Atty Mario Apuzzo “natural born Citizen” Expert Will Be On The Peter Boyles Radio Show – Thurs 25 Feb 2016 9 AM EST

Peter Boyles Radio Show - 710 KNUS Denver Co
Peter Boyles Radio Show – 710 KNUS Denver Co
Click image to learn more about Atty Mario Apuzzo
Click image to learn more about Atty Mario Apuzzo

America’s Expert on ‘Natural Born Citizenship’ and Who is an Article II “natural born Citizen” to Constitutional Standards will be on the Peter Boyles Radio Show – 710 KNUS Denver CO on Thursday, 25 Feb 2016, at 9:00 A.M. EST, discussing the “natural born Citizen” Constitutional Presidential Eligibility Clause and Marco Rubio‘s and Ted Cruz‘s Lack of Constitutional Eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief, or the VP.

The “natural born Citizen” Clause is a National Security Clause put in the Constitution by John Jay and George Washington as a Strong Check against Foreign Influence to Prevent Anyone Born with Divided Allegiances and Dual-Citizenship from Gaining Command of Out Military.

Listen to the show live or later that day on podcast at:  http://www.710knus.com/peterboyles/

# # # #

Help Stop The Constitutionally Ineligible
Ted Cruz & Marco Rubio – Elex Sign Petitions – Click on Image

Get Printable PDF Copy of Cruz Petition Here — Get Printable PDF Copy of Rubio Petition Here

Stop The Constitutionally Ineligible Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio

# # # #

My comment: Neither Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio who are two active candidates [and the candidate Jindal whose campaign is in suspension – nor Nikki Haley who is being mentioned as a possible VP candidate] were at birth born to two U.S. Citizen parents in the USA and thus all three are NOT a “natural born Citizen” of the United States with sole allegiance at birth to only the USA. Each of the above were born with citizenship in more than one country and thus have divided allegiance and foreign influences on them by and at birth. No matter what you think of their politics, like them or not, they are NOT constitutionally eligible for the office they seek. Obama has shown us what one can get when one allows a person with divided allegiances via birth into the Oval Office. The “natural born Citizen” clause in our Constitution is a national security clause and must be defended and upheld as originally understood and intended. We must defend the Constitution no matter which political party seeks to subvert it – CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret).
.

Obama Not Constitutionally Eligible to be the President and Commander of our Military. Click Image for the Proof.
Cruz and Rubio (and Obama) Not Constitutionally Eligible to be the President and Commander of our Military. Click Image for the Proof.

A Lesson from History. Is Being Born a Citizen (Citizen at/by Birth) of the United States of Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of Our Military? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided … No, It Was Not!

By: CDR Charles F. Kerchner, Jr., P.E. (Retired)

During the process of developing a new U.S. Constitution Alexander Hamilton submitted a suggested draft for a Constitution on June 18, 1787. At some point, he also suggested to the framers a proposal for the qualification requirements in Article II as to the necessary Citizenship status for the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Another version of Hamilton’s proposed Constitution and which principles were stated during the convention’s deliberations per Madison notes and journal (see work of Farrand – pg 619), was given to Madison near the close of the convention for inclusion in Madison record of events for the convention. Hamilton’s proposed Constitution was not accepted.

Alexander Hamilton’s suggested presidential eligibility clause:

“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.”

Many of the founders and framers rightly had a fear of foreign influence on the person who would in the future be President of the United States since this particular office was singularly and uniquely powerful under the proposed new Constitution. The President was also to be the Commander in Chief of the military. This fear of foreign influence on a future President and Commander in Chief was particularly strongly felt by John Jay, who later became the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. He felt so strongly about the issue of potential foreign influence that he took it upon himself to draft a letter to General George Washington, the presiding officer of the Constitutional Convention, recommending/hinting that the framers should strengthen the Citizenship requirements. John Jay was an avid reader and proponent of natural law and particularly Vattel’s treatise on Natural Law and the Law of Nations. In his letter to Washington he said that the Citizenship requirement for the office of the commander of our armies should contain a “strong check” against foreign influence and he recommended to Washington that the command of the military be open only to a “natural born Citizen”. Thus Jay did not agree that simply being a “born Citizen” or “born a Citizen” was sufficient enough protection from foreign influence in the singular most powerful office in the new form of government. He wanted another adjective added to the eligibility clause, i.e., ‘natural’. And that word natural goes to the Citizenship status of one’s parents, both of them, when their child is born, as per natural law.

