Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Obama and Congress Request and Obtain Extension of Time to File Opposition Brief to Kerchner Appeal
American Grand Jury ^ | February 13th, 2010 | Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Posted on 02/14/2010 11:50:10 AM PST by Man50D

On January 19, 2010, I filed the Appellants’ Opening Brief in the appeal of Kerchner et al. v. Obama et al. which is currently pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia. In that appeal, we maintain that the New Jersey Federal District Court erred in dismissing our case by ruling that plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge Obama’s alleged eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military and that our case presents a non-justiciable political question. In our case, we have provided the Founder’s and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” which is a child born in the country to citizen parents. We maintain that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because he lacks unity of citizenship and allegiance from birth which is obtained when a child is born in the United States to a mother and father who are both United States citizens at the time of birth. Obama’s father was only a temporary visitor to the United States when Obama was born and never even became a resident let alone a citizen. Not being an Article II “natural born Citizen,” Obama is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.

We also maintain that Obama has failed to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii by publicly presenting a copy of a contemporaneous birth certificate (a long-form birth certificate generated when he was born in 1961 and not simply a digital image of computer generated Certification of Live Birth [COLB] allegedly obtained from the Hawaii Department of Health in 2007 which was posted on the internet by some unknown person in 2008) or through other contemporaneous and objective documentation. Having failed to meet his constitutional burden of proof under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, we cannot accept him as a “natural born Citizen.”

The defendants had 30 days within which to file their opposition brief. Defendants have requested and obtained from the Court an extension of time to file their brief. The Court has granted them until March 8, 2010 to file it. After that filing, I will then have a chance to file a reply brief within the next 14 days.

You may obtain a copy of my brief at this site. We will be posting here the defendants’ opposition brief after it is filed along with my reply brief. I hope that many of you will take the time to read these briefs so that you may learn first hand what the legal issues and arguments are regarding whether the plaintiffs have standing and/or are precluded by the political question doctrine to challenge Obama on his eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief, and what the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is.


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: birthcertificate; birther; certifigate; eligibility; fraud; ineligible; kerchner; naturalborn; obama; usurper
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

1 posted on 02/14/2010 11:50:10 AM PST by Man50D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Why is Congress even involved with this suit?


2 posted on 02/14/2010 11:57:05 AM PST by JoSixChip (HOPE = Have Obumber Prove Eligibility)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Hey Glenn Beck, Thomas Jefferson was a birther!

IBTAT

In Before The AFTER-birther Trolls.


3 posted on 02/14/2010 11:57:33 AM PST by stockpirate (Hey Beck, Thomas Jefferson was a birther!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Again, I was employed by an employer who had a Federal contract with Federal Government.

I had 60 days to produce a passport or Birth Certificate, or else I would not be able to work on the Federal Contract.

Very simple requirement, for a US citizen born in America. A Photo Copy WOULD NOT DO, it had to be an original Certified copy. Cost me 30 bucks, and I did it over the Internet, plus shipping/mail cost.

A Tough requirement, for a NON Citizen to comply, as it was meant to be.


4 posted on 02/14/2010 11:58:16 AM PST by 4Speed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
Hermione would wave her wand and incant Aloha Mora to unlock the birth certificate. Without proof, We can say Aloha to Obama as he leaves the White House.

WITHOUT A LEI!

5 posted on 02/14/2010 11:58:32 AM PST by Young Werther (wtih)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 4Speed

I have worked for Homeland Security on a government contract. There was a requirement to use a RAPIDGATE kiosk to enter personal information and to submit fingerprints. There was absolutely never a requirement to supply a birth certificate.


6 posted on 02/14/2010 12:14:14 PM PST by hflynn (The One is really the Number Two)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

We all “lack standing”

Didja notice?


7 posted on 02/14/2010 12:32:20 PM PST by DontTreadOnMe2009 (So stop treading on me already!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
Counsel's definition of a natural born citizen is not correct. There no legal requirement that both parents be citizens. His explanation does not take into account the issue of Americans born overseas, born to military parents, etc. That issue is settled law.

Note, “natural born” does not mean “native born.” Two very different things. “Natural born” means a citizen naturally (”automatically”) at birth, not one made a citizen by operation of law later in life, i.e. “naturalized” to be made as if natural.

