Posted on 11/04/2010 8:01:39 PM PDT by STE=Q
I wish to undertake a critical analysis of the incomplete works of attorneys Orly Taitz, Phil Berg, and Mario Apuzzo, concerning the meaning and definition of "natural born Citizen" within the political context and intent of Article II. It is my contention that none of the attorneys working on exposing the illegal usurper known as Barack Obama have described any valid theory of law that properly explains why Obama cannot possibly qualify to be President under Article II. I will show what I believe are their mistakes and limitations and expose their incomplete efforts as failed hypotheses rather than valid correct legal theories. I will then state the correct and complete legal theory that I believe clearly defines "natural born Citizen" within the context and intent of Article II and show how and why Obama cannot possibly qualify for the office of President.
(Excerpt) Read more at thepostemail.com ...
PING!
STE=Q
What a crock.
Why does this guy ignore the U.S. law of the early 20th century which goes a long way toward defining what is - and is not - a “natural born citizen?”
Without that law, those like John McCain who were born outside our borders but in U.S. possessions would also not qualify to be President.
sfl
“Why does this guy ignore the U.S. law of the early 20th century which goes a long way toward defining what is - and is not - a ‘natural born citizen’?”
However, he draws a distinction between “Natural Law” (”creator” endowed) and Positive Law (man Made), as follows:
“There exists a Natural Law jurisdiction from which we derive our Natural Rights which are an endowment from Nature, and Natural Rights are unalienable.
There exists a Positive Law jurisdiction from which we derive our Legal Rights, and legal rights are privileges. Positive Law means man-made statutory law from the Latin root “posit” which means that which is declared and agreed to. It is sometimes referred to as “decreed law” under a monarchy political system.
Natural Law is defined to be opposite or opposed to the Positive Law.
Political Rights are Natural Rights which are Inherited from our Fathers (Declaration of Independence).”
STE=Q
The one thing that has been made very, very clear is Obama’s loyalties do not lie with the United States of America.
“Why does this guy ignore the U.S. law of the early 20th century which goes a long way toward defining what is - and is not - a “natural born citizen?” Without that law, those like John McCain who were born outside our borders but in U.S. possessions would also not qualify to be President.”
I’m not taking a side on this issue. However, I do believe you did not read his article and understand his argument.
It boils down to the concept that neither law nor courts can change the constitution....only ammendments. The original meaning of the constitution stands until ammended.
In his view/understanding only the FATHER of the child mattered and NOT where the child was born. The child of a CITIZEN FATHER would be natural born regardless of where born. The MOTHER (in context of the 18th Century) cannot confer natural born status. Thus, John McCain being the sone of a citizen father is natural born and Barrack Obama being the son of a non-citizen is not. The mother’s citizenship has no bearing.
I do not know if he is correct, but I would guess that a court wouldn’t buy it because when women became full citizens, then some would infer that they now have the power to confer natural born status on their offspring.
His arguments only work under his original presumption that only ammendments to the constitution can change its meaning....and in his thinking the meaning would have veen clear to someone living in the late 18th Century....only the father mattered.
Hello Jedi Pauly,
I read your article and criticism of my position on what is a “natural born Citizen.” I must respectfully advise you that you do not understand my position. I would recommend that you read with care what I have written in my briefs to the courts and on my blog. You might then better understand what I have written.
I would like to now address what you have written. I do not know why you place me together with Orly Taitz on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” I believe you understate the extent of my work by doing so. Again, you can read Orly’s work and my work so that you can fully understand what each have contributed to the understanding of the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.”
I have never said that the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” has changed over time. I do not know where you got that from. Please provide a quote from me with a citation to support your allegation. On the contrary, I have always argued that the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” has always been the same and has to this day, unlike the meaning of a “citizen of the United States,” never changed.
I never said that children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents serving in our military are not “natural born Citizens.” On the contrary, I was probably the only one of the eligibility attorneys who said that a child born abroad to military U.S. citizen parents qualifies as a “natural born Citizen” under Vattel’s, Section 217.
As far as your distinction between males and females, natural law makes none other than what distinctions exists between them on a physical level. Whatever positive laws have said or may say about their rights does not change their equality in nature. I do not know why you discount the female so easily. The point is that both parents must be U.S. citizens when the child is born on U.S. soil (or its equivalent). Under natural law, the child acquires as much natural allegiance from the one as he/she does from the other.
I hope that this clears things up for you.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
“It boils down to the concept that neither law nor courts can change the constitution....only ammendments. The original meaning of the constitution stands until ammended.”
I wrote: “...he draws a distinction between “Natural Law” (”creator” endowed) and Positive Law (man Made)”
“Natural Law” (”creator” endowed) is — unalienable — and supersedes Positive Law (man Made)which IS alienable!
I do not see how even an amendment can remove a NATURAL —unalienable — right... a right based on natural law.
PS; I use the phrase “a right based on natural law” in the sense that a “Natural Born Citizen” has the “natural right” to run for President Of The United States — providing he meets the other requirements of age etc.
STE=Q
“As far as your distinction between males and females, natural law makes none other than what distinctions exists between them on a physical level.”
However, I think he is trying to place the NBC definition in historical context...
... can be a little confusing and perhaps should be discarded in a legal argument, for the sake of clarity.
I REALLY like the way he explains the founders aversion the “titles and nobility.”
It brings up the infamous “lost” 13th amendment!
The amendment of “titles and nobility” that was (if I remember)only one state short of being ratified.
I am going to reread the article again and see what I may have missed.
STE=Q
Mario, Thanks.
The courts may not remove the president. But the people will. We spread the word of this fraud every day.
I suspect a good majority of people now know the truth, and this is, in part, why the Mid Term election was such a tidal wave. 2012, if he is on the ticket, there wont be many Democrats left standing. The truth is crushing.
By the way... what’s with the “your honer” this and “your honer” that?
Yes, I know it’s just a “convention” — like referring to land “lords” and so forth — but the reality is that his/her honer is nor more honorable than any other citizen — and sometimes even less honorable.
I think the convention should be done away with.
You can keep the esc. thingy if if makes you happy. :)
PS; We are all honored, Mr.Puzo, to have you here.
STE=Q
honer = honor
The Dems aren't too happy with Obama right now. They're already talking about 2012 presidential primary challenges. They blame him for the mess they're in and want him gone.
I think the market is ripe to expand the birther franchise. Turn it into a bipartisan effort. Explain to the disgruntled Democrats your plan to remove Obama from office. Swoon them with some Monsieur De Vattel poetry. They'll never be more receptive to the idea than they are right now.
Democrat Birthers...the new black.
Please have a look at this thread..Kind as an adjective is natural and native...plus the grouping of the definitons in the Greek-English dictionary.
The author of the Greek-Eng dictionary is the son of a Founder. Enjoy searching..but..explaining what I located..not so enjoyable.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2620065/posts
Another man’s opinion...
This is a rather bold statement. Courts have interpreted the meaning of the Constitution ever since Marbury v. Madison and will continue to do so. The First Amendment has been interpreted beyond all original meaning to exile religion from the national fabric and well beyond the original and contemporary meaning of the establishment clause. The author's argument falls apart on its face.
Nowhere in this article is any mention of the 14th Amendment. Most jurists contend that the language of the 14th Amendment changed the meaning of Article II. Certainly, you can't make any argument about Article II natural born citizen without addressing the issues raised by the 14th Amendment.
This seems to be just another assertion of fact when it is just another argument that cannot be settled anywhere other than in the Federal Courts and they won't touch it with a ten foot pole. Life just isn't fair is it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.