The below is the relevant proposed change language from Jay’s letter which he proposed to strengthen the citizenship requirements in Article II and to require more than just being a “born Citizen” of the United States to serve as a future Commander in Chief and President.

John Jay wrote in a letter to George Washington dated 25 Jul 1787:

“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. “

See a transcription of Jay’s letter to Washington at this link. This letter from Jay was written on July 25, 1787. General Washington passed on the recommendation from Jay to the convention and it was adopted in the final draft and was accepted adding the adjective “natural” making it “natural born Citizen of the United States” for future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the military, rather than Hamilton’s proposed “born a Citizen”. Thus Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution, the fundamental law of our nation reads:

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of U.S. Constitution as adopted 17 Sep 1787:

“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; 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.”

There you have the crux of the issue now before the nation and the answer.

Hamilton’s proposed principles for a Constitution and a presidential citizenship eligibility requirement therein requiring that a Citizen simply had to be ‘born a Citizen’ of the USA, i.e., a Citizen by Birth. See Madison’s comment in his journal of the convention re this fact in which it reports as follows: ” … Copy of a paper Communicated to J. M. by Col. Hamilton, about the close of the Convention in Philada. 1787, which he said delineated the Constitution which he would have wished to be proposed by the Convention: He had stated the principles of it in the course of the deliberations. …” — 3 Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 619-630 (1911) – page 619. But that citizenship status for who could be President was rejected by the framers as insufficient. Instead of allowing any person “born a citizen” to be President and Commander of the military, the framers chose to adopt the more stringent requirement recommended by John Jay via George Washington, i.e., requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of the person with foreign influence or allegiances or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military. No person having any foreign influence or claim of allegiance on them at birth could serve as a future President. The person must be a “natural born citizen” with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth.

Jay’s proposal and recommended clause added the additional adjective of “natural” before simply being a “born Citizen” which was proposed by Hamilton. And that word and adjective “natural” means something special from the laws of nature that modifies just being born a Citizen of the USA such as being simply born on the soil of the United States. Natural means from nature by the facts of nature of one’s birth. Not created retroactively after the fact by a man-made law. A natural born Citizen needs no man-made law to bestow Citizenship on them. The added adjective “natural” comes from Natural Law which is recognized the world over as universal law and which is the foundation of the Law of Nations which was codified by Vattel in 1758 in his preeminent legal treatise used by the founders, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law. In Vol.1 Chapter 19 of Vattel’s Law of Nations, the “Des citoyens et naturels“, Vattel in Section 212 explains to us (the French term “naturels” was translated to English in 1781 in the Journal of the Continental Congress and in the 1797 English edition of Vattel), to tell us that the “natural born Citizens” are those born in the country to parents (plural) who are Citizens of the country when their child is born. These are the natural Citizens of the nation per universal principles of natural law for which no man-made law is necessary to explain or justify. Such a person, a natural born Citizen, is born with unity of Citizenship and sole allegiance at birth due to having been both born on the soil AND being born to two Citizen parents. The person who would be President must be a second generation American with no foreign claims of allegiance on them at birth under the law of nations and natural law, the child of two Citizens and born in the USA. This is a much stronger check to foreign influence than simply being born a Citizen say on the soil of the USA but with one or the other parent being a foreigner, such as is the case of Obama. The situation with Obama’s birth Citizenship status is exactly the problem that the founders and framers did not want. They did not want the child of a foreign national, non-U.S. citizen serving as President and Commander of our military. This was a national security concern to them. And it is a national security concern now.

Another founder of our nation and great historian of the American Revolution named David Ramsay contemporaneously defined in a 1789 essay what the term “natural born Citizen” means. Read a copy of Ramsay’s original dissertation at this link. Other research papers from history on the term “natural born Citizen” published long before the current controversy was created by the 2008 election debacle can be read at this link. The paper by Breckenridge Long in 1916 is a particularly good one.

The current defacto president and unconstitutional occupier of the Oval Office Barack Hussein Obama II may or may not be a born Citizen of the USA depending on what the 1961 contemporaneous birth registration documents sealed in Hawaii reveal. And Americans have good reason to be greatly concerned about the truth as to where he was physically born as opposed to where his birth may have been falsely registered by his maternal grandmother as occurring in Hawaii as this Catalog of Evidence details. But he can never be a “natural born Citizen of the United States” since his father was a foreigner, a British Subject who was never a U.S. Citizen and was not even an immigrant to the USA. Since his father was a British Subject and not a U.S. Citizen when Obama was born, Obama was born a British Subject. The founders and framers are probably rolling over in their graves knowing this person was sworn in as the putative President and Commander of our military.