His point in the second paragraph is appropriate, however. No proof has been offered.

8 posted on 02/14/2010 12:39:04 PM PST by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hflynn

“Worked for homeland Security and did not have to Supply BC”

Did you have access to Soc Sec Information and Medical records ? I did..... evidently it makes a difference.

The DOD just fingerprints you and runs an FBI and background check, no Birth Certificate....other than maybe the DOD can do their own checking for BC. Doesn’t mean Homeland Security was NOT checking on the BC, they might have done it themselves.


9 posted on 02/14/2010 12:41:59 PM PST by 4Speed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: hflynn

You need a birth certificate or passport to be a census taker - Obama qualify? (US Passport)


10 posted on 02/14/2010 12:48:34 PM PST by satan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

Onada’s “little” Constitutional problem that just won’t go away. The bloom is now off Onada’s paper flower bouquet. Because he is black—well half black—serious challenges to Onada’s qualification for presidental office were ignored.

But between the NJ, NY, VA and MA elections; plus his inability to move any of his agenda (despite his party’s majority in House and Senate; plus his on-going national security mistakes and plus an economy that has only gotten worse in the year he’s been in the WH (despite billions in bailout money thrown down the toilet) Onada is being seen for the empty commie suit that he is. He is now fair game.


11 posted on 02/14/2010 12:56:30 PM PST by dools007
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

More on “Natural Born,” i.e. citizen at birth

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.
* There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Anyone falling into these categories is considered natural-born, and is eligible to run for President or Vice President. These provisions allow the children of military families to be considered natural-born, for example.

Separate sections handle territories that the United States has acquired over time, such as Puerto Rico (8 USC 1402), Alaska (8 USC 1404), Hawaii (8 USC 1405), the U.S. Virgin Islands (8 USC 1406), and Guam (8 USC 1407). Each of these sections confer citizenship on persons living in these territories as of a certain date, and usually confer natural-born status on persons born in those territories after that date. For example, for Puerto Rico, all persons born in Puerto Rico between April 11, 1899, and January 12, 1941, are automatically conferred citizenship as of the date the law was signed by the President (June 27, 1952). Additionally, all persons born in Puerto Rico on or after January 13, 1941, are natural-born citizens of the United States. Note that because of when the law was passed, for some, the natural-born status was retroactive.

The law contains one other section of historical note, concerning the Panama Canal Zone and the nation of Panama. In 8 USC 1403, the law states that anyone born in the Canal Zone or in Panama itself, on or after February 26, 1904, to a mother and/or father who is a United States citizen, was “declared” to be a United States citizen. Note that the terms “natural-born” or “citizen at birth” are missing from this section.

In 2008, when Arizona Senator John McCain ran for president on the Republican ticket, some theorized that because McCain was born in the Canal Zone, he was not actually qualified to be president. However, it should be noted that section 1403 was written to apply to a small group of people to whom section 1401 did not apply. McCain is a natural-born citizen under 8 USC 1401(c): “a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person.” Not eveyone agrees that this section includes McCain — but absent a court ruling either way, we must presume citizenship.


12 posted on 02/14/2010 12:57:48 PM PST by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

For purposes of the Constitution, the definition of natural born citizen has never changed. No Constitutional Term can be redefined without an amendment.


13 posted on 02/14/2010 1:54:06 PM PST by candeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

bump


14 posted on 02/14/2010 3:04:51 PM PST by tutstar (Baptist Ping list - freepmail me to get on or off.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Man50D
We also maintain that Obama has failed to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii by publicly presenting a copy of a contemporaneous birth certificate (a long-form birth certificate generated when he was born in 1961 and not simply a digital image of computer generated Certification of Live Birth [COLB] allegedly obtained from the Hawaii Department of Health in 2007 which was posted on the internet by some unknown person in 2008)

Well now this "unknown person" has a chance to present his alleged evidence to an actual court of law and put this issue to rest.

15 posted on 02/14/2010 4:22:24 PM PST by Uncle Chip (TRUTH : Ignore it. Deride it. Allegorize it. Interpret it. But you can't ESCAPE it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

Because they know the truth and don’t want to be caught.


16 posted on 02/14/2010 5:30:40 PM PST by chiefqc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: candeee

Trouble is, like “Milita”, it was never defined.

Many laws implement, define and restrict what might be otherwise be considered a Constittional right. FFA is an example.


