Appeals court: We're listening to eligibility case (re: Kerchner v. Obama)

WND ^ | February 23, 2010 | Bob Unruh

[rxsid]

"Appeals court: We're listening to eligibility case
Judges grant permission for lengthy filing in case challenging Obama

An appeals court has indicated it is listening to arguments in a case that challenges Barack Obama's occupancy in the Oval Office with a ruling that gives special permission for an extra-long document to be filed in the case.

WND has reported on the case brought by attorney Mario Apuzzo in January 2009 on behalf of Charles F. Kerchner Jr., Lowell T. Patterson, Darrell James Lenormand and Donald H. Nelson Jr.

Named as defendants were Barack Hussein Obama II, the U.S., Congress, the Senate, House of Representatives, former Vice President Dick Cheney and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

The case alleges Congress failed to follow the Constitution, which "provides that Congress must fully qualify the candidate 'elected' by the Electoral College Electors."

The complaint also asserts "when Obama was born his father was a British subject/citizen and Obama himself was the same." The case contends the framers of the U.S. Constitution, when they adopted the requirement that a president be a "natural born citizen," excluded dual citizens."

More here:http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=125985

 

Attorney Apuzzo also has info on this, on his site:
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/02/court-grants-motion-for-leave-to-file.html

[parsifal]

I’m all for education. Now as to case law, YES IT IS LAW. That is what is meant by “common law” -—it is “judge made” law. The other kind is “code law” like the Napoleanic Code. Common law works better because the people have more rights and abilities to protect themselves.

And, you can “take on” WKA all you want. It’s called a “hearing” and judge(s) will decide, just as they decided WKA. They may overturn parts of it. I doubt it. Until then, Supreme Court decisions are kinda important and smart people would do well to remember “that is the current state of the law.”

Y’all can jump up and down and run in circles, scream and shout, and read Vattel, and Rousseau, and D.H. Lawrence, whatever, they will NEVER EVER EVER be anything other than secondary or persuasive authority. They do not have the force of law. Supreme Court decisions do.

parsy, who applauds your energy, but wishes it were better directed

[patlin]

http://www.hillsdale.edu/

http://www.hillsdale.edu/kirbycenter/default.asp

http://www.tvworldwide.com/events/hillsdale/100130/

[patlin]

who applauds your energy, but wishes it were better directed

Of course you wished I would redirect it because you relly don't want the TRUTH to come out.

Our common law is not that of the feudal law of England, but rather the common law of nature in which England 1st was founded on and many aspects of it remained after the Norman conquest.

You also come back with WKA yet again, but I refer you to the 1965 Immigration Act wherein it states “the citizenship of an alien born in the United States is charged against the quota allowed from the country of the parents.” Thus, even in 1965 the common law that the child follows the condition of the father(if the parents are married) or the mother(if the child was born out of wedlock) was still in place and that law has never been repealed. It merely has been usurped by liberal statist judges who think the constitution is a living and breathing document and therefore is an equal opportunity blank page for the statist to rewrite for their personal political goals of a socialist American. Yes, equal poverty for all.

I say no thanks and so did our founders.

Your replies show that you have no ambition nor inclination to actually learn for yourself. You attack me for putting out there what I have learned and told me I shouldn't spend so much time on educating myself.

parsi, you are nothing more than a drone by the mere fact that you can only regurgitate lies. You have shown yourself to be incapable of independent thought.

[parsifal]

Here’s the link to the case:

GRAY, J., Opinion of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

169 U.S. 649
United States v. Wong Kim Ark

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

Here’s some of the case:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

Now the Birthers can romp and stomp all they want. It ain’t gonna change the facts. The Birthers say they are doing this “for the Constitution” then they need to put up or shut up. This is the current state of the law. Accept it, or become the usurpers.

You got the link to the whole case. Looks to me like that “traffic clerk” got it right. And, FWIW, I read this case about 6 months ago. So you got that part about me not doing my homework wrong, too.

parsy

[parsifal]

OMG, he ain’t an “alien.” You are the one who is regurgitating the Birther Lies.

Here’s you a link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthright_citizenship_in_the_United_States_of_America

And I don’t want to hear any of that typical Birther “But I don’t like the site” nonsense. The statements have links to the appropriate legal citations.

And in spite of what you think about “liberal statist” judges (which is kinda backwards, cause its the strict constructionist “conservative” who are usually more “statist”, but that’s another law lesson for another time) their decisions have the force of law.

Now if you are “doing this for the Constitution” as you Birthers claim, then once again, PUT UP OR SHUT UP! Recognize the law whether you like it or not and give it your respect.

parsy, who is doing his best to educate you

[rxsid]

The court found WKA, born in country to alien parents, to be a citizen. Period.