Ted Cruz was born a citizen of Canada due his birth in Canada to a Cuban father. Marco Rubio was born a citizen of Cuba due to his birth to two Cuban national parents when he was born. And Bobby Jindal was born a citizen of India due to his birth to parents who were citizens of India when he was born. Thus all three were born with citizenship in more than one country and divided allegiances at birth.

The founders rejected acquisition of Citizenship by birth on the soil without consideration as to who were the parents. That is clear from the history and evolution of the writing the eligibility clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which specifies who can be President and Commander in Chief of the military.

So, is a person who is simply being declared “born a Citizen” at/by birth by STATUTORY LAWS passed at some point in time by Congress, and liberalized more and more from time to time by Congress, per its “Naturalization Powers” permitted constitutionally to be President of the USA? The answer is a resounding NO per the founders and framers. Being a “born Citizen the United States” is a necessary but NOT sufficient part of being a “natural born Citizen of the United States”. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/ Only a “natural born Citizen” can be the President of the USA and Commander in Chief of our military. Obama is NOT a natural born Citizen of the USA and is thus constitutionally not eligible (to constitutional standards) to serve as President and Commander in Chief of the military. And the same goes for Cruz, Rubio, and Jindal.

SBTP Dolly Madison Quote du Jour:  “The Constitution was signed September 17, 1787, by 39 brave men who changed the world.”

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty/collections/
http://www.protectourliberty.org
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com

P.S. Here is a chart which lists and explains the five (5) Citizenship terms used in the U.S. Constitution.
P.P.S. Being a “born Citizen” or “Citizen at Birth” is not identically the same as a being a “natural born Citizen”.
P.P.P.S. Obama is NOT a “natural born Citizen of the United States” to U.S. Constitutional standards. Read this essay regarding the legal term of art “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)”. All “natural born Citizens” are “born Citizens (citizens at birth) but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/ Also read the “Three Legged Stool Test” for Natural Born Citizen https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/the-three-legged-stool-test-analogy-for-natural-born-citizenship-of-the-united-states-to-constitutional-standards/ … AND … http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html Also watch this video by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8

Donald Trump Is Right to Retweet that Marco Rubio Is NOT a Natural Born Citizen | by Atty Mario Apuzzo

Click on image to read his new essay
Click on image to read his new essay by this constitutional Article II “natural born Citizen” term scholar and expert

Donald Trump Is Right to Retweet that Marco Rubio Is NOT a Natural Born Citizen | by Atty Mario Apuzzo

“Donald Trump retweeted that both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are not natural born citizens.  See https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/701045567783219201 .  George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, February 21, 2016, asked Trump on ABC’s “This Week” about his Saturday retweet and whether he really believed that Marco Rubio was not a natural born citizen.  See at about 1:30 at  https://youtu.be/R9GkFo1Kfno  (“Donald Trump on His South Carolina Primary Win, the GOP, and the Cruz Campaign Tactics”) and http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=7663 and http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/270208-trump-im-not-sure-if-rubio-is-eligible-to-run-for .  Trump responded:  “I think the lawyers have to determine it.”  It was a retweet. Not so much with Marco, I’m not really that familiar with Marco’s circumstances.  I know that Ted has a problem.”  Again, Stephanopoulos pressed Trump why he would retweet the message if he was not be sure whether Rubio was a natural born citizen.  Trump said he did it because “I’m not sure.”  Stephanopoulos responded in amazement:  “You’re really not sure?”  Trump responded:  “I don’t know.  I’ve never really looked at it, honestly George.”  Again, Stephanopoulos forged forward “You’re not sure?”  Trump then said that he has contact with 14 million people on social media and “I retweet things and we start a dialogue.  It’s very interesting.”  Donald Trump is correct for retweeting that Marco Rubio is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President. 

A natural born citizen is a citizen by virtue of birth and birth alone.  But birth does not exist in a vacuum.  There are circumstances that exist at the time of birth.  Those circumstances are, among many, the parents to whom one is born and the place where one is born.  In order to have a valid definition of the natural born citizen, it is necessary that we take these birth circumstances and make them part of a definition.

There does, indeed, exist a definition that contains the necessary and sufficient birth circumstances that must exist in order for one to be a natural born citizen.  The historical and legal record demonstrates that in order to be a citizen by virtue of birth alone, one must be born in the country to parents who were its citizen at the time of the child’s birth.  Indeed, a natural born citizen is a child born or reputed born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.  See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Sections 212 to 217 (1758) (1797) (“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”); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (“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”); accord U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 665 (1898) (“The child of an alien, 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”).  All other birth circumstances, i.e., either not being born in the country or not being born to two citizen parents, do not produce citizenship by virtue of birth alone. 