17 posted on 02/14/2010 5:55:36 PM PST by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

MindBender your analysis is incomplete therefore leading to the wrong conclusion and definition of natural born citizen.

Go to Mario Apuzzo’s web site where he not only quotes the law but also case law on the subject, does it very thoughly/clearly showing Obama can’t be a Natural Born citizen:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/


18 posted on 02/14/2010 6:39:28 PM PST by GregTM
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
Yeah, that's what it reads CURRENTLY, but what about in 1961, or whenever Obamalamadingdong claims to be born? Wasn't there a provision about the mother's age that Stanley Ann didn't meet?
19 posted on 02/14/2010 8:08:12 PM PST by Southbound ("A liar in public life is worse than a full-paid-up Communist, and I don't care who he is." - HST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: GregTM
Go to Mario Apuzzo’s web site where he not only quotes the law but also case law on the subject, does it very thoroughly/clearly showing Obama can’t be a Natural Born citizen:

The only problem with Mr. Apuzzo's analysis is that the courts do not agree with him.

His basic problem is that he, like all others in such a position, wants to be the authority on what men now dead 200 years were thinking. The courts conclude they were thinking something elase.

The other problem originalists face is that, if they are totally correct, then, as just one example, government can censor TV news.

How can they do that, you ask?

It's very simple. Freedom of the press goes not necessarily include Freedom of TV news. It's never mentioned.

We have freedom of speech, but can I cry "Fire in a crowded theater? Can I slander someone? Can a mercnant lie about goods she sells? Can a former felon bring a machine gun to Times Square?

The courts have rejected the absolute origionalist concept, and we are better off that they did.

20 posted on 02/15/2010 5:07:50 AM PST by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Southbound
Bottom line: If POTUS was born in Hawaii, he is a Natural Born US citizen.

If he was born in Kenya, he is not a US citizen of any type, because he would not be a Natural Born US citizen, nor has he been naturalized.

21 posted on 02/15/2010 5:12:15 AM PST by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

The courts pick their desired result and then find a reason to get there. Unfortunately in this case, the ineptitude of the attorneys involved heavily influences the desired result.


22 posted on 02/15/2010 5:32:14 AM PST by esquirette (If we do not know our own worldview, we will accept theirs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
Well, we may disagree on just what the definition of “Natural Born Citizen” is, as do many here. He may well be a citizen, but not a natural born citizen, due to his alleged papa being a foreign national. That definition may have to be decided by SCOTUS once and for all. And he may not be a citizen at all, too. We just don't know because of his hiding all of his records, not just birth, but all school records, college transcripts, grades, passport records, legislative records, etc. WHAT IS HE HIDING AND WHY?
23 posted on 02/15/2010 7:49:43 PM PST by Southbound ("A liar in public life is worse than a full-paid-up Communist, and I don't care who he is." - HST)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

Of course it was defined. Just because a definition isn’t included in the constitution doesn’t mean it has no meaning. The Constitutional Term Natural Born Cititzen means today exactly what it meant at the signing of the Constitution. The only way to change the qualifications for president is to amend the comstitution!


24 posted on 02/16/2010 4:45:05 PM PST by candeee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

Check out this thread for further enlightenment, and especially beginning at post #940:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2450158/posts


25 posted on 02/17/2010 11:57:17 AM PST by STARWISE (They (LIBS-STILL) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war- Richard Miniter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: onyx; penelopesire; seekthetruth; television is just wrong; jcsjcm; BP2; Pablo Mac; ...

~~PING!

The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html


26 posted on 02/17/2010 12:18:35 PM PST by STARWISE (They (LIBS-STILL) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war- Richard Miniter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
Oh boy, here we go again....3-2-1.

EnderWiggins, er I mean Edgar Winter


27 posted on 02/17/2010 12:28:47 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron ("Because without America, there is no free world" - Canada Free Press - MSM where are you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

There is a legal requirement to be a natural born citizen. To be a natural born citizen a person must be born under the sole jurisdiction of the united states. if one of your parents is a alien, you inherit that alien citizenship regardless of the place of your birth, there is no escaping his reality. Thus you were NOT born under the SOLE jurisdiction of the United States.