[patlin]

Period in your feeble uneducated drone mind. US laws passed by Congress 65 years later and still on the books today say something very different and this is the point where every statist lawyer and statist drone stops debating me.

‘Citizens may be Natives, but NOT all natives are citizens’

[rxsid]

Easy there FRiend. I believe you've mistaken me for the "enemy."

Ole' parsey there is attempting to use WKA for his/her own twisted logic.

As you can see in the court decision, they found WKA to be a "citizen" and not a "natural born citizen." That's a fact, jack.

 

As for 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

[parsifal]

I think that is way too simple for them. You need to write 200 pages with pictures of monkeys holding hands over their eyes, ears, and mouths and put some of it in RED and BOLD and BIG LETTERS and UNDERLINES.

I swear, these Birthers are worse than Bill Clinton with his “That depends on what “is” is. “

parsy, who is in a fine fettle

[rxsid]

Besides, the issue is (as I'm sure you know) "natural born citizen" and not "native citizen."

Anchor baby's are native citizens by statue (or "man's" law, not by way of nature or natural law). Actually, anchor baby's have the possibility of having triple citizenship at birth. U.S. citizenship by way of being born in the U.S., foreign citizenship from country B inherited from their foreign national father and foreign citizenship from country C inherited from their foreign national mother. That scenario, of course, assumes the mother and father are citizens of different foreign country's. Definitely a possibility.

Therefore, it's impossible that native born citizens (ex. anchor baby's) could be considered "natural born citizen's" as they have the possibility of multiple citizenship's and multiple foreign entanglements/foreign allegiances owed.

[patlin]

your source is wikipedia? ROFLMAO! They can't even get right Obama’s birth place. One only wonders when that will change again, lol.

page 666:

http://books.google.com/books?id=-ShAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA54&dq=Immigration+and+Citizenship:+Process+and+Policy&lr=&as_brr=1&cd=71#v=onepage&q=Schade&f=false

http://www.heritage.org/research/legalissues/lm18.cfm

http://www.jstor.org/pss/27530990

http://books.google.com/books?printsec=toc&pg=PA61&id=IsJOmPyODiwC#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/Citizenship/history.htm

Thus, according to Morse, “the framers thought it wise, in view of the probable influx of European immigration, to provide that the President should at least be the child of citizens owing allegiance to the United States at the time of his birth.”(45) He goes on to say that the presidential eligibility clause “was scarcely intended to bar the children of American parentage, whether born at sea or in foreign territory.... A natural-born citizen has been defined as one whose citizenship is established by the jurisdiction which the United States already has over the parents of the child, not what is thereafter acquired by choice of residence in this country.”(46)

Although this legal history was never explicitly addressed at the Constitutional Convention, Morse's view is similar to a statement by Charles Pinckney in 1800, namely, that the presidential eligibility clause is designed “to insure ... attachment to the country” on the part of the President. This statement is discussed in more detail below.

Morse also emphasizes the difference between the terms “native-born” and “natural-born.” The dictionary, which follows the English precedents, defines “native-born” as “belonging to or associated with a particular place (as a country) by birth therein” and “natural-born” as “having a specified status or character by birth.”(47) If the Founders had not wanted an expansive definition of citizenship, Morse writes, “it would only have been necessary to say, ‘no person, except a native-born citizen.’”(48)

This statement from Professor Yinger as well as his conclusion states specifically that children born to American parent(S), yes both are the ‘natural born’ citizens and is also backed by the census records of 1790-1880 which is in the 1st link above beginning on page 666. The United States did NOT adopt any form of dual citizenship when ratifying the constitution and that is backed by the current US State Dept's statement: US law does not recognize dual citizenship.

So, in other words, “I HAVE PUT UP”, but I will not demand you to shut up, That is just plain rude and not in the nature of a patriotic & conservative constitutionalist.

Let me know when you are ready for more like the above. My library is deep.

[sneakers]

ping!

[parsifal]

LOL! Them birthers get feisty, don’t they?

It appears to me, that they are the same. The case seems to indicate it:

The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, “strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;” and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, “if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.” It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides — seeing that, as said by Mr. Webster, when Secretary of State, in his Report to the President on Thrasher’s Case in 1851, and since repeated by this court,

independently of a residence with intention to continue such residence; independently of any domiciliation; independently of the taking of any oath of allegiance or of renouncing any former allegiance, it is well known that, by the public law, an alien, or a stranger [p694] born, for so long a time as he continues within the dominions of a foreign government, owes obedience to the laws of that government, and may be punished for treason, or other crimes, as a native-born subject might be, unless his case is varied by some treaty stipulations.