Since 1790, Congress has for policy reasons seen the need, exactly for the reason that they are not natural born citizens, to naturalize children of U.S. citizens born out of the United States and before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and its interpretation by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) to naturalize children born in the U.S. to alien parents.  The First and Third Congress, which included James Madison and many Founders and Framers, with the approval of President George Washington, passed the Naturalization Acts of 1790 (An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, Sess. II, Chap. 3; 1 stat 103, 1st Congress; March 26, 1790, available at http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html ) and the Naturalization Act 1795 (An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject, Sess. II, Chap. 19, 20; 1 stat 414, 3rd Congress; January 29, 1795, available at same).

 The 1790 Act provided:  That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.  And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.

The 1795 Act [which repealed and replaced the 1790 Act] made it harder for aliens to become citizens of the United States, but repeated:  “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. . . shall be considered as citizens of the United States:   Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.”  So, under both Acts parents had to naturalize in the United States to make their minor children citizens of the United States and those children had to be dwelling in the United States for the new status to attach to them.  If parents did not naturalize during their children’s years of minority, their children remained aliens unless they naturalized on their own during their years of majority.    … ”     Continue reading Atty Apuzzo’s analysis and new legal article about “natural born Citizenship” at:  http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/02/donald-trump-is-right-to-retweet-that.html

# # # #

CDR Charles Kerchner (Retired)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty/collections/
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Marco Rubio Fails Three Legged Stool Test for "natural born Citizen". Click on Image for Details.
Marco Rubio Fails Three Legged Stool Test for “natural born Citizen”. Click on Image for Details.

P.S. Here is a chart which lists and explains the five (5) Citizenship terms used in the U.S. Constitution.
P.P.S. Being a “born Citizen” or “Citizen at Birth” is not identically the same as a being a “natural born Citizen”.
P.P.P.S. Obama is NOT a “natural born Citizen of the United States” to U.S. Constitutional standards. Read this essay regarding the legal term of art “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)”. All “natural born Citizens” are “born Citizens (citizens at birth) but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/ Also read the “Three Legged Stool Test” for Natural Born Citizen https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/the-three-legged-stool-test-analogy-for-natural-born-citizenship-of-the-united-states-to-constitutional-standards/ … AND … http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html Also watch this video by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8

New Essay on Natural Born Citizenship by Attorney Mario Apuzzo Addresses the Fallacies of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report by Attorney Jack Maskell

Click image to learn more about Atty Mario Apuzzo
Click image to learn more about Atty Mario Apuzzo

New Essay on Natural Born Citizenship by Attorney Mario Apuzzo Addresses the Fallacies of the Congressional Research Service (CRS) Report by Attorney Jack Maskell

Read it here:  The Fallacies of Congressional Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen”

# # # #

Click image for more information on the constitutional legal term of art "natural born Citizen"
Click image for more information on the constitutional legal term of art “natural born Citizen”

My remarks:  A “positive man-made law“, statutory law, “Citizen” at Birth does not make one a “natural law” “natural born Citizen” at Birth. The “at Birth” part at the end of the term tells the reader when one became a Citizen, i.e., at birth.  It does not tell one “how” they got their citizenship.  The “natural born” adjectives in the term “natural born Citizen” tell one more, not only when but how they obtained their citizenship, i.e., via “natural law”, not positive man-made laws such as Title 8 Section 1401 of U.S. Code. That law never mentions the term natural born Citizen and does not make any.  Atty Jack Maskell and others are engaging in disinformation by telling people it does. He and the others are doing this at the behest of both major political parties who wish to ignore and water down the meaning of the presidential eligibility clause in our U.S. Constitution in order to run politically attractive candidates without amending the U.S. Constitution, as provided by the Constitution.  They know that will be very difficult to do once the national security and foreign influence reasoning for the natural born Citizen clause being in there in the first place are discussed in the amendment process. So instead they are both just ignoring it and trying to change the meaning of the term, manipulating language, etc.  U.S. laws can create Citizens, at birth or later, but they cannot create natural law “natural born Citizens”.  Only the laws of nature and nature’s God and the facts at birth can do that.

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty/collections/

P.S. Also read this essay regarding the legal term of art “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees.  Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/ … AND … http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html