In obummer’s case, he Admits his guilt in the open, which does not negate it. He was born under the British nationality act 1948, the jurisdiction of another nation. Ergo, he is not, never has been, indeed, he never could be a natural born citizen.

We have an unconstitutional government. Don’t wonder for an instant why that “government” is acting so across the board unconstitutionaly. It isn’t boing by the constitution. We need to throw o out of office and into A jail cell.


28 posted on 02/17/2010 12:31:19 PM PST by Danae (Don't like our Constitution? Try living in a country with out one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

HHmmm Weren’t you asking what was in the air? Is this it?


29 posted on 02/17/2010 12:44:34 PM PST by hoosiermama (ONLY DEAD FISH GO WITH THE FLOW.......I am swimming with Sarahcudah! Sarah has read the tealeaves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate; Man50D
"Hey Glenn Beck, Thomas Jefferson was a birther!"

Yeah, but don't tell him that! It's liable to reveal him as a cherry picker as to which parts of the Constitution are important to uphold.

"IBTAT

In Before The AFTER-birther Trolls."

Nice!

30 posted on 02/17/2010 1:01:22 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: hflynn; 4Speed
"I have worked for Homeland Security on a government contract. There was a requirement to use a RAPIDGATE kiosk to enter personal information and to submit fingerprints. There was absolutely never a requirement to supply a birth certificate."

Well, that's reassuring! I mean, it's not like some terrorist with no criminal background (i.e. fingerprint check negative) could enter some bogus information into the "kiosk."

/s

31 posted on 02/17/2010 1:06:26 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26; candeee
"Trouble is, like “Milita”, it was never defined.

Many laws implement, define and restrict what might be otherwise be considered a Constittional right. FFA is an example."

Who, or "what" constituted a natural born citizen was well known to the framers. Jay would not have made such a suggestion to others (Washington & the rest of those in attendance at the Constitutional Convention) unless there was a clear understanding of what that term meant. The definition comes from a source that not only were the framers familiar with, but the founders (many who were both) as well.

 

NBC in the Constitutional drafts:

June 18th, 1787 - Alexander Hamilton suggests that the requirement be added, as: "No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_born_citizen_of_the_United_States

July 25, 1787 (~5 weeks later) - John Jay writes a letter to General Washington (president of the Constitutional Convention): "Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen." [the word born is underlined in Jay's letter.] http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29:

September 2nd, 1787 George Washington pens a letter to John Jay. The last line reads: "I thank you for the hints contained in your letter"
http://www.consource.org/index.asp?bid=582&fid=600&documentid=71483

September 4th, 1787 (~6 weeks after Jay's letter and just 2 days after Washington wrote back to Jay) - The "Natural Born Citizen" requirement is now found in their drafts. Madison's notes of the Convention
The proposal passed unanimously without debate.

 

Original French version of Vattel's Law of Nations:

Emer de Vattel, Le droit des gens, ou Principes de la loi naturelle, vol. 1 (of 2) [1758]

From Chapter XIX, 212 (page 248 of 592):
Title in French: "Des citoyens et naturels"
To English: "Citizens and natural"

French text (about citizens): "Les citoyens sont les membres de la societe civile : lies a cette societe par certains devoirs et soumis a son autorite, ils participent avec egalite a ses avantages."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To English: "The citizens are the members of the civil society: dregs has this company by certain duties and subjected has its authority, they take part with equality has its advantages."

French text (about "natural" born citizens): "Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parens citoyens"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To English, gives this: "the natural, or indigenous, are those born in the country, parents who are citizens"

 

The same defintion was referenced in the dicta of many early SCOTUS cases as well...some examples:

"THE VENUS, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J. concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of Natural Born Citizen)
SHANKS V. DUPONT, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel)
MINOR V. HAPPERSETT, 88 U.S.162,167-168 ( 1875) (same definition without citing Vattel)
EX PARTE REYNOLDS, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel)
UNITED STATES V WARD, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D. Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel.)"
http://www.scribd.com/doc/17519578/Kerchner-v-Obama-Congress-DOC-34-Plaintiffs-Brief-Opposing-Defendants-Motion-to-Dismiss

32 posted on 02/17/2010 1:21:55 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Man50D; All
HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN?

