of parliament). Prior to that time, different laws were passed but they basically provided a route for naturalization, which as explained earlier did not have all rights attached to it.

Cf. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, Dissent by Chief Justice C.J. Fuller,

Whether it was also the rule at common law that the children of British subjects born abroad were themselves British subjects — nationality being attributed to parentage, instead of locality — has been variously determined. If this were so, of course, the statute of Edw. III was declaratory, as was the subsequent legislation.

But, if not, then such children were aliens, and the statute of 7 Anne and subsequent statutes must be regarded as, in some sort, acts of naturalization. On the other hand, it seems to me that the rule partus sequitur patrem has always applied to children of our citizens born abroad, and that the acts of Congress on this subject are clearly declaratory, passed out of abundant caution to obviate misunderstandings which might arise from the prevalence of the contrary rule elsewhere.

Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes provides that children so born are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.

Thus, a limitation is prescribed on the passage of citizenship by descent beyond the second generation if then surrendered by permanent non-residence, and this limitation was contained in all the acts from 1790 down. Section 217 provides that such children shall “be considered as citizens thereof.

The language of the statute of 7 Anne, c. 5, is quite different in providing that the children of all natural-born subjects born out of the ligeance of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be natural-born subjects of this kingdom to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever.

In my judgment, the children of our citizens born abroad were always natural-born citizens from the standpoint of this Government. If not, and if the correct view is that they were aliens but collectively naturalized under the act of Congress which recognized them as natural-born, then those born since the Fourteenth Amendment are not citizens at all, [p715] unless they have become such by individual compliance with the general laws for the naturalization of aliens, because they are not naturalized “in the United States.”

By the fifth clause of the first section of article two of the Constitution, it is provided that:

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; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.

In the convention, it was, says Mr. Bancroft, objected that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for that place; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, on the seventh of September, it was unanimously settled that foreign-born residents of fourteen years who should be citizens at the time of the formation of the Constitution are eligible to the office of President.

 “The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478 (1888)

. . . or, is it? Do we go so far as to extend that observation to include English law as authoritative precedent? No . . . foreign law is instructive and even persuasive, but it is not of value as precedent in the face of existing U.S. legislated Act.

 The following cite is from the Schneiderman case, in which an avowed and active communist’s recent naturalization was challenged, the plaintiff claiming the court erred being that Schneiderman’s politics belied his ‘attachment’ and ‘support’ the Constitution of the United States. Plaintiff demanded Schneiderman be ‘de-naturalized.’ (Note: 8 U.S.C. 1424 specifically denies visa and naturalization access to communists, and in my opinion Muslims as well.)

 Since 1790 Congress has conferred the function of admitting aliens to citizenship exclusively upon the courts. In exercising their authority under this mandate the federal courts are exercising the judicial power of the United States, conferred upon them by Article III of the Constitution. Tutun v. United States, 270 U.S. 568; holding that an application for naturalization is a ‘case’ and a final decision.
SCHNEIDERMAN v. UNITED STATES, 320 U.S. 118; 63 S. Ct. 1333;87 L. Ed. 1796 (1943)

Appendix A  —   Letters from Congressmen to Two Constituents

Dear Miss Xxxxxx:   Thank you for continuing to contact me regarding your concerns with the eligibility of President Barack Obama. I appreciate you clarifying your previous correspondence.    I have heard about the various concerns regarding President Obama’s qualification to be President of the United States. With respect to his place of birth, the White House and the state of Hawaii have issued statements substantiating that President Obama was born on August 4, 1961 in Honolulu, Hawaii; and I have not seen evidence to the contrary. You also specifically expressed your concerns that the President is using a dead person’s Social Security Number. Again, I have not seen any evidence which substantiates this claim and, despite my numerous disagreements with his policies, I do not believe that he is constitutionally ineligible for the office of the Presidency.    Again, thank you for taking the time to contact me. I appreciate having the opportunity to represent you in the U.S. House of Representatives. Please feel free to visit my website (www.house.gov/burgess) or contact me with any future concerns.

Sincerely,
Michael C. Burgess, M.D.
Member of Congress

Dear Mr. Xxxxxxx:

Thank you for informing me of your concerns regarding President Barack Obama’s citizenship.  Your thoughts on this important matter are most welcome and appreciated.