And later on:

The Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in the declaration that

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,

contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization. Citizenship by naturalization can only be acquired by naturalization under the authority and in the forms of law. But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case [p703] of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts.

And for guidance on whether a native or natural born subject was the same as a natural born citizen, we go back up above where this reasoning is looked upon with favor, or arguably adopted, by the court;

Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, speaking of the “general division of the inhabitants of every country under the comprehensive title of aliens and natives,” says:

Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of the United States. This is the rule of the common law, without any regard or reference to the political condition or allegiance of their parents, with the exception of the children of ambassadors, who are in theory born within the allegiance of the foreign power they represent. . . . To create allegiance by birth, the party must be born not only within the territory, but within the ligeance of the government. If a portion of the country be taken and held by conquest in war, the conqueror acquires the rights of the conquered as to its dominion and government, and children born in the armies of a State, while [p665] abroad and occupying a foreign country, are deemed to be born in the allegiance of the sovereign to whom the army belongs. It is equally the doctrine of the English common law that, during such hostile occupation of a territory, and the parents be adhering to the enemy as subjects de facto, their children, born under such a temporary dominion, are not born under the ligeance of the conquered.

2 Kent Com. (6th ed.) 39, 42. And he elsewhere says:

And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary. . . . 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, note.

parsy, who suggests the Birthers might want to turn off the lights, the party’s over

[parsifal]

But theres that little thingie in WKA where the court goes over international law, and the Napoleanic Code, and says that there is nothing in international law or the law of nations that just flatly contradicts the place of birth argument. Which is the same as saying, our reliance on common law does not violate the law of nations.

parsy, who is confused by your tag line

[parsifal]

Somehow I knew a Birther would not like wiki! You know why? Wiki is just way too simple. They cut to the chase and since they give cites, its pretty easy to check up on them.

But, I digress. I am glad that you have a deep library. That means there is hope for you. You are at least, literate. You might be one I can save.

It is pretty much useless to dissect treatises. Treatises, and statements are not the law. All they are good for in this case, is to gauge the Framer’s intents. But they aren’t needed. You know why? BECAUSE SCOTUS HAS ALREADY DONE IT! It’s the WKA case. Read the WHOLE DURN THING!

Most of it is the discussion of treatises, and who said what, and what it meant. They done put all that stuff into the mixing bowl and came out with a decision. It ain’t that hard. Let me hit some of the highlights.

1. If you are born here, you are a citizen, based upon the common law of England, which is how the Framers saw things.(There are a few exceptions, including Indians)

2. There ain’t but two kinds of citizens - Them what was born here, and them that is naturalized.

3. Congress can naturalize some more if it wants, but it really can’t cut out somebody who was born here.

4. The English common law called them Natural Born Subjects, and that is fine, but Natural Born Citizen just sounds nicer, since we ain’t got a king, no more.

SOOOOOO....with that in mind:

Obama was born here, so he’s a citizen.

He ain’t a naturalized one, so that makes him a
Natural Born Citizen.

Okay. That’s it. Rummage your library. Read some books. It can’t hurt you. I would recommend that you stay away from Edna the Whip Lady. It might cause nightmares.

Twist it, dissect it, split hairs over it, just have a merry old time. But WKA provides most of the relevant law, and that tends to make Obama an NBC, and legitimate president. Period.

parsy, who hopes you will at least stop calling the non-Birthers names since it is you guys who have a really high hurdle to jump and a real huge burden of proof to meet to come anywhere near overturning the law.

[rxsid]

"parsy, who is confused by your tag line"

I know you are :^)

[gopheraj]

mark

[parsifal]

Oh, and BTW, your sources ain’t that hot. Yinger does less analyses by far of the Framers’ intent than the WKA Court. The “Story” treatise is N/A since Story was discussed in WKA. Heritage, wouldn’t have to worry about birthright law impact, unless birthright applied. Which it does. And which is in that wiki link you find so funny. Jstor won’t let me past the first page. I typically try to read further than that. The immigration investigation thing is weird to me somehow.

parsy, who did look

[parsifal]

No. Really. You could like take it two ways. Is he griping about English common law as applied in WKA? Is he griping about all the heck poor Obama has been put thru because pappy was a Rolling Kenyan and British subject.

I suspect the first. But you could be a DU plant...Or a KOS secret agent....hmmm. hmmmm. hmmm.

parsy, who fears the Birther paranoia is rubbing off on him.

[rxsid]

"I suspect the first. But you could be a DU plant...Or a KOS secret agent....hmmm."

You found me out. Good work there Parsy! But please, don't tell anyone else...OK?