 

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4,1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.‘s children.
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/5/birthcertificate.html

 

It can't. Of course not. Yet, right there, on his campaign web site F.T.S., it's stated that a foreign government "governed" Barry from birth and the reason it did, was that Barry inherited that foreign citizenship by way of his foreign national father (no matter where he was born).
How, then, could he possibly be a "Natural Born Citizen" of the U.S.?
Barry Soetoro, the divided citizen at birth!


http://www.jeffersonsrebels.blogspot.com

 

Furthermore:  Hawaii's Territorial Law, Chapter 57 - "VITAL STATISTICS, I", shown beginning pg 23 of 29, (the law in effect in 1961) allowed baby's born anywhere in the world to be eligible to apply for a Hawaii birth certificate based on the word of 1 relative. That is how a foreign born baby could get a HI BC on record, which in turn generates the "birth announcements" in the newspapers.

33 posted on 02/17/2010 1:25:00 PM PST by rxsid (HOW CAN A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'S STATUS BE "GOVERNED" BY GREAT BRITAIN? - Leo Donofrio (2009))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE

Well, then we have a problem don’t we?


34 posted on 02/17/2010 1:35:04 PM PST by JustPiper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Danae

Our form of government is the Constitution, as, since marbury v. Madison, interpreted by SCOTUS.

Who is a natural-born citizen? Who, in other words, is a citizen at birth, such that that person can be a President someday?

The 14th Amendment defines citizenship this way: “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.” But even this does not get specific enough. As usual, the Constitution provides the framework for the law, but it is the law that fills in the gaps.

Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. Code fills in those gaps. Section 1401 defines the following as people who are “citizens of the United States at birth:”

Anyone born inside the United States *
Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person’s status as a citizen of the tribe
Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S., as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national
Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21
Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)
A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

To have any person try themselves to define the meaning of the term Natural Born is for them to set themselves up as a Dictator, in that they, not the courts would dictate what a law or constitutional provision really means.


35 posted on 02/17/2010 2:54:50 PM PST by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

Fail.
You described a citizen not a natural born citizen.

Natural born citizen has been described. See the link starwise sent you. That thread is AWESOME deep in it’s research.


36 posted on 02/17/2010 3:01:55 PM PST by Danae (Don't like our Constitution? Try living in a country with out one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Man50D

WTF!!!! I thought they lost their right to an extension for failure to respond?

This is BS, straight up!


37 posted on 02/17/2010 3:51:27 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Danae
Please, read the law, not the dreams of some foolish man.

There are two kinds of citizens, Citizens at the moment of birth, (Natural Born) and those made citizens later by opperation of law and application, persons “Naturalized.”

A natural born citizen is described in USC 8, sec 1401.

Trying to restrict the Presidency to only those born physically in the US would be a huge mistake. What of the mother were traveling and had a premature delivery. What about children born overseas on US military bases, what about kids born off-post in Europe, what about a child born on a fireign-flagged ship on a voyage from New York to Miami?

“Natural born” means a citizen naturally at the moment of birth, not naturalized later. It does not signify born physically in the US.

To think otherwise is foolish and to ignore the law.

38 posted on 02/17/2010 3:57:12 PM PST by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate
Well I am here and don't care what the others say. 
 
Birther, Documenter get rid of this BOZO and implicate as many other idiots as possible i.e. Nancy, Reid, Holder, et all, etc, etc, etc!
 
Dumber than a box of rocks with the critical thinking skills of a newborn, this moron makes the other morons, who voted for him a laughing stock.
 
Not that there where any other choices but really, this guy is just Stoopid and so are his advisers.
 
They have spent only $20 billion of the $787 billion they said would stave off disaster and then the Teleprompter in chief has the gall to stand in front of America, on TV and claim the money prevented a calamitous descent into another depression?
 
Get Real!!!
 
Chuck!!!! Get those guys with nets and pull this guy into a safe room and medicate him.
 
He is off his rocker!
 
 
 
 
 

39 posted on 02/17/2010 4:00:45 PM PST by Vendome (Don't take life so seriously... You'll never live through it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

What foolish man?

I am not basing my opinion on Apuzzo or Donofrio or anyone else. I base it on my own readings and research.

I will often look at the work of others, which leads me to other research and other sources (original) and I go from there. I don’t spout the talking points of someone else. I am a pretty damn good researcher in my own right.

It is MY conclusion that Natural Born Citizen is: A person who was born to two parents who were citizens at that birth, and born on the soil of our territory.