As you know, the United States Constitution, in Article II, Section I, establishes the principle qualifications an individual must meet to become President of the United States.  Specifically, the Constitution states “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.”  Additionally, the candidate must be at least thirty-five years of age and have been a resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

On August 21, 2008, Mr. Philip J. Berg, an attorney filed suit against President Barack Obama, alleging he is not eligible for the Office of the President because President Obama lost his United States citizenship when his mother married an Indonesian citizen and naturalized in Indonesia.  Further, Berg alleged President Obama followed his mother’s naturalization and failed to take an oath of allegiance when he turned eighteen years old to regain his United States citizenship status.  In October of 2008 Pennsylvania Eastern District Court Judge R. Barclay Surrick dismissed the lawsuit Berg v. Obama, ruling Mr. Berg lacked standing to bring the case.  Thereafter, Berg filed an emergency motion with the United States Third Circuit Court of Appeals, where subsequently, Third Circuit Judge Thomas Ambro denied the motion.  Subsequently, Berg petitioned for a Writ of Certiorari, where if granted, the Supreme Court would review the decision of a lower court.  On December 10, 2008 the Supreme Court denied Berg’s petition for an injunction against the seating of the Electoral College.  On December 15, 2008, Berg re-filed the application for injunction.  Two days later, the petitioner’s appeal was denied without comment by Justice Anthony Kennedy.  On December 18, 2008, Berg’s request for an injunction was re-filed with the Court and was summarily denied on January 21, 2009.

Recently, on January 20, 2009, Barack Obama was sworn in as our nation’s 44th President. Nevertheless, Berg continues to assert President Obama lost his naturalized citizenship when he became a citizen of Indonesia after moving there as a boy.  Similarly, additional lawsuits have been filed requesting the birth certificate of our President.

Ultimately, under our Constitution the authority to make a ruling on this matter rests with the Supreme Court of the United States.  Rest assured, however, I will well remember your concerns regarding this issue during the 111th Congress.  Again, thank you for contacting me; and for all you do for our community and our country.  Should you have any further comments or questions on this or any other issue, please contact me at the Livonia or Milford district, or Washington, D.C. office.

I work for you.

Sincerely,
Thaddeus G. McCotter
Member of Congress

Appendix B 

“As such, the allegiance of parents whatever their situation is irrelevant in determining the citizenship status of a child born in the United States. At common law, a native is a person born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of a country, irrespective of the allegiance of his parents, except the child of an ambassador.” Ex parte Palo, 3 F. 2d 44, 45 (W.D. Wa 1925)

The court in Luria vs. United States, 231 US 9 (1913) noted: “Under our Constitution, a NATURALIZED CITIZEN stands on an equal footing with the NATIVE CITIZEN in all respects, save that of eligibility to the Presidency. (emphasis added)

I do not find warrant in the Constitution for believing that it contemplates two classes of citizens, excepting only for two purposes. One is to provide how citizenship shall be acquired, Const., Art. I, § 8; Amend. XIV, § 1, the other to determine eligibility for the presidency. Const., Art. II, § 1. The latter is the only instance in which the charter expressly excludes the naturalized citizen from any right or privilege the native-born possesses. Knauer vs. United States, 328 US 654, 677 (1946) (Rutledge, J, dissenting)

Fisher vs. U.S., 425 U.S. 391 (1976) – “The language of the Constitution cannot be interpreted safely except by reference to the common law and to British institutions as they were when the instrument was framed and adopted.”

Colgrove vs. Battin, 413 U.S. 149 (1973) – “(I)t is common sense and not merely the blessing of the Framers that explains this Court’s frequent reminders that: ‘The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the Emglish common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.’”; quoting Smith vs. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465, 478 (1888)

Ex parte Grossman, 267 U.S. 87 (1925) – “The statesmen and lawyers of the Convention who submitted it to the ratification of the Convention of the Thirteen States, were born and brought up in the atmosphere of the common law, and thought and spoke in its vocabulary. They were familiar with other forms of government, recent and ancient, and indicated in their discussions earnest study and consideration of many of them, but when they came to put their conclusions into the form of fundamental law in a compact draft, they expressed them in terms of the common law, confident that they could be shortly and easily understood.”