Certainly your half hearted attempts to disprove that have failed. The ONLY source that is going to disprove me is SCOTUS.

They do not have a case before them. YET. When that happens, I feel certain what the outcome will be. The Same as what I stated above.

Obama is an usurper, and that isn’t a birhter opinion. Thats a constitutionalist opinion. I am not a birther, I don’t care where Obama was born, from the instant the sperm hit the egg, he could not have been a natural born citizen.

UNLESS..... his parentage is NOT what is shown on his COLB. That’s is the only reason that his long form is of any interest to me. But given what the world has of the cretin, and we must go with what we have, that means he is NOT an NBC and should be removed from office post haste.


40 posted on 02/17/2010 4:17:24 PM PST by Danae (Don't like our Constitution? Try living in a country with out one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
According to the US Dept. of State Foreign affairs manual: it has “never been determined definitively...whether a person who acquired US Citizenship by birth abroad is a natural born citizen” with respect to POTUS eligibility.

The manual also states, “ the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a person for constitutional purpose” of eligibility to be President.

Congress was given the power to establish a “uniform Rule of Naturalization”. There is doubt that Congress can constitutionally define the term natural born citizen as it pertains to the eligibility question.

A person born in the USA to parents who are both citizens are indisputably eligible for POTUS, as to other classes, there are doubts, and those doubts have yet to be definitively resolved. It is a legitimate issue.

41 posted on 02/17/2010 4:46:49 PM PST by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Danae; greeneyes

Gentlemen, or Gentlewomen, or, er, Gentlepeople.

READ THE LAW!

It is USC, Title 8, Section 1401:

It states as follows:

“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;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe: Provided, That the granting of citizenship under this subsection shall not in any manner impair or otherwise affect the right of such person to tribal or other property;
(c) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents both of whom are citizens of the United States and one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions, prior to the birth of such person;
(d) a person born outside of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year prior to the birth of such person, and the other of whom is a national, but not a citizen of the United States;
(e) a person born in an outlying possession of the United States of parents one of whom is a citizen of the United States who has been physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for a continuous period of one year at any time prior to the birth of such person;
(f) a person of unknown parentage found in the United States while under the age of five years, until shown, prior to his attaining the age of twenty-one years, not to have been born in the United States;
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States, or periods of employment with the United States Government or with an international organization as that term is defined in section 288 of title 22 by such citizen parent, or any periods during which such citizen parent is physically present abroad as the dependent unmarried son or daughter and a member of the household of a person
(A) honorably serving with the Armed Forces of the United States, or
(B) employed by the United States Government or an international organization as defined in section 288 of title 22, may be included in order to satisfy the physical-presence requirement of this paragraph. This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date; and
(h) a person born before noon (Eastern Standard Time) May 24, 1934, outside the limits and jurisdiction of the United States of an alien father and a mother who is a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, had resided in the United States.”

End of law.

Now, read (g) Obama qualifies under (g) even if he was born in Kenya. His mother was a citizen. She lived in the US for a period or periods totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.

Remember, Natural Born does not in any way mean “native born.”

Complain all anyone wants, but that is the law.


42 posted on 02/17/2010 6:47:39 PM PST by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

HAhaha ..


43 posted on 02/17/2010 7:12:23 PM PST by STARWISE (They (LIBS-STILL) think of this WOT as Bush's war, not America's war- Richard Miniter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JoSixChip

didn’t they certify the election or something like that?


44 posted on 02/17/2010 7:28:29 PM PST by television is just wrong
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
Dear gentle person,

I already read this LAW several times. I have read the law, and the constitution, and the Supreme Court decisions, common law references, Vattel, correspondence between the framers of the constitution, legal scholars on both sides of the issue, the foreign affairs manual, and the congressional record.

JMHO, the CONSTITUTIONAL NBC requirement for POTUS, meant a child born in the USA whose parents were both citizens. Such a requirement may not be changed by statute, it would require a constitutional amendment. The CONSTITUTION trumps statutes.

And as the Dept. of State notes in it's foreign affairs manual: “the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a person for constitutional purposes” of determining eligibility for President.

Reasonable legal arguments can be made on both sides of this issue - it will not be settled definitively until determined by the Supreme Court, which they will dodge at every opportunity - chances are Slim to None that it will be settled.