Kepner vs. U.S. – 195 U.S. 100 (1904) – “In this, as in other respects, it [a constitutional provision] 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.”

Ex parte Wells, 59 U.S. 307 (1855) – “Now, no principle is better settled than that for the definition of legal terms and construction of legal powers mentioned in our constitution and laws; we must resort to the common law when no act of assembly, or judicial interpretation, or settled usage, has altered their meaning.”

Viewed against the background of history and the context of the times, it is not surprising that the men who drafted the Constitution equated “citizen” and “subject”. Until the Colonies had successfully won their freedom from England, their inhabitants were subjects of the King. With the birth of the United States, the sovereignty that had previously been that of one man,—the King,—was transferred to the collective body of the people. Those who had been subjects of the King were now citizens of the State. Van Der Schelling vs. US News & World Report, Inc., 213 F. Supp. 756 ,761 (ED PA 1963)

Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.” 2 Kent Com. 258. Medvedieff vs. Cities Service Oil Co., 35 F. Supp. 999, 1002 (SD NY 1940)

The Supreme Court of North Carolina in State v. Manuel, 4 Dev. & Bat. 20, 26, (quoted in United States vs. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649,) said: “The term `citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term `subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people; and he who before was a `subject of the King’ is now `a citizen of the State.'” Hennessy vs. Richardson Drug Co., 189 US 25, 34 (1903)

“We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute.” Rogers vs. Bellei, 401 US 815, 838 (1971)

“The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, establishes that, at common law in England and the United States, the rule with respect to nationality was that of the jus soli, — that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute:” Weedin vs. Chin Bow, 274 US 657,660 (1927)

“The ancient and indisputable citizenship rule of the British common law was the jus soli, under which a person’s nationality is determined by the place of his birth…. It is clear, of course, that the American colonies and the nation they ultimately established had accepted the precepts of the English common law, as part of the heritage from the mother country.” Cong. Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Sess. 1262 (1866) (Congressman Broomall).

Galaviz vs. Bridgestone Corp. (N.D. Tex. 2008), the court noted that two minor children, born in Texas of Mexican parents, were “natural born citizens” of the United States due to their birth in Texas, even though they lived in Mexico since birth and had no intention of returning to the U.S.

Of course there is Ankeny vs. Governor of State of Indiana (Ind. App. 2009), which specifically addressed President Obama’s eligibility and held that “persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes.”

In State vs. Superior Court of Washington for King County (Wash. 1920), the Washington Supreme Court noted that a “natural born citizen’s right to vote depends upon HIS PLACE OF BIRTH” (emphasis added) and a few sentences later the court used the term “native born citizen” in place of “natural born citizen.”

In Town of New Hartford vs. Town of Canaan, (Conn. 1886), the Connecticut Supreme Court noted that “In Rawle’s View of the Constitution of the United States (page 86) it is said: ‘Every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen within the sense of the constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.’”

“‘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,’ &c. The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected president who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the Constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor, that by the rule of the common law, in force when the Constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.” Lynch vs. Clarke, 3 N.Y. Leg. Obs. 236 (Chancellery Court of N.Y. 1844)

“The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.” Smith vs. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 478 (1888)

“The common law spoken of was, of course, the law of England as it existed at the time of the colonial settlements — “a system of unwritten law, not evidenced by statutes, but by tradition and the opinions and judgments of the sages of the law. Morgan v. United States, 13 F. 2d 763, 764 (4th Cir. 1926)

Appendix C — What in the Hell was Justice Gray thinking, in Wong Kim Ark?

When I became intrigued with the reliance of the court on English jus solis, when existing law provided naturalization of children of aliens upon naturalization of their parents or formal application when reaching twenty-one years of age, I assumed Justice Gray ignored the Uniform Naturalization Acts.

It had been some time since reading Ark, so I did several searches using ‘1795 Naturalization Act’, and various strings using the formal citation, coming up with nothing.

Notice, however, how Gray cites legislative Act in Ark: “Acts of March 26, 1790, c. 3; January 29, 1795, c. 20; June 18, 1798, c. 54; 1 Stat. 103, 414, 566; April 14, 1802, c. 28; March 26, 1804, c. 47; 2 Stat. 153, 292; February 10, 1854, c. 71; 10 Stat. 604; Rev.Stat. §§ 2165, 2172, 1993.”

“Second. Children of persons so naturalized, “dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization.”” Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark; citing the Naturalization Act.

So, I was shocked that Gray dismissed legislated Act in favor of his judicial theories relying on jus solis. (Indeed, further reading shows English law to be more complicated than Gray assumed. There are two types of English citizens, as I discussed in the above article. One, ‘by descent,’ and two, ‘otherwise than by descent.’ Both English citizenships required an English father, but being born within English dominion enhanced citizenship rights.

Then, he says, “Here is nothing to countenance the theory that a general rule of citizenship by blood or descent has displaced in this country the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within its sovereignty.”

Forgive me, but that makes absolutely no sense generally; and the conclusion of favoring a ‘fundamental’ rule of jus solis versus the ‘general rule’ of descent, especially when that general rule is specified in the Act, as quoted above, is a leap of logic more suited to an Escher print.

Back to the question at hand in Ark, Ark was denied citizenship by treaty and legislated Act, that Act barring Ark’s parents and therefore himself from naturalization. The Supreme Court had jurisdiction over the Treaty, but needed congress to follow its lead in eliminating the Cooley Act’s absolute ban on Chinese immigration. After all, Congress could limit immigration for purposes of balance, but not ban Chinese altogether. Indeed, the limitation of immigration to the 1790 Act’s ‘Protestant White Men’ was superseded by ‘men of good character’ and the Reconstruction Act’s inclusion of blacks.

It is that simple fact that should have motivated the Supreme Court to remand the issue to the ‘lower court’ of proper jurisdiction, which was congress. Instead, Gray made a fundamental change to all U.S. immigration law.


[1] New Mexico Secretary of State Mary Herrera admitted 82,000 NM drivers licenses were issued to non-citizens, making them eligible to vote. In 2008, Barack Hussein Obama won New Mexico’s five electoral votes by 11,599 votes. See also http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/09/susana-martinez/richardson-denish-administration-gave-50000-driver/ (‘Politifact’ is a Pulitzer Prize winning Florida news source.)

[2] https://paraleaglenm.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/a-timeline-of-barack-hussein-obamas-nationality-and-citizenships/

[3] See Appendix B for selected citations of case law.

[4] See Appendix B for selected citations of case law.

[5] “The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects.” ‘Commentaries on the laws of England: in four books,’ p 232, William Blackstone (1723-1780)

Birther Bumper Sticker

September 6, 2010

Update July 20, 2011 — Lucas Smith defends his Mombasa Obama certificate, mailed now to all members of the 111th and 112th Congresses. http://www.thepostemail.com/2011/07/20/metric-system-not-officially-used-in-kenya-until-1967/

Since before the 2008 election I have been involved in legal research on the Barack Hussein Obama Article II eligibility issue.

I’ve advised attorney Phil Berg and contributed to motions filed by Dr. Orly Taitz.

Prior to both the election and the January 9, 2009 Certification of Electoral Votes, I faxed and e-mailed seventy-seven Republican congressmen, including John McCain, advising them that ‘native-born’ was not synonymous with Article II’s ‘natural born citizen.’

The Internet publication of Obama’s Hawaiian Certification of Live Birth puzzled me, and I believe I was the first to discover the Hawaiian statutes, Haw. Stat. Rev. § 338-17.8 and 338-5 that permitted a Kenyan-born Obama, Jr. to have his birth registered in Hawaii.

Below is an image of unknown authenticity or attribution of a 17.8 Out-of-State registration, signed by Stanley Ann Dunham’s mother. Note the place of birth as an unknown hospital in Kenya.

This raises concerns about the Internet C.O.L.B., because it too should mention place of birth as Kenya.

Finally, see the Lucas Smith Mombasa Birth Certificate.

HRS 17.8 Out-of-State Registration signed by Madalyn Dunham

The Lucas Smith Mombasa Birth Certificate

The KOS C.O.L.B. naming Honolulu as Place of Birth

John McCain and Congressional Republicans Notified Obama Ineligible

December 8, 2009

. . . but they did nothing.

Here is a real lawsuit. Sue John McCain and the Republican National Committee.

Prior to the election, and prior to the Congressional Certification of Electoral Votes, McCain and 76 congressmen were faxed and e-mailed, and therefore informed that Barack Obama was not a Natural Born Citizen, and what to do about it.

John McCain was nominated to win the election, not play ‘nicety-nice’ . . . especially when a question of constitutional eligibility was involved.

Following is the second notice I faxed and e-mailed over seventy congressmen, including John McCain.

Update 12-22-2009         I am preparing another fax broadcast to congress. This one will be brief, and rely upon my analysis of Article II in my ‘Diagramming Article II’ blog article. Article II describes two types of citizens eligible to be president; the first clause describes those born to U.S. citizens, the other are native born British subjects naturalized as our first U.S. citizens at the time of adoption of the constitution.

Obama was a native born (or so he claims) citizen at birth, but a British subject as well. He was not naturalized at the “time of adoption” but through Alien and Immigration laws, which finally de-alienaged his British, Kenyan, and Indonesian nationalities at age 19. (See my blog, ‘Barack Hussein Obama — A Natural Born British Subject.’)

 

LEGAL MEMORANDUM

  • Confusion over ‘Native-Born’ versus ‘Natural-Born’
  • Congressional Certification of Electoral Votes – 3 U.S.C. § 15

The Definition of ‘Natural Born’

The chief framer of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, John A. Bingham, stated, “[E]very 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.” Cf. Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866), and U.S. Const. XIVth Amend.

However, the only fact on Obama’s Certification of Live Birth pertinent to Obama’s ‘natural-born’ status is Obama’s father’s race being listed as ‘African.’ It is common knowledge that Obama, Sr. was a Kenyan national.

If born in a Hawaiian hospital, Obama is ‘native‘ born. But a ‘natural born’ citizen must have two U.S. citizen parents.

Barack Obama Birth Certificate ‘created’ under Hawaiian Rev. Stat. § 338-5?

With Honolulu as the place of birth on Obama’s Certification of Live Birth, the average American assumes that President-elect Obama is a ‘natural born’ citizen. He is not.

For all we know, the birth certificate attested to by Hawaiian official Dr. Fukino is from a Hawaiian hospital. But, there is also a certificate that can be issued solely on the testimony of ‘one parent’:

Hawaiian Rev. Stat. §338-5 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents.

The ‘Certificate’ of Live Birth that the ‘Certification’ of Live Birth references is the only proof whether Obama was born on the Hawaiian mainland, or just to a resident of Hawaii. This is key to determining whether Obama is a ‘native’ born American, or foreign born.

To date, we have been blocked by the Obama organization from seeing the original document.

On January 8, 2009, Congress has the Obligatory and Unenviable task of distinguishing Obama’s prima facie ‘native born’ status from that of Constitutionally required ‘natural born.’

In the 2000 Presidential election, the Democrats used every legal tactic to hold the executive office. Al Gore went to the Florida Supreme Court to delay certification of the vote in order to scrutinize and interpret rejected ballots. G.W. Bush appealed the delay in Bush vs. Gore.

When Ohio went to George W. Bush, the Democrats tried to block the Ohio Electoral votes during the congressional certification process.

New York Times

WASHINGTON, Jan. 6 [2000] – “Congress officially ratified President Bush’s election victory on Thursday, but not before Democrats lodged a formal challenge to the electoral votes from Ohio, forcing an extraordinary two-hour debate that began the 109th Congress on a sharp note of partisan acrimony . . . a single senator – Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who was sworn in Tuesday for a third term – joined Representative Stephanie Tubbs Jones, Democrat of Ohio, in objecting to Ohio’s 20 electoral votes for Mr. Bush, citing voting irregularities in the state.”

Here is the law the Democrats relied on to block the Ohio votes.

Congress shall be in session on the sixth day of January succeeding every meeting of the electors . . . and the President of the Senate shall be their presiding officer . . . Upon such reading of [the electoral votes], the President of the Senate shall call for objections, if any. Every objection shall be made in writing, and shall state clearly and concisely, and without argument, the ground thereof, and shall be signed by at least one Senator and one Member of the House of Representatives before the same shall be received . . . No votes or papers from any other State shall be acted upon until the objections previously made to the votes or papers from any State shall have been finally disposed of. 3 U.S.C. § 15 Counting electoral votes in Congress.

It is an unimpeachable fact that Barack Hussein Obama is not a ‘natural born’ citizen.

As a British Colonial, Obama, Sr. created a dual nationality at his son’s birth. While Obama derived U.S. citizenship under 8 U.S.C. § 1409(c)’s out of wedlock provision (the Obama-Dunham marriage was void ab initio due to bigamy) or the 14th Amendment, the 1948 British Nationality Act claimed jurisdiction through the father.

To make matters more complicated, at age 6, Obama became a naturalized Indonesian. However, he maintained his right of election from birth establishing his U.S. citizenship through the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, § 301(a)(7) and 301(b)’s five-year continuous residency requirement to become a U.S. citizen.

Compounding Obama’s multi-national heritage even further, his own mother, albeit de facto, renounced her U.S. citizenship permanently when Obama was six years old. Finally, Obama carried an Indonesian passport up to age 21 years old, traveling to Pakistan to visit his mother until her death in 1992.

James Madison, John Jay and others promoted the Article II ‘natural born’ eligibility clause to prevent the installation of a President with dual allegiances.

In one month, we risk swearing into office a constitutionally ineligible candidate of questionable allegiances.

In 2007 and 2008, Obama spent a good deal of his senatorial career and treasury supporting Raila Odinga, the Luo candidate for President of Kenya. The Luo’s are the tribe of Obama’s father, and are Marxists and Muslim sympathizers. Obama’s interference fomented Luo rioters who killed over a thousand people and burned dozens of churches . . . one reported full of Christians hiding from the massacre outside.

Condaleeza Rice reprimanded Barack Obama, telling him support of Odinga was contrary to U.S. policy and interests.

Obama’s radical alliances substantiate the wisdom of our founding fathers’ constitutional requirement that the president be a ‘natural born’ citizen of only one allegiance.

Conclusion:

In 2000, the Democrats exercised 3 U.S.C. § 15 under questionable circumstances. Now, in the election of 2009, the Republicans have a mandatory responsibility to address this issue, or be forever diminished in the eyes of their party and history. The U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress has the power to police its own legislation. The Democrats investigated the McCain candidacy, and now must do the same for Barack Obama’s.

We can not anticipate the potential damage to treaties, legislation, budgets, executive orders, and war powers when the president is constitutionally ineligible to hold office.

Diagramming the Grammatical Structure of Article II, § 1, Cl. 4

November 29, 2009

“No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President . . . “ U.S. Const. Art. II, Sec. 1, Cl. 4

Remember diagramming sentences? We all studied this in the 4th grade, and hopefully again when you fulfilled your English requirements in college.

In legal writing, the best teachers are lawyers who know sentence structure like an ASE certified mechanic does your car. They know the parts, their names, and how they function properly in relation to each other. It is essential to know your grammar in order to write good briefs and interpret statutes and case law.

I studied grammar several times, for Journalism and Legal Writing, plus the more complex constructions of Latin and German. But, I do not claim to be an expert. In fact, the research and refresher courses I attempted for this article reminded me why grammar is such a discipline. So, I backed off and kept it to the basics.

Breaking Down Article II into its Grammatical Parts

The subject is ‘office’ of the President. That is what the modifiers are describing.

‘No person except’ sets up the primary and subordinate adjective clauses describing who is ‘eligible’ to the ‘office,’ 1) ‘a natural born citizen,’ and; 2) ‘or a citizen of the United States.’

Note: ‘Natural Born Citizen’ and ‘Citizen’ are not appositives, but a primary and subordinate clause separated by the conjunction ‘or.’ Conjunctions set up alternatives to the main clause or subject. If ‘natural born’ and ‘citizen of the United States’ were synonyms in appostive construction, then the word ‘or’ would not be required.

‘At the time of adoption of this Constitution’ is a prepositional phrase further describing the adjective clauses . . . as are the later 35-year old and 14-year residency requirements.

‘Of the President’ describes, of course, ‘office.’

Liberal Interpretation

Liberals are true to the legal definition of their name; they interpret the law beyond its original scope and boundaries. (See Black’s Law.)  In the case of Article II, they try to blur the distinctions between ‘natural born citizen’ and ‘citizen.’

If the liberals are corrrect, the sentence would set up the two adjective clauses as appositives, basically synonymous terms. A ‘citizen’ would then be equal to a ‘natural born citizen’ with no distinctions . . . in which case John Madison would have just relied on his sentence structure in Article I, Sec. 3, Cl. 3, simply describing the qualifications of a Senator as being a ‘Citizen.’

Natural Born Citizen, versus Citizen

At the time of adoption of the Constitution (remember that prepositional phrase?) there were two possible types of citizens.

1)      Natural Born Citizens – These were those children of U.S. Citizens, which is, obviously, necessarily after the time of adoption, not prior.

2)      Citizens – Who were the first citizens of the United States AT the time of adoption? Anyone, and their children, native to or lawfully residing in the United States, who accepted the legal authority of the Constitution and who rejected foreign allegiances. This, of course, did not include Loyalists. Their fate is described in the history of that time.

In fact, every one of our first presidents were native born in the various states of the original thirteen colonies. But, as the colonies were under the jurisdiction of England, they were by law Natural Born British subjects, born of British fathers on British controlled lands.

The Constitution, by power of its adoption, ‘naturalized’ these British subjects and they became the first U.S. citizens.

Thanks to the subordinate adjective clause, they were eligible for the office of president until the first children born naturally into that fortunate condition reached the age of 35. John Tyler, born about six months after the adoption of the Constitution, was the first natural born citizen to become president.

Barack Hussein Obama, a Natural Born British Subject

President Obama was born either in the United States, or Kenya. A court order for him to produce certified copies of his original birth certificate will determine which country.

But for now, we can apply both British and U.S. nationality law and safely say that if born in Kenya, Obama was a natural born subject of Britain. He was a U.S. citizen ONLY if you consider Stanley Ann Dunham’s marriage to an already married Obama, Sr. bigamy and therefore void ab initio, and Obama, Jr. born out of wedlock. This complicated and fraudulent marriage (perhaps done solely to prevent Obama, Sr. from being deported for statutory rape, or the appearance of statutory rape) allowed Dunham to avoid U.S. residency 5-year requirements post age fourteen through 8 U.S.C. 1409, which only required two years.

If the much publicized Hawaiian C.O.L.B. is validated to represent a genuine native birth (which will require production of Obama’s birth certificate from a certified birthing facility), then Obama is a ‘native born’ U.S. citizen under the 14th Amendment and 8 U.S.C. 1401.

Why isn’t Obama’s birth to a U.S. citizen mother on U.S. soil ‘natural born citizenship?’ . . . because, natural born citizenship is free of statutory definition, and therefore devolves from the father.

Usually, the mother is the same nationality of the father. Prior to the 1920’s, marriage automatically naturalized the wife to that of the husband. In Dunham’s situation, statute was required to ‘de-alienage’ the natural nationality from the father to that solely of the mother. At best, Obama was a dual-national at birth, which doesn’t qualify under the ‘no person except’ clause.

If born on U.S. soil, the 14th Amendment described the types of parentage allowed to qualify for citizenship at birth. But, while U.S. citizen father and mother are qualified to pass citizenship on to a U.S. born child, no amendment or statute is required. Compared to the other descriptions in the 14th Amendment, mentioning a child born to a U.S. father and mother is superfluous.

The 14th Amendment describes every combination of birth of a child on U.S. soil. While birth to a father passes the father’s nationality to the child naturally, any right of native nationality at birth from the soil, or jus solis, requires permission by the laws of that jurisdiction.

An example may be a Christian couple living in China as part of a ministry teaching from the bible. They spend a few years there and have more than two children. China has the right to deny the children rights of native birth nationality, just as the family can ignore the ‘two child’ restriction under Chinese law.

Now, a fair question is if the children born in China are ‘natural born citizens?’ I would say no. They do not meet exemptions historically given to active military and diplomatic personnel. However, under the repealed 1790 Nationality Act, the children would be ‘as’ natural born citizens. By laws of the jurisdiction they were born in, they were born solely with the nationalities of the parents and no de-alienage or naturalization law is required to remove Chinese nationality. However, on return to the U.S., the children would have to be registred in the U.S. under special nationality law created for that very situation.

Afterword:

If you find the above merely interesting, perhaps you will find Justice Joseph Story’s discussion more persuasive. I just came across this yesterday.

“§ 1473. [T]he president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties.  It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. . . .”
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution (1833)