As for me, after careful research, I place more weight on the Constitution, and the writings and statements of the framers as to what the definition originally was.

If you have read all the things I noted in the first paragraph, and you can not agree that there are some good points on both sides of this issue, then there is really no point to continue a discussion, and we will just have to agree to disagree.

45 posted on 02/17/2010 7:28:41 PM PST by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: greeneyes
With all respect, I'm glad you recognize it as your opinion, since the Senate, the House, and SCOTUS all disagree with you.

Under your opinion, if an American couple were traveling in Europe and had a premature child, that child would not be a NBC. Nor would a child born on an American military base overseas. Nor would the child of an American citizen with a foreign spouse who later became a citizen.

Under your system, even John McCain would not be eligible. He was born in Panama to his Navy parents.

46 posted on 02/17/2010 7:47:54 PM PST by MindBender26 (Prezdet Obama is what you get when you let the O.J. jury select a president !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26
SCOTUS has not ruled on the specific meaning with respect to Article II, section 1 of the US constitution.

The Dept. of State manual on Foreign Affairs states with respect to eligibility for President, that it has “never been determined definitively by court whether a person who acquired his US citizenship by birth abroad is a natural born citizen.”

Congressional opinions, actions, and statutes are irrelevant, unless they can get a constitutional amendment ratified. They have no authority to alter the constitution by statute.

As for John McCain, I don't think the framers knew him. However, a good legal case could be made that he was born owing allegiance to the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof rendering the actual geographical location moot. And that would be a fair way to look at the historical meaning. But again, it has not been definitively settled.

The situation is what it is. The fact that it was raised at all with John McCain, should be a hint that it is not settled.

I would not have minded if Obama and McCain had been ruled ineligible or eligible - a ruling one way or the other is what I would like to see. If the ruling is not what the people want and unfair to soldiers, then the constitution can be amended.

If the issue was as settled as you think, the US Dept. of State would not have noted that it had not been settled. Like I said, I have researched the issue extensively, and there are good points on both sides.

After research, I decided there were unsettled issues, and what I think the framers intended. I do not think they intended to include someone who was admittedly a citizen of 3 different countries, because they did not want anyone with foreign allegiances or divided loyalties to be President.

If it makes you feel better to pretend the issue is settled, go right ahead and keep the blinders on.

47 posted on 02/17/2010 9:00:03 PM PST by greeneyes (Moderation in defense of your country is NO virtue. Let Freedom Ring.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

Dude, stop quoting TODAY’S laws. They were not in effect in 1961, they had not been WRITTEN yet.

Sheesh.

Man, we have been through this on another thread the law that applied was this, read up.

http://www.constitution.org/uslaw/sal/066_statutes_at_large.pdf

PUBLIC LAW 414-JUNE 27, 1952

Start on PDF page 202, thats where the index is. Read title 3 which is quite a ways on from there, but Title three is what you are looking for. Also this is the section of that law which has otherwise been scrubbed from the internet. Trust me, it took me personally 3 hours to find this law, and several other people were looking for it as well. There are a LOT of man(woman) hours invested in finding this document.

Title three starts on PDF page (NOT THE DOCUMENT PAGE, those will be two different numbers) 274.

READ THIS CAREFULLY.

This is the law that governed Obama’s citizenship. Its been scrubbed for a reason. It proves what we have been saying. He isn’t a Natural Born Citizen.

Download this, I would not be surprised if it disappears off the internet again. If you are curious, search the title of this law on google, and see for yourself, Except for the link I gave here, title 3 is MISSING in every document you find listed on google. No joke.


48 posted on 02/17/2010 9:11:12 PM PST by Danae (Don't like our Constitution? Try living in a country with out one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: MindBender26

I believe, that most likely there are serious questions about McCains eligibility to run, I have NOT researched the law that was in effect at the time of HIS birth however.


49 posted on 02/17/2010 9:13:32 PM PST by Danae (Don't like our Constitution? Try living in a country with out one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: DontTreadOnMe2009
We all “lack standing”

Just like the "natural born subjects" of Kings, Queens, Dukes, Earls, and assorted other "betters". To be sure the lessor "royals" were also subjects, but "more equal" than the mere peasants.

50 posted on 02/17/2010 9:15:51 PM PST by El Gato ("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-68 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson