Updated: The True Meaning and Interpretation of Article II “natural born Citizen”

A SCIENTIFIC LEGAL THEORY

by Jedi Pauly

With a British citizen for a father, does Obama qualify under Article II of the Constitution?

(Nov. 4, 2010) — I wish to undertake a critical analysis of the incomplete works of attorneys Orly Taitz and Phil Berg, concerning the meaning and definition of “natural born Citizen” within the political context and intent of Article II. It is my contention that many of the attorneys working on exposing the illegal usurper known as Barack Obama have not described any valid theory of law that properly explains why Obama cannot possibly qualify to be President under Article II. I will show what I believe are their mistakes and limitations and expose their incomplete efforts as failed hypotheses rather than valid correct legal theories.  I will then state the correct and complete legal theory that I believe clearly defines “natural born Citizen” within the context and intent of Article II and show how and why Obama cannot possibly qualify for the office of President.

First, let us examine the work of attorney Orly Taitz. To the best of my knowledge, she has never stated a correct legal theory that explains why Obama cannot qualify under Article II, but rather she just asserts facts and draws wrong conclusions based upon failed legal hypotheses. Her argument goes something like this: She claims or believes that the term “natural born Citizen” from Article II is an undefined legal term of which the courts must determine the meaning, because somehow the definition of “natural born citizen’” has changed over time by precedents from U.S. Supreme court decisions, and therefore there is some conflict or confusion that has led to the “natural born Citizen” in Article II losing or changing its meaning and interpretation over time. Nothing could be farther from the truth. What she fails to realize is that none of the U.S. Supreme Court cases have done anything at all to change the meaning and interpretation of Article II. They could not even if they wanted to, because it requires a Constitutional Amendment to change Article II, not a judge’s opinion or a statute from Congress.

Another misconception on her part is that U.S. case law from the Supreme Court has changed the definition of “natural born Citizen” at all. All the Supreme Court cases have done is just reiterated what the definition(s) of natural born citizen(s) has been for thousands of years that existed in other legal jurisdictions long before the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. The only relevancy of the U.S. Supreme Court cases is that their decisions form part of the relevant case law for the U.S. legal system because the pre-existing definitions of “natural born citizen” were created in legal jurisdictions outside of the U.S. jurisdiction which had existed long before the formation of the U.S. government. Finally, it is totally bizarre to conceive that the Framers of Article II would be able to write into the Constitution the qualifications for the highest political office in the land with undefined legal terms that they themselves could not have known and which were subject to the whims of judicial interpretations, subject to change by stare decisis, or by the whims of Congress with a simple statute. What an incredibly impossible task it would have been to write Article II under those circumstances. It would be funny if it were not so sad.

Here are the facts encountered by Orly Taitz. She looked back in time to the encyclopedia of law known as The Law of Nations written by Emerich de Vattel. Mr. Vattel reports that one definition of “natural born citizen” means “are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens” (interpreted by Taitz to mean plural or both parents).

The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. (Vattel, The Law of Nations, Book 1, Chapter 19, section 212)

She then moves the clock forward a bit, after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, and she encounters a statement by Judge John Bingham who said that “children who are born in the country, of parents who do not owe any political allegiance to other countries, are in the language of the Constitution itself, natural born citizens.” Mrs. Taitz then asserts from these facts that that is what Article II means and why it requires BOTH parents to be citizens and also that one must be born on U.S. soil in order to qualify for the office of President. This is her legal hypothesis which is easy to debunk.

Forget about the fact that Orly has just disenfranchised any and all children born of military parents on foreign shores, contrary to U.S. case law, and forget about the fact that there have been many examples of presidents, after the Sunset Clause expired, who did not have U.S. citizen mothers but the validity of their presidencies were never in question.  Let’s just look at the one giant glaring mistake that crashes her hypothesis. The definition she uses says ALL children born of citizen parents are natural born citizens, which includes males and females, but Article II is only talking about free-born MALES because females had no political rights recognized for almost 150 years after the adoption of the Constitution (Minor v. Happersett), and it took the 19th Amendment to recognize the natural inherited political rights of women. Isn’t it bizarre to think that, prior to the 19th Amendment, a female could be president, which is a political right, but females could not even vote and the Minor court case could find no political voting rights for women within the Constitution?

Obviously the “natural born Citizen” term in Article II does not mean ALL children born of citizen parents since females were originally excluded from the sovereign body politic even though they are natural born citizens, the same as males. So much for her hypothesis. Her hypothesis has just gone down in flames, because we have shown that not all “natural born citizens” are created to have the same political rights recognized under the law. Obviously, Article II “natural born Citizen” cannot mean what she contends because it never was originally intended to include females.

If I were to give a letter grade to Orly Taitz it would have to be an F+ for failing to state a valid legal theory that explains why Obama cannot qualify under Article II, and for failing to apply any legal principles or other observations of history and Nature to validate her hypothesis. Why the ” + ” ? She gets a plus for her efforts and having her heart in the right place. Orly Taitz has worked very hard to bring the issue to people’s attention, even though she has not been explaining the issue correctly. She has had to put up with a lot of grief for her efforts.

Let’s move on to Philip Berg who scores much better.

Attorney Philip Berg uses a different approach than Orly Taitz.

Berg uses the approach of a prosecutor who is trying to prove criminal intent by removing all of the possibilities, and what is left must be the truth. This is a valid approach to proving Obama is not qualified and that Obama is a criminal fraud. Berg achieves this goal in my estimation. However, his approach does not include the declaration of any valid theory of law which shows what the meaning and definition of Article II is. It is not surprising that Berg would use this approach because it is my understanding that he was a former Assistant Attorney General, which is one of the branches of government that is responsible for prosecuting violations of the laws of a State. He is therefore trained to think like a prosecutor, probably also influenced by years of experience in the role of a prosecutor in his law practice and other years of similar experience.

Berg’s reasoning seems to go something like this: He believes that under the laws of the U.S., there are basically three ways to be considered a “natural born citizen.” You can be a ‘”natural born citizen” by just the soil jurisdiction, even if both parents are foreign citizens (anchor babies, for example), or you can be a “natural born citizen” by just your mom being a U.S. citizen, even if you have a foreign dad, as long as your mom is old enough and meets other statutory conditions, or you can be a “natural born citizen” as long as your dad is a U.S. citizen when you are born. He then proceeds to show that each element is not possible for Obama to achieve.

Berg first eliminates the soil jurisdiction as a pathway by asserting that Barack was actually born in Kenya and not Hawaii, which is a very convincing argument based on the evidence that he can show and the circumstantial evidence of Obama’s behavior surrounding this issue. He then eliminates Barack’s mother as a pathway to natural born citizen status by showing that she cannot meet the statutory requirements to pass on natural born citizenship status to her son. However, this is a rather weak technicality of the law that would not be sufficient enough to convince one that Obama should be considered not to be qualified under Article II. Finally, Berg then eliminates Barack’s dad because obviously he was never a U.S. citizen, so the father cannot be a pathway to “natural born” citizen status. With all three avenues eliminated, the only conclusion one can make is that Obama cannot possibly be a “natural born” citizen of the U.S. and is therefore unqualified by Article II requirements.

I must admit that Berg can probably convince any jury that this is the case and can be said to have achieved the goal of proving that Obama is not a valid President, but that is not the same thing as putting forth a theory of law that shows what Article II “natural born Citizen” means, or how it is properly defined within the political context and intent of Article II. Berg almost gets there because he goes a bit farther and makes a point that Barack’s citizenship status is controlled by Kenya and Britain, not by the laws of the U.S., which seems to imply that there is no political allegiance to the U.S. at birth, although I am not quite sure that he states it quite that way and I have not seen him relate the full ramifications and implications of this into a coherent theory of law that explains Article II.

I have never heard Phil Berg speak to what would happen if Obama was indeed born in Hawaii and his mom was indeed old enough. Then what? He does not seem to go that extra mile and explain that Article II does not prohibit dual citizenship under all circumstances; it only prohibits dual political allegiances that are inherited and requires that your inherited political allegiance belong to the U.S. and not some other jurisdiction or country. He does not explain that Barack actually is potentially born with the legal privilege of three possible citizenships, one from Kenya and one from the British commonwealth or Britain, and one from the U.S., but Barack only potentially inherits either one or two political allegiances depending on the recognition of the monarchy form of government in England. Barack would inherit a political allegiance to Kenya from his dad and he might inherit a political allegiance to England via the soil jurisdiction since the form of government in England is that of a monarchy and monarchies create automatic political allegiances at birth just by being born on the king’s soil jurisdiction. In either case, whether Barack had one or two inherited political allegiances at birth, neither one would be an inherited political allegiance to the U.S. I will give Phil Berg a B or B+.

This is where I now add my contribution to this issue by describing the correct theory of law that shows the true meaning and interpretation of Article II which will show that even if Obama was born on U.S. soil to a fully-aged legal U.S. citizen mother, he still would not qualify because the soil jurisdiction and the mother’s citizenship are irrelevant for Article II purposes. I will now describe the theory.

Theory

Article II “natural born Citizen” is fully defined by the Natural Law jurisdiction and natural circumstances, and does not mean just any person who is a “natural born” citizen by statutory privilege or definition. Rather, it requires conditions of your birth that create a specific “natural born” citizen at birth, one who inherits his political right to be President as a Natural Right and not to one who obtains his political rights as a legal privilege from the Positive Law jurisdiction. The natural political right to be President is an unalienable natural right recognized under the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence which is obtained by inheritance only from a citizen father, because that is where both males and females get their natural political rights from. The natural political rights of both males and females are only recognized and realized as “legal rights,” which are privileges and are created in the Positive Law jurisdiction by males, not females. This logical order is a natural objective, self-evident truth and consequence of Nature that is caused by the fact of a male’s natural superiority in physical strength and aggression. This is why the Declaration of Independence says that it is a “self-evident truth that all MEN are created equal and that they are endowed with political rights (Liberty) that come from the Laws of Nature (endowed by their Creator means as a function of the Natural Law jurisdiction and Nature’s Laws) and that governments are instituted among MEN deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,” meaning the male voting members of society. The Declaration of Independence is not talking about the political rights of females and the Constitution did not originally recognize women to be part of the sovereign body politic (Minor v. Happersett) until the 19th Amendment almost 150 years after the Constitution was adopted.

Asserted Facts and Assumptions and Definitions

There exists a Natural Law jurisdiction from which we derive our Natural Rights which are an endowment from Nature, and Natural Rights are unalienable.

There exists a Positive Law jurisdiction from which we derive our Legal Rights, and legal rights are privileges. Positive Law means man-made statutory law from the Latin root “posit” which means that which is declared and agreed to. It is sometimes referred to as “decreed law” under a monarchy political system.

Natural Law is defined to be opposite or opposed to the Positive Law.

Political Rights are Natural Rights which are Inherited from our Fathers (Declaration of Independence).

The legal context of Article II is a Political context because the Office of President is the highest Political Office in the land.

The Declaration of Independence and the War of 1776 secured the sovereign political authority of the former citizen “subjects” of the King of England who were not born having their natural sovereign political authority or natural sovereign political rights to be recognized by the King.

With the successful conclusion of the War of 1776, the colonies, and later the U.S., no longer recognized the automatic inherited political allegiances from soil jurisdictions which had been the case in the colonies under the monarchy form of government of England. U.S. law does not recognize there to be political allegiances owed due to being born on soil jurisdictions.

The U.S. Constitution establishes a Sovereign Republic of Sovereign citizens.

A Sovereign authority is the author and source of the law.

A Sovereign citizen takes his jurisdiction with him wherever he goes.

Natural Rights are Inherited from other human beings and are not obtained from soil jurisdictions which are just artificially created legal fictions.

Article II is meant to protect the sovereignty of the citizens and nation by ensuring political allegiance to a Sovereign Republic form of government by preventing a monarchy, because the original intent was that Article II should bar Titles of Nobility from attaining the office of President, which would create a Monarchy and not a Sovereign Republic.

Hypotheses

1) Article II “natural born Citizen” describes a member of the Sovereign Body Politic from among the natural born citizens of the country, which did not originally include females even though they were also natural born citizens.

One need only examine Article II, Section 1, clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. “No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, ….”  Notice that “natural born Citizen,” “Citizen” and “United States” are all referring to sovereign political entities that have their sovereign status recognized by the positive law jurisdiction. “United States” is a sovereign political entity formed from the States of the Union which are Sovereign States. The “Citizen of the United States” is referring to the sovereign male citizens from the Sovereign States that were not born having their sovereign political status recognized by the King at birth because they were former colonies of the Monarchy. It cannot be claimed that “Citizen” is referring to just any citizen, because the female citizens of the States did not have their sovereign political status recognized by the positive law jurisdiction because none of the States recognized females to have any political voting rights. That is the purpose for capitalizing “Citizen” to indicate a certain specific citizen or political condition. The reference is to former males who were born as citizen “‘subjects” of the king due to the soil jurisdiction of the king which caused those male citizens to owe a political allegiance to the King at birth.

An exception had to be made to accommodate these male citizens since they were not born without inherited foreign political allegiances. This part of Article II is called the Sunset Clause and indicates that “natural born Citizen” is referring to the future naturally created members of society, after the adoption of the Constitution, who are born with an inherited sovereign political authority recognized in the positive law jurisdiction who will not owe a political allegiance at birth due to soil jurisdiction, but will have to inherit their sovereign political status, which implies males who are created by citizen fathers, since both males and females inherit their political condition from their citizen fathers. The capitalization and the logic of the sentence construction indicates specific citizens, i.e., males, and specific political conditions that occur naturally at birth.

2) There are many different natural conditions or circumstances that can create a natural born citizen status, but only the correct natural conditions can create a natural born citizen that will prevent titles of nobility from attaining the Office of President. The place of your birth and the citizenship status of your mother are irrelevant for Article II purposes.

Under the laws of the United States, there are several permutations or pathways to claim a natural born Citizen status. You can be considered a “natural born Citizen” if you are just born on the soil jurisdiction of the U.S. even if you have two parents that are not U.S. citizens. We call those citizens created solely from the soil jurisdiction “natural born citizens” because during the days of the English Common Law when there was a Monarchy form of political system controlling the Colonies, any person born on the King’s soil jurisdiction was naturally born subject to the King’s jurisdiction (citizen”‘subject” of king George), and those persons were born inheriting a duty to owe a political allegiance to the King that the King demanded of them because he controlled the soil jurisdiction that the King claimed dominion over, and also over all subjects within the soil jurisdiction. Strictly speaking, however, those citizens are not “natural born” by the Laws of Nature to inherit a political allegiance from their fathers due to natural laws, but rather just due to circumstances because the King’s jurisdiction is a Positive Law jurisdiction of legal privileges, not a Natural Law jurisdiction, and the King is not the source of natural inherited rights. The King dictates to those born on his soil what political rights they may have, and they do not include the right to claim an inheritance of a sovereign political authority from one’s father because then an individual would be in direct conflict with the King. The King was the only person with the privilege to claim a sovereign political authority under a monarchy form of government. That was the entire issue with the Declaration of Independence and the War of 1776, when our colonial forefathers declared that political rights do not come from the King or his soil jurisdiction, but are actually endowed to males from the Laws of Nature and come to both males and females from our fathers, not from the soil, nor from a king, nor the king’s parliament in England.

We fought and won the war of 1776 and secured to ourselves the recognition of our own natural sovereign political authority inherited from the natural law jurisdiction from our fathers. Since that time, we have abandoned the notion that soil jurisdictions cause one to owe a political allegiance to the state, and a person now owes political allegiance directly inherited through his father. That was the entire point of the Revolution. People need to wake up and read the memo that we are no longer a monarchy and U.S. law does not recognize the soil jurisdiction as a determination for political allegiances. This is why it makes no difference where you are born for Article II purposes because it is not possible to owe any political allegiance to a foreign state or to the U.S. just by being born on its soil jurisdiction. That ended 250 years ago! The government is not our king! It serves us, not the other way around! If we still recognized the soil jurisdiction to cause one to automatically owe a political allegiance to the U.S. just by being born on U.S. soil jurisdiction, then there would be no way to prevent a foreign king from attaining the office of President because any foreign king could just come to America with his wife, give birth on U.S. soil, and then that child would inherit a political allegiance to his foreign father. He would be a royal prince with a title of nobility who could then also claim an owed political allegiance to the U.S. due to the soil, and then we could have a monarchy again because a title of nobility could then qualify under Article II and become President.

What is confusing people is that they fail to realize that there is a huge difference between owing a political allegiance at birth due to inheritance and natural laws, and just being entitled to the privilege of citizenship which is just a legal right of the soil and not a natural right due to parents. Just because you are born with the privilege of citizenship from multiple jurisdictions does not mean that you are born with multiple owed allegiances. There is no allegiance owed at birth for privileges that you do not accept. For example, my father was in the Air Force and he was a U.S. citizen when I was born in Japan. I did not inherit a political allegiance to Japan at birth but I was entitled at age 18 to receive the privilege of Japanese citizenship, which I declined. I can still qualify for the Office of President because I inherited my political allegiance to the U.S. at birth directly from my citizen father. The Japanese soil cannot prevent the Laws of Nature, nor my owed political allegiance to my father and his country, from being passed on from my father to me. I did not owe any allegiance to Japan due to its soil jurisdiction because the U.S. does not recognize its citizens to owe allegiances to a state due to their soil jurisdiction ever since we won our independence 250 years ago! This is why the place of your birth is totally irrelevant for determining who qualifies under Article II. You must have a citizen father to qualify. A similar argument proves that your mother is also irrelevant.

Another way to be considered a “natural born citizen” of the U.S. is to just be born to a U.S. citizen mother as long as she is old enough and meets other statutory requirements. At least with your mother or father, we can move beyond the Positive Law jurisdiction of legal rights and legal privileges of soil to actually consider the Natural Law jurisdiction and what natural rights are inherited from your parents. By having a parent who is a citizen, it can strictly be interpreted that we are talking about Natural Rights because natural rights are inherited from one human being to another, not from soil.

However, a “natural born” citizen status from just your mother fails to meet Article II requirements on two fronts. By looking at both the political context of Article II as well as its purpose and intent, which is to ensure political allegiance to the U.S. by preventing titles of nobility from attaining the office of President, we can see that  a person’s mother cannot be a determining factor for Article II purposes. First, just look at the political context. Since the office of President is a political right and political rights are natural rights that are inherited from males under the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, you cannot inherit from your mother, who is a female, the natural political right to be President. Both males and females inherit their political rights from their fathers, not their mothers. Next, look at the intent to prevent titles of nobility and it is obvious that if any foreign king can impregnate a female U.S. citizen, then you would have a child born who inherits a title of nobility and a political allegiance to a foreign country through his father who cannot even claim an inherited political allegiance to the United States, even though he would be a “natural born” citizen by his mother, because we do not inherit political allegiance through our citizen mothers. Clearly your mother alone makes it impossible to qualify under Article II.

3) The office of President is not supposed to be an office that a person is born into the PRIVILEGE of qualifying for; it is supposed to be that a person must be born qualifying as a NATURAL RIGHT, not a legal privilege.

The term “natural born citizen” from the soil jurisdiction is a legal privilege only, and it refers to a citizenship that is recognized solely by the soil jurisdiction without regard to the citizenship of the parents. Also, if you have a foreign father, then a “natural born citizen” status from a citizen mother is also a legal privilege defined in statutes with strict conditions placed on age and residency requirements of the mother before one can claim a natural born citizen status as a U.S. citizen. Both conditions are LEGAL PRIVILEGES and not the recognition of a NATURAL RIGHT to be a citizen. To the best of my knowledge, there are no statutory requirements if you are created by a citizen father; you are automatically recognized to be a natural born U.S. citizen, no matter the age of your citizen father, as a natural right and not a legal privilege. The Office of President is supposed to be one that you inherit the natural right to qualify for and it is not supposed to be that you are born into qualifying as a legal privilege like a noble title.

That was the entire problem with the monarchy form of government in England which the founding fathers were trying to avoid. In England, under the English Common Law and monarchy, there was an elite group or privileged class of natural born citizens who had titles of nobility (royalty). They were the only natural born citizens of England that could claim the political right to be the head political leaders of their country. The commoners were also natural born citizens but they were not members of the sovereign body politic that was exclusively for those with titles of nobility. The commoners originally could never serve in the House of Lords (why do you think it is called the House of Lords?) or claim a sovereign political authority to be a king. Our founding fathers wanted to move away from this elitism of the nobility and permit any natural born citizen male who inherits a political allegiance from his citizen father to have the opportunity to hold the highest political office in the land. Furthermore, they did not want to entrust Congress to be in a position to grant a privilege of a title of nobility to a citizen or non-citizen that was not born inheriting a political allegiance to the United States, who could then be a king and take over the office of President and create a monarchy. If the office of President was just a privilege and not a natural right, then Congress and the courts could just create a Presidential privilege statute for their friends and interpret it with the courts to create a special privileged class that would overturn the Constitution, and the sovereign People of the country could be disenfranchised from their natural political rights by Congress and the Courts. With Article II “natural born Citizen,” meaning that you must inherit your political allegiance from your citizen father, this places the jurisdiction outside of Congress or the Courts and forces the jurisdiction to be the Natural Law jurisdiction which is opposite and outside of the Positive Law jurisdiction of Congress or the Courts. This is why Article II is totally defined under a Natural Law jurisdiction by natural conditions of having a citizen father to inherit your political rights and owed political allegiance from, so Congress and the Courts will have no lawful jurisdiction to create a privilege or title of nobility that would disenfranchise the people from their own government. This is in fact what has now happened with Obama because the Congress and Courts have conspired together to exceed their authority and grant the privilege of a sovereign political authority to Obama when he never had the natural right to claim an inherited sovereign political authority, nor claim an owed political allegiance to the U.S. at birth, inherited also from his citizen father.

Conclusion

We have now discovered and proven what the true meaning and definition and interpretation of Article II “natural born Citizen” is. It is clear that it has nothing to do with your place of birth nor your mother, but just means a natural born citizen created by a citizen father. The utter contempt of the Congress, the Courts, the Department of Justice,  the FBI, military, news media, etc., for the Constitution and the sovereign political rights of the People is now blatantly clear. There can be no question that there is no political representation of the citizens or recognition of the natural sovereign political rights of males, or any legal recognition of the freedoms and liberties of We the People. With Obama installed as a usurper, we have now gone back in time to the identical political conditions which existed prior to the Declaration of Independence under the tyranny of the monarchy of King George and his Parliament. We now live under tyranny and involuntary servitude to Congress and their statutes which cannot possibly be valid law with an illegal President signing them.

The Courts, of course, are going to expect the citizenry to accept the validity of the statutes and the courts’ authority, when in fact the statutes are completely without validity and the courts lack authority and proper jurisdiction to enforce the statutes signed by Obama. The judges will no longer be judges but instead will become prosecutors, usurping authority that they do not have to prosecute political tyranny with lies, forcing people against their rights of conscience to accept lies and false laws, and they will ignore the natural sovereign political rights of the citizens which were recognized in the Declaration of Independence and implied in the U.S. Constitution. A condition of involuntary servitude, which is the essence of SLAVERY, will now be the law of the land. It is ironic that in 2008 a black man and the Supreme Court are responsible for reviving the condition of slavery in America. It is unconscionable that the FBI, Justice Department and the Courts sit on their hands and lack the political will to enforce the laws and Constitution as the citizenry are abused and violated. We might as well be living in Nazi Germany. The Republic is lost. All hail King Obama and the 50 State Plantation of America. I hope you enjoy being a slave.

Print Friendly

134 Responses to "Updated: The True Meaning and Interpretation of Article II “natural born Citizen”"

  1. George Gallman   Sunday, November 14, 2010 at 2:55 AM

    Slick Sleeves, you make very reasonable arguments. I like your signature line. I would like to know you better. I think I could learn from you. I enjoy info via mises.com. I twitter @ggallman . With my experience as a formally elected school board member, and seeing what is happening to our federal government, I am worried. Any hope I have is from what seems to an awaking public as voiced through the Tea Party movement. Many people are angry. But many are not knowledgeable. The internet is the printing press of the present.

  2. Slick Sleeves   Thursday, November 11, 2010 at 1:13 AM

    Robert and Jedi:
    My fellow patriots, the following remarks are offered merely for discussion and debate. They are not intended as a personal attack. I have no ego in this game. We are all students of life.

    In today’s Post & Email Editorial, Mr. Mario Apuzzo, esq. writes the following paragraph referencing Mr. Daniel Webster (a Founding Father). Mr. Webster clearly reinforces my contention that “Serving as President is NOT a Natural Right – it is privilege, granted by the community to an individual.”

    Quote:
    “Indeed, Webster expresses an opinion that, under a government characterized by popular and elective office, the People have a right to establish qualifications for their elected officials before they may occupy any such office, for such office is “the free gift of the people.” He explains that no man has a right to an office, for the office is granted at the pleasure of the People to those in whom they feel “confidence” and with whom they share a feeling of “good-will” because they believe that person to be both fit and qualified for that office. He adds that the same People can decide at their “discretion and option” to change those qualifications as they deem necessary for their own safety and security.” End Quote

    Therefore, serving as President would not fall under the Right of “Pursuing Happiness”.

    In this same vein, I repeat, we must be careful not to fall into the same erroneous/false beliefs as our current crop of political charlatans, relative to the actual intent and extent of the “Commerce Clause” and the “General Welfare Clause”. These were “originally intended” to be fairly limited in scope. Most of the Problems our Nation faces today, comes from “over-regulation and control”.

    The “original” purpose of Government – as defined by the Constitution – was to Protect Us (from assaults & invasions, ensuring that our Natural Rights were respected, ensuring that our Contracts were honored, et cetera). Our Government was not intended to make our lives easier by giving us goodies. Government actually “owns” nothing to give us. It merely serves as a transfer agent; to take from one person (in the form of “taxes” – “lawful stealing”) and give it to another. Charity is an Individual Responsibility, not a Governmental Function.

    You will get no argument from me that our current Government has done an absolutely disgusting Job relative to protecting us from invasion (our “Open Borders” fiasco), our loss of Good Jobs (by rewarding Businesses for moving our jobs off-shore), and permitting our Medical Community to “cheat” us via outrageous and unsustainable cost increases.

    http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/11/10/daniel-webster-reveals-that-the-kerchner-petitioners-have-standing-to-demand-that-obama-show-he-is-a-%e2%80%9cnatural-born-citizen%e2%80%9d/

  3. Jed Pauly   Monday, November 8, 2010 at 5:40 PM

    Dear readers;

    Apparently I have made a mistake of mistaken identity. I had been corresponding with a “Doctor Conspiracy” who I had believed was Mario Apuzzo. Due to this mistaken identity error on my part, I misstated Mario Apuzzo’s position and included him in my Article and I should not have included him. Apparently Mario and I are on the same page now and he seems to be saying essentially the same things that I am saying. I apologize for this confusion and I have asked Sharon to edit my Article to remove any reference to Mario Apuzzo.

  4. Jed Pauly   Monday, November 8, 2010 at 3:51 PM

    Yes they are. Read the Supreme court cases of this, they disagree with you.

  5. Jed Pauly   Monday, November 8, 2010 at 3:49 PM

    The fact is that the courts do not have the jurisdiction to determine the qualifications for the office of President. Those qualifications are already set in the Constitution and they are set to be that you originally had to be a male who was created by a citizen father. That is what “natural born Citizen” means. Later (almost 150 years later) the pool of sovereign citizens qualified under Article II was expanded to include females who are created by a citizen father, with the 19th Amendment. This is entirely a political issue and not a legal issue which is why the courts keep ruling that there is no standing. The courts lack jurisdiction because no one is using the courts in the proper way. The proper use of the courts in this case is to just empower a citizen as a special prosecutor and return indictments and arrest Obama for his criminal fraud and usurpation. The FBI and Justice Department lack the political will to enforce the laws.

  6. Jack Stromberg   Monday, November 8, 2010 at 5:44 AM

    > ONLY NBCs have sole allegiance to America.

    No, everyone who is a US citizen (and a US citizen only) has sole allegiance to the USA. It’s just that the founders wanted to exclude naturalized citizens. It does not imply that naturalized citizens do not have sole allegiance to the USA (e.g. a stateless person who becomes naturalized, what other allegiance would he have)?

    We should try not to confuse things, such as necessary and required conditions. NBC implies sole allegiance, but not the other way around.

  7. Jack Stromberg   Monday, November 8, 2010 at 5:32 AM

    > If his father turns out to be other then O,Sr (Some say that Obama may be X,Jr as in Malcolm X) and Obama knew it,that is also FRAUD.

    Robert, I don’t quite understand how fraudulent statement of parenthood would disqualify Obama/Soetoro from being POTUS. It might be an impechable offense, but there is no automatism I can see that would render his presidency void in the case that he actually were the son of Malcolm X or Frank Marshall Davis or any other US citizen father.
    Simply lying about your parents or falsifying your documents does not affect eligibility.
    That’s why I don’t see the speculation about his father being someone other than Obama Sr. or Lolo Soetoro is leading anywhere but into directions we would not like.

  8. Jedi Pauly   Sunday, November 7, 2010 at 11:45 AM

    Dear Slick;

    One need only make an examination of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and observe that not all of the nouns are capitalized. Whenever a noun is capitalized it means something specific or limited or implies reference to another source for definition. I have heard this argument over and over that the capitalization is just somehow “stylistic” That argument is pure rubbish. The capitalization definitely means something.

    Keep in mind that those who were writing the Constitution knew that they were creating something very special and almost unique in history. They were well aware of the previous usurpations of authority of previous governments and the natural tendency for governments to grow to be tyrannical. The use of capitalizations was intended to convey specific limited meanings and concepts to alert the reader that they are not talking about just the same old definitions and meanings that had come before and had been perverted by previous governments.

    The entire history of mankind has been a struggle between the natural law jurisdiction pushing against the positive law jurisdiction with the positive law jurisdiction usually winning out. The triumph of the Revolution was the opportunity for the founders to once and for all declare the supremacy of the Natural Law jurisdiction over that of the Positive Law jurisdiction of the government. That is what is being related with the capitalization of “Citizen” in the phrase “natural born Citizen”. They are conveying the sovereign political status. it means a sovereign male citizen. This is meant to remind the government that the people are sovereign over the sovereign condition of the government, and that the office of President must be chosen from among the population of SOVEREIGN citizens who are born inheriting their sovereign political rights directly from their fathers. It is meant to convey that Congress and the Courts have no jurisdiction whatever to create a monarchy by declaring someone to be a king who would have the exclusive privilege of claiming a sovereign political authority to be superior to that of any other sovereign male citizen. Here is a correspondence between me and Mario Apuzzo that will shed more light on this situation for you. It is with regards to the CSR report on “natural born Citizen”.

    To Mario Apuzzo Saturday Nov. 6th 2010

    Thank you for the link to the Congressional Research Service memo. You should be aware however that I am already very familiar with that bogus piece of propaganda that is easy to debunk and is nothing more than evidence of a criminal conspiracy to defraud the people. It is so very easy to show what a bunch of garbage and propaganda it is. Observe.

    Quote from the CRS memo page 4:

    “Because the term “natural born Citizen” is not defined within the Constitution”

    Right there one can stop and realize that we are dealing with bull**** propaganda. Just use simple common sense and ask yourself, if the term “natural born Citizen” is not defined within the Constitution, then that would mean that those who wrote Article II qualifications did so with undefined terms that they themselves could not have possibly understood, that were undefined, and the meaning was not known. This is an impossibility and defies all logic and reason. How would you even know what it was you were writing if you did not already know what you meant by the words you were using to describe the qualifications for the highest political office in the land? It is just not possible for it to be “undefined” within the Constitution. That would mean that it was written as a mystery to its meaning and left for future generations to argue about. This is an absurd notion that defies all reason.

    Also, examine their discussion about the soil jurisdiction and it is easy to see their lack of proper understanding of the role of the soil jurisdiction and they are ignoring blood inheritance. They fail to understand that under the political system of a monarchy, the soil is used to grant privileges doled out by the king. Just because we call the privilege of citizenship granted by the king via his soil, “natural born” does not mean that we are talking about natural inherited political rights because the king is not the source of natural rights. That term “natural born” when derived strictly from soil and English Common Law, is called “natural born” simply because under a king, if you are born on the kings soil, then you are “naturally” subject to the kings authority who automatically creates and demands political allegiance to the king without your consent. We did not free ourselves from the dictatorship of the king in 1776 to create another king over us. The U.S. government is not our king and we are not born with a political allegiance owed, without our consent at birth, due to soil jurisdictions since we won the war of 1776, otherwise we would not be a sovereign people anymore. Remember the Declaration of Independence were it says “deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the governed”? We just retained the ability to grant privileges, the same as the king used to do, which is a positive law power, and we gave that ability to the government so they could extend privileges via the soil that falls under the jurisdiction of Congress. We retained the nomenclature from the English common law “natural born citizen” which meant a natural born citizen “subject” of the king. When used in this manner, the term “natural born citizen” is just a legal fiction or word art retained from a different political system from history that does not describe a condition of blood inheritance of natural political rights.

    Article II is clearly not referring to that nomenclature. If Article II was constructed with the words “natural born citizen” without the capitalization, then it would just mean any statutory definition or created legal fiction of what is called a “natural born citizen” and one could just substitute whatever the current definition is as that term is modified over time by judge’s rulings, or by statutes from Congress.

    Since the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and is a STATUTORY AUTHORITY and not a STATUTE, it can not be changed buy a judges opinion or by a simple statute from Congress. This is why I have been trying to teach you that in Article II, “natural born” is an adjective phrase meant to convey that we are talking about what is created by natural birth so that it falls entirely under a natural law jurisdiction. The adjective phrase “natural born” is describing a proper noun “Citizen” that means a sovereign male. Put the two together and reference Vattel and it is clear that what is being conveyed is a sovereign male citizen who is created by natural birth which implies the inheritance of natural political rights from a father who is a citizen.

    Vattel : “It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers”

    Vattel makes it clear. In the absence of, or ignoring, the positive law jurisdiction (“by the law of nature alone”) when we are only talking about the natural law jurisdiction, both males and females (children) follow (means inherits) the political condition of their fathers. This makes perfect sense because the entire point of Article II is to remove from the jurisdiction of Congress and the Courts, which is only the positive law jurisdiction, any power to determine who qualifies for the office of President. This is why I keep stressing the importance of the capitalization because it conveys that we are strictly talking only about what is created by the laws of nature or the natural law jurisdiction in the absence of any positive law jurisdiction. By removing the positive law jurisdiction, we can simply interpret Article II to mean that we are talking about political rights that are natural rights and natural political rights are inherited from our fathers who are citizens. It just does not get any easier than this. It is just so incredibly obvious. You can forget about the positive law jurisdiction and appeal strictly to the natural law jurisdiction and the inheritance of natural political rights by blood (father) because that is what Article II is telling you. I hope this helps you to understand.

    This might also help you to understand why the Courts lack proper jurisdiction to determine this issue because it is already settled by appealing to the natural law jurisdiction which is outside of the jurisdiction of the courts to determine because Article II places the jurisdiction outside of Congress or the Courts. By appealing to the courts in the way you have, you are essentially asking the courts for an advisory opinion on the meaning and interpretation of Article II and the meaning is already clear and defined and not within the power of the courts to determine. This is now a political situation and not appropriate for the courts to get involved in. Hence, all the rulings that we lack standing. The proper use of the courts would be to empower a citizen as a special prosecutor to bring a criminal complaint and arrest warrant and just arrest the President since the FBI and Justice departments and Congress obviously lack the political will to enforce the laws and they have abrogated their responsibility. Then the courts would have proper jurisdiction to act.

  9. Jedi Pauly   Sunday, November 7, 2010 at 10:53 AM

    Your comment makes no sense. If I were an Obot then I would not have proved that Obama can not possibly be qualified under Article II. I think you need to work on your critical thinking skills.

  10. Robert Laity   Sunday, November 7, 2010 at 7:42 AM

    Garacka, I WAS referring to the fact that the term “All Men” INCLUDES Women.

  11. Robert Laity   Sunday, November 7, 2010 at 7:37 AM

    Garacka, Military Bases are not considered US Soil.

  12. Robert Laity   Sunday, November 7, 2010 at 7:36 AM

    Jack, Allegiance is a factor. ONLY NBCs have sole allegiance to America. The framers mandated that only NBCs BE POTUS. This is strictly REQUIRED.

  13. Robert Laity   Sunday, November 7, 2010 at 7:34 AM

    Persons born abroad are statutory citizens. There are statutory requirements that must be met. These are not NBCs.

    The President is the sole individual under our law who is strictly restricted to and required to have been BORN in the US Mainland and he/she MUST have two American Parents.

  14. Robert Laity   Sunday, November 7, 2010 at 7:30 AM

    McCain does NOT “qualify”. Military bases are NOT US Soil.

  15. Robert Laity   Sunday, November 7, 2010 at 7:23 AM

    All “Citizens” are NOT “nat born citizen'[s]. Those who do not meet the requirement of having TWO American Citizen parentS and who are not born on the US mainland are NOT Natural-Born Americans.

    There are those who must be Naturalized and they do not,DO NOT become “nat born
    citizen[s} after being Naturalized. they become Naturalized Citizens.

  16. Robert Laity   Sunday, November 7, 2010 at 7:19 AM

    In addition, availability of a “decent job” and “decent medical care” fall under promoting “the general welfare”, the opposite being the governments failure to keep jobs IN America and not regulating excessive medical costs.

  17. Robert Laity   Sunday, November 7, 2010 at 7:12 AM

    “No person except a natural born citizen…shall be eligible to the Office of President;neither shall any person be eligible…who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a resident in the United States”

    Those are the sole requirements to be POTUS.

    The “Right” to be President if one chooses to run for that office is restricted to no one who meets these requirements. The right emanates from the Preamble which is part of the Constitution.

    If running for President, for example, makes one happy, then the Blessing of Liberty called “the pursuit of Happiness” gives one the “RIGHT” and not “privilege” to run for POTUS.

  18. Robert Laity   Sunday, November 7, 2010 at 6:58 AM

    Karen.

    Corrected Link to “Is Obama the secret son of Malcolm X”:
    http://israelinsider.ning.com/profiles/blogs/is-obama-the-secret-son-of

  19. Robert Laity   Sunday, November 7, 2010 at 6:54 AM

    Thomas said that they are “Evading” the issue. Evading the constitution is illegal.

    You contradicted yourself Karen. You stated that we “must consider that obama MUST be an NBC of the US” but then conclude with saying that you are “certain that he is NOT an NBC of the US” On that last point you are quite correct. Obama has never been an NBC of the USA. He has never been the POTUS either.If his father turns out to be other then O,Sr (Some say that Obama may be X,Jr as in Malcolm X) and Obama knew it,that is also FRAUD.
    http://americangrandjury.org/public/
    http://israelinsider.ning.com/profiles/blogs/is-obama-the-secret-son-of-

  20. Robert Laity   Sunday, November 7, 2010 at 6:43 AM

    Thomas did not find another way. There is no other legal way. Obama has never BEEN an NBC and never will be.

  21. Jack Stromberg   Sunday, November 7, 2010 at 5:42 AM

    You need not label me an Obot simply because you aren’t able to tackle by objection on its merits.

    In fact, you are supporting my argument, not refuting it.
    Exactly, every country decides for itself who its citizens are. So Canada – and Canada alone – decides who is a Canadian citizen. Now the catch is that US law (just as the law of every other country in the world) *recognizes* that authority. So if someone is a Candian citizen by Canadian law, he is a Canadian citizen to US law. (Otherwise Obama/Soetoros father would not be a British citizen to US law – he was a British citizen by British law and US law recognizes that.)

    Besides, I was not critizing the “born on US soil by two US parents” definition but the “not owing allegiance to any other country” definition, if you would’ve paid attention instead of calling names. By that definition, as long as you’re a dual citizen at birth, you can’t be an NBC.
    Or do you now propose that US law should ignore Canada’s definition of who a Canadian citizen is, contrary to what you claimed?
    You can’t get around this lock-up unless you reject the definition of “not owing allegiance to another country” *or* reject the right of every country to determine who its citizens are.

  22. Garacka   Saturday, November 6, 2010 at 9:47 AM

    Vattel allows for one born in the Armies of the State (McCain) to be an NBC….

  23. Patriot   Saturday, November 6, 2010 at 9:35 AM

    I have a question about this statement of yours:

    “If Obama,Sr is indeed Obama’s real father then Junior WAS born a Brit under the British Nationality Act of 1948. Insofar as Dunham did NOT meet the requirement that SHE be
    American for ten years/five of which were AFTER the age of 14 . . .”

    Is this true even if Obama was born in Honolulu?

  24. Garacka   Saturday, November 6, 2010 at 9:32 AM

    I wasn’t addressing Mr. Pauly’s contention that “MEN” referred to females, I was just asking whether Mr. Pauly’s claim that the capital “C” changed “citizen” from a broader set to just include males is consistent with other citations of the word “citizen” in the Constitution.

    From an on-line electronic version of the Constitution, I noted that all other instances of “citizen” up to but not including the 14th Amendment capitalize the 1st letter. A proposed action is to review all those other uses to see if they might be consistent with a claim that those “Citizens” are all males. I would like to do that, but was hoping to take advantage of this community as some may have the answer readily available and I am just learning.

  25. Karen   Saturday, November 6, 2010 at 8:38 AM

    I think it’s time to seriously consider that Obama MUST be a NBC of the US (in reality) b/c there’s just no way that the entire US Govt, including SCOTUS (w/a 5-4 Conservative majority) would permit Obama to actually violate Article II eligibility requirements. Justice Thomas made an interesting comment when he admitted the Court is essentially “dodging” the NBC matter. He said: “we found another way” — or something to that effect — to validly confirm Obama as NBC. Now, Thomas did not connect his statement directly with Obama. But, one must consider that it’s simply NOT believable that the entire US Govt and the media would deliberately permit Obama to become POTUS unless they knew, that in reality, Obama is the offspring of 2 US Citizens. . .in addition to being born on US soil.

    In my opinion, the reason SCOTUS will not permit this/these cases to go forward is because ultimately Obama will be declared a NBC because his father is not Obama Sr. In other words, the Obama case is the WRONG case to bring. . .because all that will be proven, ultimately, is that WHO Obama’s father is is the lie and it’s not even Obama’s fault b/c HE was lied to for most of his life. By the time, he knew that his father was not BHO Sr., HE was already known as BHO II and so he retained that identity.

    The problem, however, is that the RECORD shows that the child of a FOREIGN NATIONAL became POTUS. . .ergo precedent now exists to DEFINE NBC as exclusively those born on US soil to at least one US Citizen parent.

    Another problem: Pauli’s argument that citizenship is inherited “naturally” from one’s father. That places the parental role of the father as exclusively important. Well, maybe that was true back in 1789 but it is not true today. Today, mother & father are equally parents. So, IF NBC status can be passed onto the child EXCLUSIVELY by the father, then WHY NOT NOW exclusively by the mother?

    Based on the known facts of Obama’s citizenship, I am certain that he is NOT a NBC of the US. There is NO case law that supports the notion that he is. There is only one recognized definition of NBC — that all recognize to be true: born to 2 US citizen parents on US soil. As the court in Wong Kim Ark and Marie Eig (I believe) noted: ALL OTHER definitions of NBC are speculative. That means — or should mean — that no one with a citizenship different than the only recognized definition of NBC can be permitted to become POTUS unless or until that definition is EXPANDED (via the court of Congress) to include: born to ONE US citizen parent on US soil. At the moment, the definition of NBC does not include Obama’s type of citizenship — at least re: what is publicly known.

  26. Jedi Pauly   Saturday, November 6, 2010 at 5:25 AM

    You are misinterpreting my comment. All I meant was that law is a science and someone with a science background is as good if not better ABLE to interpret and understand these matters than someone who just has an attorneys license, not that I am better than anyone else.

  27. Robert Laity   Saturday, November 6, 2010 at 3:10 AM

    There are several examples that can be cited to illustrate that past administraions were malfeasant in office with regard to their constitutional duty. Chester Arthur was disqualified to be POTUS. Those transgressions we must leave to the past. failing to leaarn from history dooms us to repeat the past’s derogations. We have Obama in the instant case. It is up to those living NOW to address Obama’s disqualifications and to be proactive in our efforts to correct the situation.

  28. Robert Laity   Saturday, November 6, 2010 at 3:04 AM

    Women were NBCs if they had two American parents and were born in the USA.

    Strange as it may seem to you, they too were eligible to BE POTUS regardless of not being able to vote.

    Women were legal persons. As long as a woman was a NBC, was 35 years old and resident for 14 years, she was eligible.

  29. Robert Laity   Saturday, November 6, 2010 at 2:58 AM

    Stop obfuscating the issue. If one,male or female,was born in the USA and both of his/her parents were American citizens, That person was an NBC whether they could vote or not.
    Again,for the third time,natural rights are NOT inherited from anyyone. They are given to everyone by God.

  30. Robert Laity   Saturday, November 6, 2010 at 2:53 AM

    SCOTUS is “Evading that Issue”. To “decide…that natural born citizenship exists based only [on] the citizenship of the father” would be a decision involving abrogation of Article 2,Sec. 1 and Article 1,Sec.8,Clause 10 and also in derogation of Article V. SCOTUS does not have the right to strike down Articles of the US Constitution unless they are unconstitutional. Patently a catch 22.

  31. Robert Laity   Saturday, November 6, 2010 at 2:44 AM

    Pauly’s understanding of the law is “incomplete”. I give him an “F” Minus.

  32. Robert Laity   Saturday, November 6, 2010 at 2:42 AM

    Pauly,There is only ONE “type of Natural-born Citizen:” those who are born in a country of TWO Citizen parents. There is NO other type. Do you know what might ” improve your document”? Go to Law school before you claim to be capable of professing it.
    ——————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: The only thing about law school is that they don’t teach constitutional principles anymore, if they ever did. They teach aspiring law students how to win hefty payouts and get rich.

  33. Robert Laity   Saturday, November 6, 2010 at 2:35 AM

    Mick, All citizens of American parents born overseas are NOT NBCs.

  34. Slick Sleeves   Saturday, November 6, 2010 at 2:28 AM

    Jedi Pauly,
    Congratulations, you have labored hard and delivered forth a very interesting, and thought provoking, Opinion Piece.

    However, there are a few details that you might want to consider; which may affect your arguments. First, you make a big issue of the capitalization of Citizen; as used in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. I believe that at the time these two documents were written, it was common practice to capitalize ALL nouns – not just Proper nouns, as is modern practice. At the following hyperlink you will find the US Constitution – as “originally” written. I could NOT find any nouns therein, that were written lower case – all caps. You might want to take a look, for yourself.

    http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html

    If I’m correct, “natural born citizen” (today) would have the same interpretation/meaning as “natural born Citizen” (circa 1700s).

    Otherwise, you did make a number of valid and important points. Particularly, concerning the social station / position that females, and non-free blacks, held in society. For example, in old Censuses the names of females within a household were often omitted. Just the number of females living there was listed. However, the first names of all males were listed, along with their ages. There was one exception to this practice : If a female was the Head of the Household, then her first and last names and age were listed on the Census Form.

    Sadly, I do not know the maiden name of my paternal grandmother. Everybody just always called her Effie Mae, and that was considered enough identification. Her maiden name was not considered important, and it somehow got forgotten with passing time – and dying relatives.

    Up until 1922, whenever a male immigrant became a Naturalized US Citizen, his wife (if he had one) became automatically “naturalized”, also. Without any other actions being required on her part, she just assumed the citizenship of her husband. He was required to swear an Oath of Allegiance, she wasn’t.

    This same mindset may have prevailed in olden times, relative to the transfer of a man’s citizenship, privileges, and possessions to the females and children of his family group?

    You are correct though, just because our old laws did not recognize the Natural Rights of Sufferage to women – and Liberty to black slaves – these rights, endowed by our Creator, nonetheless still existed from the beginning. “Corrective” Amendments to the Constitution did NOT grant anybody any NEW Natural Rights. They simply affirmed that mistakes had been made, and thereafter were rectified.

    Likewise, the Bill of Rights did NOT “give” / grant anybody any new Natural Rights. It merely codifies those (existing) Natural Rights – so that the Federal Government might not mistakenly abridge or infringe them. That was “the Plan”. However, despite the fact that these Rights were written in plain English, it it clear that willful Judges and Legislators don’t have much respect for any Rights that interfere with their meglomania.

    There is a big mistake in many people’s minds. Just being born in the US – or being a US Citizen – or even being a Natural Born Citizen – does not, in themselves, “give” anybody a right to serve as President. This is a Privilege, not a Natural Right. Likewise, “a decent job”, “decent medical care”, et cetera may be lofty social goals, but these are Not Natural Rights, either.

    You are correct about one thing; many of our social misunderstandings come about because Words are often used without careful consideration as to their meanings. (Or, the deliberate twisting of their meanings by chalatans and unscrupulous “politicians”.) We must be very careful of how we use words like Rights, Privileges, Immunities, and Powers. And, we need to chastise anybody who misuses or twists those IMPORTANT words. The 10th Amendment – of the Bill of Rights – never once mentions a Right (especially regarding any State). It mentions only “powers”. Therefore, States / Governments don’t have any Natural Rights – just Powers.

    “When words lose their meanings, men lose their Liberties” — Confucius

  35. Robert Laity   Saturday, November 6, 2010 at 2:20 AM

    Corrected link:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUaGe63Aqv4

  36. Robert Laity   Saturday, November 6, 2010 at 2:18 AM

    Obama is further encumbered from being POTUS by virtue of past treasonous acts against America and his having given aid and comnfort to enemies of the USA. These are Charges that have already beeen formally lodged with the proper authorities. That the have failed to address said charges of TREASON is misprision of Treason and gross malfeasance in office.
    See 18USC,Part 1,Chapter 115,Sec.2381

    One of many examples of Treasonous acts committed by Obama:
    http://www.youtube.com/;watch?v=sUaGe63Aqv4

  37. Robert Laity   Saturday, November 6, 2010 at 2:11 AM

    Yes, you would agree. You were being praised, albeit undeservedly>

  38. Robert Laity   Saturday, November 6, 2010 at 1:51 AM

    Persons unable to prove that their biological parents were BOTH American citizens and that said person was born in the USA is disqualified because his ancestry cannot be proven. There is one person that MUST be held to the strict requirements of being both a Jus Soli and a Jus Sanguinis Citizen, That is the President. If the country wants this changed it must be changed by the procedures outlined in Article 5.

  39. Robert Laity   Saturday, November 6, 2010 at 1:42 AM

    Shep, The “Law of Nations” …the “Law” of Nations. The Constitution did not incorporate a “Book”. In any event,if they had, Whether “Rewritten or not” Congress has “the power to define” any such revisions.

  40. Jedi Pauly   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 10:50 PM

    Addendum:

    1) “natural born Citizen” in Article II is just describing a sovereign political entity, a male, since the original intention was not to include females or was not to recognize the natural political rights of females with Article II. That was never intended or else the Minor court would have found political rights for women to be recognized in the Constitution and we would not have needed a 19th Amendment.

    2) “natural born” is just describing a proper noun “Citizen” that is referring to a specific member of a sovereign body politic chosen from among the universe of natural born citizens that are all created by a certain set of natural circumstances. Lets list the entire universal set of possibilities:

    a) nat born citizen just by soil without regard to parents citizenship.(statutory only)
    b) nat born citizen by just mom being a citizen without soil or dad (statutory only)
    c) nat born citizen by just dad being a citizen without soil or mom (natural inherited right)
    d) nat born citizen by both mom and soil without dad (statutory only)
    e) nat born citizen by both dad and soil without mom (natual inherited right, soil irrelevant)
    f) nat born citizen by both mom and dad without soil (natural inherited right, mom irrelevant)
    g) nat born citizen by all three dad, and mom, and soil (natural inherited right, mom,soil irrel.)

    3) it requires only one special set of circumstances from the set described in (2) in order to simultaneously satisfy both the political context of Article II which is the inheritance of a natural political right, and the original intent which was to prevent titles of nobility from the office of Pres.

    a) we can eliminate from our set in (2) (a), (b), (d) because they cannot prevent titles of nobility and they only deal with legal privileges and not not natural inherited political rights.

    b) (c), (e), (f), (g) will all work for Article II because the presence of dad insures natural inherited political rights and inherited political allegiance to dads society and prevents titles of nobility from being inherited by the offspring.

  41. Shep Enwood   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 9:43 PM

    Yes, but I don’t think the Constitution is referring to deVattel’s book in 1.8.
    Do you really believe our founders would incorporate a book (that could be rewritten/altered any time) into the Constitution by reference?
    Besides, what would an “offense of a book”, as this would translate to, comprise? De Vattel’s “Law of Nations” is a legal treatise, not a law in itself or a statement of rules which could be “offended” (=violated).

    It’s more likely they meant the abstract “Law of Nations”, not the book of the same name.

    The argument why deVattel’s definition of NBC is what the founders had in mind is more complex.

  42. NUTN2SAY   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 7:38 PM

    What a choice of interesting words. “Congress SHALL have power to….define” To define! Notice it does not say…”Congress SHALL have power to…ignore” Back in 2007 Congress had a duty in my opinion to define Natural Born Citizen and they blatantly chose to practice ignorance to the Constitution of the United States of America! Keep in mind the Senate was concerned about the eligibility of McCain and not Obama. But they were only worried about the geographical aspect of McCain’s eligibility and not the Constitutional interpretation of Natural Born Citizen! To me this is evidence that our federal government committed a Constitutional crime by not adhering to Constitutional law and procedure when it is obvious that they are rewriting and therefore amending presidential qualifications without following the Amendment Process as outlined in the Constitution! Without any amendment it appears the federal government is just simply designating the 14th Amendment as a new requirement to be a qualified presidential candidate and not Article 2 Section 1…this is a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution!

  43. 1776reloaded   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 7:21 PM

    I put this email together to define the word ” incomes ” within the meaning of the Constitution so everyone will be able to understand it. I call it [[ GAIN ]]. Stand for the TRUTH.

    ——————————————————-

    Amendment XVI
    The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

    ——————————————————–

    “”16Th Amendment provides that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on income, from whatever source derived..””

    1) DEFINE ” INCOME ” WITHIN the meaning of the 16TH Amendment.

    2) DEFINE ” SOURCE” WITHIN the meaning of the 16 Amendment. “whatever” does NOT define “SOURCE”.

    3) DEFINE “DIRECT TAX” WITHIN the meaning of the U.S.Constitution.

    ——————————————————–

    U.S. Supreme Court
    BOWERS v. KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO., 271 U.S. 170 (1926)
    271 U.S. 170

    BOWERS, Collector of Internal Revenue,
    v.
    KERBAUGH-EMPIRE CO.
    No. 173.

    Argued Jan. 25, 1926.
    Decided May 3, 1926.

    “The Sixteenth Amendment declares that Congress shall have power to levy and collect taxes on income, ‘from [271 U.S. 170, 174] whatever source derived’ without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration. It was not the purpose or effect of that amendment to bring any new subject within the taxing power. Congress already had power to tax all incomes. But taxes on incomes from some sources had been held to be ‘direct taxes’ within the meaning of the constitutional requirement as to apportionment. Art. 1, 2, cl. 3, 9, cl. 4; Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 158 U.S. 601 , 15 S. Ct. 912. The Amendment relieved from that requirement and obliterated the distinction in that respect between taxes on income that are direct taxes and those that are not, and so put on the same basis all incomes ‘from whatever source derived.’ Brushaber v. Union Pac. R. R., 240 U.S. 1, 17 , 36 S. Ct. 236, 241 (60 L. Ed. 493, L. R. A. 1917D, 414, Ann. Cas. 1917B, 713). ‘Income’ has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax Act of 1909 (36 Stat. 112), in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. Southern Pacific Co. v. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335 , 38 S. Ct. 540; Merchants’ L. & T. Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 219 , 41 S. Ct. 386, 15 A. L. R. 1305. After full consideration, [[ this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital” ]]…

    “After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as GAIN [[ DERIVED ]] from capital, from labor or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital.

    ——————————————————–

    What is the definition of [[ INCOME ]] in the 16TH Amendment?

    Example: If I came to an agreement to trade equally my private individual labor (my time) for 10 chickens an hour, Do I have to pay “INCOME” tax on those chickens to the irs. Answer NO! how could I? Give them 5 chickens of my 10?

    If I came to an agreement to trade equally my private individual labor (my time) for 1 troy oz of Gold an hour ,do I have to pay “INCOME” tax on my labor to the irs. Answer NO! What would I do cut it in half and mail it?

    “Trading” EQUALLY my time (private individual labor) for 10 chickens is not ” INCOME” as defined in the 16TH AMENDMENT. INCOME IS GAIN. I did not gain anything.

    Income is [[ DERIVED ]] from capitol, from labor. [Meaning if a business owner has 10 employees and spent 20 dollars after paying them, including overhead, he got 40 dollars back. So he made a ” PROFIT “(His business made a ( PROFIT/GAIN ). That extra 20 dollars was derived from the labor of his employees.

    That extra 20 is a “GAIN/PROFIT/INCOME DERIVED FROM LABOR” Within the meaning of the Constitution, The Sixteenth Amendment.

    ——————————————————–

    Congress did NOT and does NOT have the Power to pass it’s Powers (Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5 to be exact to this particular) to a foreign entity. That in itself NULLIFIES the federal reserve.

    1) Marbury v Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176; 2 LE 60 (1803) “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”

    2) Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 491; 86 S Ct 1602; 16 L Ed
    2d 694 (1966)”Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.”

    3) Norton v Shelby County, Tennessee, 118 US 425, 442; 6 S Ct 1121; 30 L Ed 178 (1886) reveals that “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; creates no office. It is as inoperative as though it had never been passed.

    ——————————————————–

    The ONLY direct tax embraced within the Constitution are “CAPITATION” taxes and taxes on land.

    A tax on income is a direct tax. That can’t be because direct taxes in the Constitution are only described as capitation taxes and taxes on land.

    A tax on your income regardless of the source, is an unaportioned “direct tax” and just as UNCONSTITUTIONAL today as it always was.

    Congress did NOT and does NOT have the Power to pass it’s Powers (Article 1 Section 8 Clause 5 to be exact to this particular) to a foreign entity. That in itself NULLIFIES the federal reserve.

    ——————————————————–

    Pt.1
    GAIN IS PROFIT IS GAIN

    Oliver v. Halstead, 86 S.E. Rep 2nd 85e9 (1955):

    “There is a clear distinction between `profit’ and `wages’, or a compensation for labor. Compensation for labor (wages) cannot be regarded as profit within the meaning of the law. The word `profit’, as ordinarily used, means the gain made upon any business or investment — a different thing altogether from the mere compensation for labor.”

    Pt.2
    NCOME IS GAIN IS PROFIT

    Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S.111(1930):

    “The claim that salaries, wages, and compensation for personal services are to be taxed as an entirety and therefore must be returned by the individual who has performed the services which produce the gain is without support…it is not salaries, wages,or compensation for personal services that are to be included in gains, profits,and income derived from salaries,wages,or compensation for personal services.”

    Pt.3
    TO HAVE INCOME THERE MUST BE GAIN

    Conner v. U.S.,303 F Supp.1187(1969):

    “… whatever may constitute income, therefore, must have the essental feature of gain to the recipient. This was true when the 16th Amendment became effective, it was true at the time of Eisner v. Macomber Supra, it was true under Section 22(a)of the Internal Revenue Code of 1938,and it is likewise true under Section 61(a)of the IRS Code of 1954. If there is not gain, there is not income … Congress has taxed income not compensation.”

    —————————————————

    STATUTES DO NOT TRUMP THE CONSTITUTION

    1) Marbury v Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176; 2 LE 60 (1803) reveals that “All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void.”

    2) Miranda v Arizona, 384 US 436, 491; 86 S Ct 1602; 16 L Ed
    2d 694 (1966) reveals that “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.”

    3) Norton v Shelby County, Tennessee, 118 US 425, 442; 6 S Ct 1121; 30 L Ed 178 (1886) reveals that “An unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; creates no office. It is as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

    —————————————————————————-

    U.S. Supreme Court

    COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. CULBERTSON , 337 U.S. 733 (1949) 337 U.S. 733 COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. CULBERTSON et al. No. 313. Argued Feb. 7, 1949. Decided June 27, 1949. [ Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Culbertson 337 U.S. 733 (1949) ][337 U.S. 733 , 734] Mr. Arnold Raum, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. [337 U.S. 733 , 735] Mr. Be jamin L. Bird, Fort Worth, Tex., for respondents. Mr. Chief Justice VINSON delivered the opinion of the Court…..”Furthermore, our decision in Commissioner v. Tower, supra, clearly indicates the importance of participation in the business by the partners during the tax year. We there said that a partnership is created ‘when persons join together their money, goods, labor, or skill for the purpose of carrying on a trade, profession, or business and when there is community of interest in the profits and losses.’ This is, after all, but the application of an often iterated definition of income-the gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined-to a particular form of business organization.”….

    U.S. Supreme Court

    GOODRICH v. EDWARDS, 255 U.S. 527 (1921) 255 U.S. 527 GOODRICH v. EDWARDS, Collector of Internal Revenue.No. 663. Argued March 10 and 11, 1921.Decided March 28, 1921. Mr. Justice CLARKE delivered the opinion of the Court. …..”And the definition of ‘income’ approved by this Court is: “‘The gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, provided it be understood to include profits gained through sale or conversion of capital assets.’ Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207, 40 S. Sup. Ct. 189, 193 (64 L. Ed. 521, 9 A. L. R. 1570).”…

    U.S. Supreme Court

    MILES v. SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. OF BALTIMORE, 259 U.S. 247 (1922) 259 U.S. 247 MILES, Collector of Internal Revenue, v. SAFE DEPOSIT & TRUST CO. OF BALTIMORE. No. 416. Argued Dec. 16, 1921. Decided May 29, 1922. Mr. Justice PITNEY delivered the opinion of the Court. ….”In that as in other recent cases this court has interpreted ‘income’ as including gains and profits derived through sale or conversion of capital assets, whether done by a dealer or trader, or casually by a non-trader, as by a trustee in the course of changing investments. Merchants’ Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 517-520, 41 Sup. Ct. 386, 15 A. L. R. 1305″….

    Lavin v. Marsh, 644 F.2nd 1378, 9th Cir., (1981)
    “Persons dealing with government are charged with knowing government statutes and regulations, and they assume the risk that government agents may exceed their authority and provide misinformation”

  44. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 5:21 PM

    He must also have had an American Mother.

  45. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 5:19 PM

    Tom, “Citizen at Birth=Statutory citizen” must be clarified.

    Those who have two American ParentS and are born IN the USA are “Natural-Born”
    “Citizens at Birth”

    Those who do not have two American parents and are born in the USA must be
    naturalized.These are never “citizens at birth” as if nothing statutory had to be done to remedy their non-citizenship.

  46. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 5:13 PM

    Jack Maskel is WRONG!

  47. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 5:09 PM

    Pauly’s treatise is obtuse.

    Obama may be the son of Malcolm X:
    http://israelinsider.ning.com/profiles/blogs/is-obama-the-secret-son-of

  48. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 5:06 PM

    I understand that children of American parents born abroad must meet statutory requirements in order for that child to be an American. That one of the parents must have resided in the US for at least a year before the birth.

    This illustrates that,unlike NBCs who must do nothing at all to solidify their claim to be 100% American,the parents of children born overseas on a military base must take legal steps to solidify American citizenship.

    I also understand that military bases do not classify as US soil.

  49. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 4:58 PM

    SCOTUS is “Evading that issue”:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7qEH-tKoXA

    That makes them complicit.

    The election was fraudulent and the status of “President-elect” ill obtained. Therefore his status as even P.E. is non-existent.Insofar as Obama can not by any means change his birth status to that of an NBC he cannot attain the office of President because he is disqualified.
    http://americangrandjury.org/public/

    I understand that a non NBC can run for the office but cannot enter it if he/she wins. That allowance is ludicrous since one who is not an NBC could not ever enter into said office legally.

  50. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 4:48 PM

    I formally filed a Charge against Obama for the illegal use of Social Security numbers and that complaint was forwarded by Police in Tonawanda,NY to the FBI and INS.

    See City of Tonawanda NY Police Criminal Information of Robert C. Laity against Barack Hussein Obama and Nancy Pelosi,Complaint #10-002-896,March,2010.

  51. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 4:43 PM

    Anyone in the line of succession to the Presidency must also be NBCs or they too are disqualified.

  52. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 4:42 PM

    Laws for Naturalization. The Office of the Presidency is one that carries with it the requirement that One have two American Citizen parentS and be born IN the mainland of the USA. American Jus Sanquinis and American Jus Soli.

    The office of the Presidency is the sole office in which requirements to be 100% American is so strictly defined.

    Obama has both British and American Jus Sanguinity and under the British Nationality Act of 1948,because Obama,Sr was a Brit and because Hawaii was once in the British Empire,Junior was born a Brit.

    Obama, if he were born in Kenya since Kenya was a British Protectorate,he would have British Jus Soli.

    If he were born in Hawaii, he would have American Jus Soli but dual Sanquinity. A POTUS is REQUIRED to be of Sole American sanquinity(Both ParentS) AND American Jus Soli.

  53. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 4:24 PM

    Legally,any authorities who are looking the other way on this, are committing Malfeasance in Office AND are guilty of Misprision of a Felony and Treason.

    We have never lost our “standing” The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure were unconstitutionally changed in 1946 to infringe upon the people their right to make “Presentments”.

    Yes,these activities of our errant authorities are “Repugnant to the Constitution” (The same phrase used in Marbury v. Madison,USSCt,1803 when they said that “Any law that is Repugnant to the constitution is null and void”.

    The same court in Miranda v. Arizona confirmed the Rights of “We the People”:
    “Where rights secured by the constitution are involved,there can be NO rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them”

    The Standing necessary to bring Obama to Justice,by “Presentment” is found in the Fifth Amendment and has never been repealed:
    http://americangrandjury.org/public/
    http://agjnow.org/

  54. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 4:12 PM

    Obama has never BEEN an NBC and he is still a “Marxist,Satanist who hates America and is in love with”:

    Iran
    Iraq
    Russia
    China
    North Korea
    Kenya
    and
    All Muslim Nations

  55. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 4:03 PM

    Obama PAID his attorneys to find a way to “EVADE” Article 2,Sec. 1:
    http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/6507-4049

    SCOTUS Justice Thomas stated that,that is the same thing the Supreme court is doing,”Evading that issue”:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7qEH-tKoXA

  56. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 3:58 PM

    Yes. It IS an “elephant in the room”. As the facts are known,as proferred by Obama himself,if his father was Obama,Sr and his mother Stanley Dunham,that combination makes it patently indisputable that Obama is NOT an NBC.

  57. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 3:55 PM

    Article 1,Sec.8 (USConst):

    “Congress shall have the power to …punish…offenses of the Law of Nations”.

  58. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 3:53 PM

    PC be damned. Race provides NO immunity from prosecution for criminal activity. Obama is Mullato;Caucasian,Negroid and Arab. I am White and I am calling his Caucasian part treasonous. Can I help it that he carries along his Negroid genes in the same container? His Negroid and Arab genes are complicit.

  59. Jedi Pauly   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 3:50 PM

    All the sources are given. I have given them to you over and over but you refuse to accept them. Once again, the only sources you need are the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution, the rules of English grammar, a couple of law dictionaries to look up the definition of Sovereign, Natural Law, Natural Rights, Legal Rights, Positive Law, and the Minor v Happersett Supreme Court case. No other sources are even necessary. The rest is supplied with logic and reason. Perhaps you lack of understanding and acceptance is not due to the lack of sources but rather is due to something else?

  60. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 3:48 PM

    In arguendo, Even if Obama WERE an American,his loyalties STILL lie elsewhere. Obama is a Quisling:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUaGe63Aqv4

  61. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 3:45 PM

    If Obama can not prove that he is an American then his Kids are not NBCs. Obama was born of Obama,Sr and Stanley Dunham pursuant to the facts proferred.. Those may not BE the actual facts as you pointed out. Stanley Dunham was underage at the time of Obama’s birth in order for her to have had the option of Naturalizing her British subject.citizen son. If Obama,Sr is indeed Obama’s real father then Junior WAS born a Brit under the British Nationality Act of 1948. Insofar as Dunham did NOT meet the req-
    uirement that SHE be American for ten years/five of which were AFTER the age of 14,which was necessary for her to apply for Naturalization of Junior,Junior was NOT even
    eligible for Naturalization at the time of his birth. He remained a Brit. In any event NEVER ever being an NBC. The status of being an NBC is REQUIRED at BIRTH for US Presidents.

  62. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 3:36 PM

    “Men” is an all encompassing term meaning those of the species Homo Sapiens. The term includes and included woMEN for withou them there would BE no species Homo Sapien.

  63. Harry H   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 3:33 PM

    The theoretical hypotheses and arguments are interesting, but there are two clear requirements for office that Soetero/Obama plainly lacks:

    1. an American birth, and
    2. an American father.

    Yet we as a nation have been so intimidated by Obama’s half-blackness, so terrified of being called racist, that we have elected an alien to our highest office. What a colossal con this gullible nation has been suckered into and by which it is still victimized!

  64. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 3:33 PM

    “We the People” HAVE standing under the fifth amendment. In 1946 errant rulemakers changed the Federal Rules of Criminal procedure to do way with the “Presentment”,saying that they were “Obsolete”{

    “No person shall be held to answer for a …crime UNLESS on a Presentment OR
    an indictment of a Grand Jury”. Presentments are founded in Common Law and wer used until 1946. Presentments are citizen empaneled Juries. Federal Grand Juries are Court empaneled. Prior to 1946 the Citizen empaneled jury was ubiquitous. It gave we the people the avenue in which even Judges could be charged. Now that process,originally meant as a means to qquestion authority must NOW BE convened by that authority or else the issue is not able to be “PRESENTED”.

    That regulation is “Repugnant to the Constitution and is Null and Void” . See Marbury v. Madison,(SCOTUS,1803) and Miranda v. Arizona:

    “Where rights are secured by the constitution are involved,there can be NO rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them”

  65. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 3:21 PM

    Precisely. Insofar as the definition of NBC IS legally defined as one who has two citizen parents and who is born in the country and that the meeting of this definition is REQUIRED for one to be POTUS, the Law has been violated by Obama. Coingress has the power to “Punish” said “Offense against the Law of Nation”.

    Since it is a violation,also,of international law,any country who is a signatory or the Rome agreement can bring suit against the USA for having allowed it.

  66. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 3:09 PM

    Who really knows who Obama’s father is without the production of a bona-fides Birth Certificate? Obama,Sr was not legally married to Stanley Dunham. He had a wife in Kenya when he professed his undying love for Stan.

  67. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 3:07 PM

    It is interesting to note that Vattel did not write the Law of Nations, Vattel interpreted it into French from Latin. The Romans even knew that to be an NBC involved having TWO citizen parents and being born in the Roman Empire.

    The “Law of Nations” is incorporated into the US Constitution at Article 1,Sec.8:

    “Congress SHALL have power to…define and punish offenses of the LAW OF NATIONS”.

  68. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 2:59 PM

    The definition of Natural-Born Citizen that appears in the “Law of Nations” is the “One definition: that the founders chose. This is incorporated by specific reference in Article 1,Sec.8,US Const).

    The “Mother” must be an American. She is one of the two “ParentS”. necessaary to pro-create the Child. The Father must also be an American.

    Natural rights are not inherited. They are GIVEN to “all men” by God.

    Foreign royalty can NEVER be considered NBCs so their children can never BE considered NBCs because foreign royals are NOT Americans.

  69. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 2:51 PM

    Jedi has warped arguments…gets an F minus.

  70. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 2:50 PM

    Correction: We Make our own laws.

  71. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 2:49 PM

    Canadian law is of NO effect in the USA. We nake our own laws.

  72. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 2:45 PM

    TWO American ParentS + Born on US Soil=NBC

  73. 1776reloaded   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 2:07 PM

    Cornell Univeisity
    Law School
    LIT / Legal Information Institute
    CHAPTER 113B > § 2339B

    Findings and Purpose
    Section 301 of title III of Pub. L. 104-132 provided that:

    US CODE: Title 18,2339B. Providing material support or resources to designated foreign … Page 2 of 2

    “(a) Findings.—The Congress finds that—

    “(1) international terrorism is a serious and deadly problem that threatens the vital interests of the United States;
    “(2) THE CONSTITUTION CONFERS UPON CONGRESS THE POWER TO PUNISH CRIMES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS AND TO CARRY OUT THE TREATY OBLIGATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, and therefore Congress may by law impose penalties relating to the provision of material support to foreign organizations engaged in terrorist activity;
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002339—B000-notes.html

    UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 SECTION 8 CLAUSE 10: The Congress shall have Power To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and [[ OFFENCES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS; ]]

  74. 1776reloaded   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 1:27 PM

    First Amendment Right. The Bill of Rights:

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    EVERY SINGLE MEMBER OF CONGRESS ARE DISHONERING THEIR OATHS AND ARE IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION DENYING WE THE PEOPLE OUR RIGHT FOR A REDRESS. THEY ARE REPUGNANT TO THE CONSTITUTION AND IGNORING OUR FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT FOR A REDRESS. THIS MUST NOT STAND.

  75. 1776reloaded   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 12:59 PM

    The last year George Washington was President of the United States(1796-1797).

    Vattel’s The Law of Nations, was the most influential book on the law of nations for 125 years following its publication. The first English translation appeared in 1759. Numerous editions of The Law of Nations were printed in England during the Eighteenth century, which were widely read in the American Colonies, along with editions in the original French. The first American edition appeared in 1796.
    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2148074/posts

    A republication of the 1797 translation of Vattel’s work, along with new English translations of 3 early essays.
    http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2246&Itemid=99999999

    The point is not only were the founders alive at the time of the translation but the
    Translaters and publisher’s were also ALIVE AT THE TIME OF THE FOUNDERS and they absolutely UNDERSTOOD THE MEANING AS WELL,WITHIN THE VERY CONSTITUTION THAT FREED them and it was accepted by the Founders.

  76. Jedi Pauly   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 12:44 PM

    That is not the point of my Legal Proof. I have already stated that females were also natural born citizens and the Minor court makes this clear. However, the Minor court also goes on to point out that even though females were natural born citizens they did not have the same political rights recognized in law, as the male natural born citizens because the Constitution and the States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution did not recognize the natural political rights of females. You have missed the point and drawn the wrong conclusion.

  77. Jedi Pauly   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 12:27 PM

    You have missed the entire point of the Theory and Hypotheses. The entire point is not that those who have TWO citizen parents and who are born in America are not natural born citizens and I have not even said that they are not. By definition they are and I have never disagreed with that and you can not drive that I am disagreeing with that from my Proof.

    The entire point is that Article II is not talking about natural born citizens who are created by statutory definitions that includes the one that you are describing. The entire point I make is that your mother and soil are irrelevant for Article II purposes (within the context and intent of Article II) and “natural born Citizen” in Article II only originally meant males who inherit their natural born citizen status from their citizen fathers because you do not inherit natural political rights from soil or your mom and neither one are sufficient to prevent titles of nobility from attaining the office of President. I think you need to reread and digest.

  78. Bill Cutting   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 11:35 AM

    JP

    Are you sure they wern’t just using poetic license when emphsizing “Men” and “Citizen”?

    Regards

    Bill

    [Rather, what is apparent is the authors of those instruments themselves followed a pattern of emphasis known as “Poetic License”, to accentuate their point. We see this in the Preamble of the Constitution for the United States of America)James Madison (et al.) wrote:
    We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general W[elfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.In this quote we added the underlining under each of the nouns that would generally be considered common nouns by their usage. We believe (from Mr. Madison’s other writing on the subject matter) that he was pointing out that each of these nouns in fact are more like proper nouns than common nouns in that each of these nouns, as they are referred to here, represent uniquely specific things: Order, Union, Justice, Tranquility, Welfare, Blessings of Liberty, and Posterity. That was his exact point. That preamble statement was also why they did not initially believe controls external to that preamble were necessary (which is why the amendments of the Bill of Rights were added later—the states felt the preamble was not definitive enough, and the Bill of Rights were added by amendment to form the Constitution of the United States of America).]

    http://teamlawproductions.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=689

  79. Mick   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 11:05 AM

    To Ms. Rondeau, I agree w/ you to an extent, but you should also realize that those writing the editorials could have an ulterior motive beside seeking truth, and your guard should be up for those propagandists.
    —————-
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: I am fully aware of that, sir.

  80. Jedi Pauly   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 11:03 AM

    Well said. I agree with you.

  81. Kristin   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 10:58 AM

    this is just stating what I’ve always said. Obama cannot be president because his father was not a US citizen. Simple as that. All this running around trying to find a birth certificate has been a waste of time. THAT has been the frustrating part. That we were refusing to look at the elephant in the room.

    There are those who think Marco Rubio should run for president too. His parents are Cuban. Seems he can’t be president either…unless some want to give Obama a pass.

  82. Mick   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 10:51 AM

    The Solicitor General in the Kerchner case is Neal Katyal. He is a native born son of non citizen Indian parents (like Jindal).

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

    He was also a student of Akhil Amar, who testified for amending A2S1C5 in 2004.
    Interesting connection, especially in light of Obama’s trip this week.

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

  83. Mick   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 10:45 AM

    This Jedi guy is obviously an Obot, trying to smear Apuzzo by linking him w/ Berg and Taitz.

  84. Mick   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 10:44 AM

    This is a nonsense Obot strawman argument. Countries have the natural right to determine the naturalization and citizenship status of their own citizens, not those of other countries. If 2 citizens of America (only) have a baby on US Soil, then that child is a natural born Citizen regardless of what any other country says.

  85. Jack Stromberg   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 10:43 AM

    That is a nice thought, however that is not what the Constitution says.
    It clearly speaks of “natural born citizen”, not of education home or abroad or other circumstances that might give rise to questions about allegiance (e.g. religion, political views etc.).
    Every natural born citizen is eligible according to the Constitution, even if he were a Marxist satanist who hates America and is in love with North Korea.
    These are choices for the voter to make, not matters of eligibility. So we should not confuse the two unless we wish to depart from constitutionality.

  86. Skippy Ross   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 10:07 AM

    Jedi Pauly says
    ” I am better than a lawyer, I am a PHYSICIST class of 87′ Purdue University West Lafayette Indiana!

    You may be well educated, and a smart logical thinker, however you lost all respect for your opinions when you declare yourself “better” than anyone else.

  87. OldAtlantic   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 9:40 AM

    The basic principle is a person who from the time they were born to the time they were president had a single country as their sole allegiance and the only country they reasonably could think of as theirs and where their future would be. If a person as a child is raised in another country to believe their future lies with that country, then they are disqualified. A person born here but whose parents give them a path into living in that other country as their allegiance is also disqualified. An NBC who goes off and becomes a citizen of another country and settles there is also disqualified.

    The basic idea is that the CINC is someone whose sole allegiance and whose center of life has been a single country from birth to the time of being CINC.

    Thus McCain would qualify and Obama would not. This is what feels right to us and would feel right to those who wrote the Constitution.

    Case 1: A child of Americans for many generations with father and grandfather admirals born abroad but always raised as an American, and is continuously covered by military care from birth for 35 years, goes to the Naval Academy, etc.

    Case 2: A man wanders through, has a child with a woman determined for her children to live in another country and hates America and raises her son partly in a foreign country as the adopted child of a man of that country, with the intention he live in that country, etc.

    The Founding Fathers would say Case 1 can be CINC and Case 2 can’t be no way no how.

  88. 12thGenerationAMERICAN   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 9:29 AM

    Meanwhile, The Usurper is thumbing his nose at all of us narural born citizens and spending a reported $200 million per day of OUR TAX MONEY on his boondoggle trip to India and wherever else it pleases him. Hillary could easily swing back on her boondoggle and accomplish the same thing The Usurper is SUPPOSEDLY doing for far less of OUR TAX MONEY?!!?!? Our only hope is that Rep. Darrell Issa doesn’t cave and gets to the bottom of all of this FRAUD and WASTE?!!? God bless the USA!

  89. Mick   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 4:40 AM

    I believe you are incorrect Mr. Pauly, and I believe that you are attempting to muddy the water, or else you feel “slighted” that you are not a natural born Citizen. Curiously this comes out the same day as the response to Kerchner is due, and you are attempting to smear Apuzzo w/ association to Taitz. To feel slighted is a common response. I have encountered many people who say, “yeah but I was born in…” or “yeah, but I was born in America…”. If those born abroad can be considered NBC, then the NA 1790 would not be necessary. Most countries at that time gave “birthright citizenship”, so NA 1795 is a response to the fact that children born in those countries would owe them allegiance, and therefore not be NBC. True, women’s legal rights have changed over time, as have negroes. Only the decendants of the Negroes made citizens by the 14A were Natural Law NBCs, since their parents were not citizens. But unfortunately legal bars prevented them from being POTUS. Women could always be a Natural Born Citizens, but their lack of legal rights prevented them from initially voting or becoming POTUS.
    The fact is that you owed allegiance to Japan until you were 18, and Natural law would dictate the rights of a nations to make their own naturalization law. Therefore you certainly owed allegiance to Japan until age 18. Your legal rights as a birthright Japanese citizen would have been affected by place of domicile. If you lived in Japan, and they had a law dictating, say, military service at age 16, you would have been obligated to follow that law. See Perkin v. Elg. McCain had the same issue. Panama gave birthright citizenship at the time he was born, therefore he was born w/ dual allegiance. The difference now is that many countries do not give “Birthright citizenship”. The children of Americans born in those countries are NBCs, since they are not born w/ allegiance to those countries. I am very surprised that the editor would allow this propaganda on the day Mr. Apuzzo’s case in SCOTUS is due. You are obviously attempting to smear Mr. Apuzzo by relating him to Taitz. You are not who you say you are. Ms. Rondeau you should be more careful.
    ————————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: People sometimes forget that an “editorial” is an opinion piece. Print newspapers accept and publish editorials from the public all the time. That kind of piece does not have to be backed by facts and references, although it builds one’s credibility to do so. The Post & Email takes no position about whose theory of natural born Citizenship is correct; we simply seek the truth about Obama’s past and whether or not he has lied about it. We also do not wish to hamper free speech, guaranteed by the First Amendment, as that would make us as guilty as the mainstream media of suppressing free thought and discussion. Consider that anyone claiming that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” cannot get his or her Letter to the Editor printed in a mainstream print newspaper, and then compare that to what we do here at The Post & Email. All points of view, as long as they are reasonably well-written, are considered here. However, all authors must take responsibility for what they have written and be willing to accept the fact that many readers may not agree with their point of view. It is not the responsibility of the editor to fact-check every editorial submission.

    News articles are different; they are fact-checked very carefully with proper links and sources always attributed. That is the difference between an editorial and a hard news article. I am still looking for writers willing to write the latter, but most people prefer editorials for obvious reasons.

    The purpose of publishing all viewpoints is to encourage research, thought and cogent discussion. This is the foundation of our republic. The ability to express one’s thoughts freely cannot be suppressed.

  90. Jack Stromberg   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 4:28 AM

    > “children who are born in the country, of parents who do not owe any political allegiance to other countries, are in the language of the Constitution itself, natural born citizens.”

    I think that interpretation (that “not owing allegiance” is related to citizenship and that “within the jurisdiction” is the same as “not owing allegiance”) poses both a logical problem and a threat to the Constitution. Let me explain why:

    This theory assumes that as soon as you owe “allegiance to [an]other countr[y]”, your children cannot be natural born citizens (NBC). Being a citizen of another county fulfills the requirements of “allegiance to another country”. This includes dual citizenship. So, if you’re a citizen of another country (even if “only” by dual citizenship), your children can never be NBC.
    You’re with me so far?

    OK, here goes the catch:

    Imagine for a moment that tomorrow another country (may that be Canada or North Korea, let’s stick with Canada for this argument) enacts a law stating “Any person born on US soil or by at least one US parent automatically becomes a citizen of Canada at birth”.
    They’re free to do so because it is up to any country to determine who its citizens are.

    So, what does this mean? Within one generation, everyone born on US soil or by at least one US parent has become a (dual) Canadian citizen.
    Which means, by the argument above, that their children can never be NBC.

    See where I’m getting at? If the interpretation above were correct, any country could enact a law that would make it impossible (!), within two generations, for any person to become eligible for US presidency!
    All US citizens = dual citizens of Canada = no NBC.

    Do you understand now why I think this is a dangerous interpretation that “not owing allegiance” is defined by citizenship?

  91. Robert Laity   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 4:25 AM

    A very LONG WINDED treatise. Natural-Born American Citizens are those who have TWO Citizen parents and who are born in America. This is NO “Hypothesis.

  92. Spaulding   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 1:52 AM

    Right Troy. A “scientific” analysis. But what is the issue? It appears to be resentment toward Mario Apuzzo, and Orly Taitz. The title of the thesis statement is “A Scientific Legal Theory.” But the first sentence is about “…a critical analysis of the incomplete works of attorneys Orly Taitz, Phil Berg, and Mario Apuzzo,”. That essay would have failed my rhetoric course. Mr. Pauli claimed the topic was natural born citizenship

    Proceeding a bit, the author makes assertion after assertion which he not only does not support, but which are patently false. I have read Mario Apuzzo’s writing as well as Orly Taitz’, and have never heard or read either assert what Mr. Pauli claims. Neither, for example, has claimed that the definition of natural born citizen has changed since John Jay recommended its inclusion in Article II. To the contrary. This person appears not to have read Mr. Apuzzo’s voluminous writing or references, and Orly Taitz simply takes John Marshall’s definition as written. She doesn’t contest Minor or Venus or Perkins v. Elf or Wong Kim, or try to teach the public because that is not her background.

    In science defining terms is important. We learn to define only as many as are necessary, and to try to keep them independent. Mr. Pauli, besides his disagreements with Mario Apuzzo whether or not he knows what Mario said or wrote, invents some entirely unnecessary logic of his own. “Natural Law is defined to be opposite or opposed to the Positive Law.” As Bill Clinton so succinctly said, “It depends upon what is is.”

    “Females had no political rights recognized for almost 150 years after the adoption of the Constitution.” Try U.S. Supreme Court THOMPSON v. THOMPSON, 2 U.S. 128 (1791). That was a divorce settlement, in the woman’s favor. But there were hundreds of cases involving legal rights of women before sufferage. I guess it depends upon what Mr. Pauli considers “political rights.”

    Vattel, presumably meaning his Law of Nations, did not write “50 years before the Declaration and Constitution.” Correcting it hardly seems worth the effort. Vattel’s Law of Nations was published in French in 1758. Vattel’s publisher provided Benjamin Franklin with preliminary copies of an English translation in 1772. Franklin was already familiar with the French edition, as were many of our diplomats, most of whom were familiar with, if not fluent, in French. The core curriculum at our first law school at William and Mary was Law of Nations, the French edition, in 1779.

    Then, Mr. Pauli asserts “Berg can probably convince any jury that this is the case and can be said to have achieved the goal of proving that Obama is not a valid President.” That Mr. Berg could prove anything about Obama, having assertions and no evidence makes no sense. A jury would have to ask, as World Net Daily has said, too often in my opinion, “Where’s the birth certificate?” That was Chester Arthurs’s ploy as well, and Chester, probably like Obama, always had his birth certificate. He wanted that to draw attention from his unnaturalized father.

    The closest to elegant scientific writing about citizenship that I have seen is from a reference by Mario Apuzzo, Dr. David Ramsay’s “A Dissertation On The Manner of Acquiring The Character and Privileges Of A Citizen Of The United States” which can be found among Marios appendices or by seaching Scribd.com. For concision among justices, though I haven’t read more than a handful, John Marshall stands at one end and Horace Gray (Wong Kim Ark) at the other. The framers never intended that the Constitution contain definitions. Almost the opposite is true, according to James Wilson. They wanted the Constitution to be written in the the common language so that citizens would not be dependent upon a class of mandarins for interpretation. Vattel was part of our common law.

    Not meaning to be unkind to Mr. Pauli, but not wanting citizens to believe natural born citizenship is so obtuse a topic as not to warrant a hearing, Mr. Pauli’s “Better than a lawyer” comment is a little sad. Descartes said “Truth is something clear and distinct to the human reason.” After reading Mr. Pauli’s essay read the latest essay by Mr. Apuzzo on Law of Nations at his web site – puzo1.blogspot.com. Think about what you take away. I am a mathematician, and certainly not “better than a lawyer”, or smarter than a lawyer. I wish more of them would chose science as a career because we need those minds. Mr. Apuzzo’s is a first class mind, and he is showing the discipline seldom required of a scientist or mathematician.

  93. Joe   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 12:22 AM

    My 2 cents: I would have to disagree with their premise that “subject to its jurisdiction” refers to the parents. The fourteenth amendment states: “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.”
    It does NOT state” All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and WHOSE PARENTS are subject to the jurisdiction thereof…”
    It was written to convey citizenship to former slaves who had no status. It had nothing to do with diplomats. The United States government can not claim jurisdiction over every baby born here whose parents aren’t diplomats.

  94. Tom   Friday, November 5, 2010 at 12:20 AM

    Oh please No one(read: Article II) cares where anyone’s parents are from–
    Simply immigrate to this Land, pledge allegiance to this nation,that is, become a citizen and then have your U.S. native born kids—-Viola freshly minted NBC’s elg for POTUS

  95. Tom   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 11:56 PM

    Isn’t it silly how these words-“subject to the jurisdiction(thereof)” are tossed about so carelessly with little if any regard for its actual meaning; as if it were just a reiteration or another way to express -“born in” or “born on the soil”, “within the territorial limits” etc.
    FOR GOD’S SAKE “SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION(THEREOF) MEANS OWING COMPLETE AND TOTAL ALLEGIANCE AT THE TIME OF BIRTH TO THE U.S. GOV’T–AND THIS MEANS —
    NOT OWING ALLEGIANCE TO ANYONE ELSE
    ALSO, ONE MAY DECLARE ANYONE THEY LIKE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN BUT THAT DOES NOT “NECESSARILY MAKE THEM A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN FOR CONSTITUTIONAL PURPOSES”
    “CITIZEN AT BIRTH”=STATUTORY U.S. CITIZEN

  96. Tom   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 11:38 PM

    I’d say there is an abundance of “proof”. Almost everything he says and does would indicate and strongly suggest that his loyalty is to any one person or group of persons, collective, thing or cause- that stands in opposition to this nation’s foundational principles The fact that he is so blatant about it; drives many to distraction or into a state of denial re his clear hatred , resentment, and contempt for US

  97. Tom   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 11:23 PM

    The parents of Gerald Ford(born Leslie Lynch King Jr) ARE positively identified. He remained with his biological mother- who had left & eventually divorced a purportedly abusive, drunkard Leslie King, his biological father He was adopted by her new husband Gerald Ford.(Michigan) U.S. citizens, all
    The former POTUS was born in Omaha , Neb He has it all covered.=ART II NBC
    As I have already explained- or attempted to explain- on several occasions in the comments section of previous posts.(at least 2 were never printed…don’t know why not)
    In those instances whereby a child of unknown parentage and/or indeterminate origins* presents itself to the society and there are no prospective foreign adoptive parents in the picture –this child, is ward of the state and as such would owe direct & sole allegiance to this controlling authority=ART II NBC
    This is why the Founders/Framers did not foolishly hem themselves in through unnecessarily restrictive language ie born of 2 parents ; on the soil.

    ARTICLE II NATURAL BORN CITIZEN(SHIP) ENJOINS A SOLE ALLEGIANCE AT BIRTH

    * -foundlings, or products of artificial insemination via anonymous sperm/egg donation etc

    P.S. The word is “sordid” not “sorted”

  98. Jedi Pauly   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 11:18 PM

    Dear Mario;

    Welcome. I am very glad you have joined the discussion. First, let me ask you, are you the “Doc” that I wrote back and forth with from your website, or is that some paralegal that answers e-mails? That may be part of why I may have wrongly attributed something to you that is not your position. If that is the case, then I stand corrected and am pleased that you have corrected the record. Next, you say:

    “As far as your distinction between males and females, natural law makes none other than what distinctions exists between them on a physical level. Whatever positive laws have said or may say about their rights does not change their equality in nature. I do not know why you discount the female so easily. The point is that both parents must be U.S. citizens when the child is born on U.S. soil (or its equivalent). Under natural law, the child acquires as much natural allegiance from the one as he/she does from the other.”

    I have said exactly that both males and females inherit the same natural sovereign political rights from their fathers and this indeed makes them POLITICALLY “equal” under natural law jurisdiction and is not in contention.

    It is very easy to see how and why I can discount the female so easily and I will now explain it to you. Also, I have already proven that it makes no difference about the soil or your mother because both are proven to be irrelevant for Article II purposes which debunks the notion that it requires both parents for Article II purposes, or for a natural born citizen status under U.S. law. I think you missed the point of my proven theory. Finally, the child most definitely does not acquire as much natural POLITICAL allegiance from one parent as he/she does from the other when it comes to POLITICAL RIGHTS which is the proper legal context of Article II. We are not talking about PERSONAL natural allegiance which would be equal for both your mother and father, we are talking strictly about natural political rights and natural political allegiances that are owed to SOCIETY, not what is owed to your mother or father. First, let us examine Vattel.

    “The country of the FATHERS is therefore that of the children…”

    and

    “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a FATHER who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

    and in section 215 of the same chapter of Vattel,

    “It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the LAW of NATURE ALONE, children follow the condition of their FATHERS”

    As you can see, when it comes to POLITICAL RIGHTS which are natural rights that are inherited, Vattel makes it very clear “By the law of NATURE ALONE (means in the absence of, or ignoring, the positive law jurisdiction, which would be the soil jurisdiction of a foreign state, but instead only by natural rights of inheritance and the natural law jurisdiction as in a Natural Right to be a citizen), children (means both males and females) follow the condition (means political condition of which citizenship is part of your natural political rights and natural condition) of their father”. I don’t see Vattel saying the word MOTHER do you? He does not say that the children follow the political condition of their mothers, a female. Let’s not stop there however, let’s go on and look at the Declaration of Independence.

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,…”

    Once again I don’t see the mention of females in the Declaration of Independence. However, I do see one very important observation of English grammar that I believe you have overlooked. Notice that when it says “that all men are created equal”, that the noun “men” is not capitalized, but further along, “That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…” Then, “Men” IS capitalized. This is very significant because it proves that the use of capitalization is meant to convey something very specific and different than the use of the noun “men” earlier in the previous sentence.

    In the first instance “men” can necessarily be interpreted to mean mankind or both males and females because it is stated that men are created equally and endowed with political rights (Liberty). As I have pointed out and you seem to agree, both males and females inherit their natural political rights from their fathers, and this is indeed equal for both males and females, but may not be equally recognized in the positive law jurisdiction, which brings us exactly to the next instance of “Men” and the capitalization.

    In the next instance of the noun, “Men” is capitalized because they are now talking about something very specific, and not just the general usage of the word “men” as in the previous sentence. The subject is now different also, which is the creation and administration of a government, and from whom the just powers are derived and consent is given (from the “Men”). The subject of the previous sentence was about where the rights to a government come from. It only makes sense that to derive just powers from the consent of the governed can only mean those who are actually empowered to give their consent, which was not females who could not even vote until 150 years later! Likewise, a female president would have to give her consent to the laws of Congress by agreeing to sign the statutes into law, and if she cannot even give her consent because her voting rights are not recognized, it makes no sense that by “Men” they mean a females who can give their consent as a President.

    Now with the proper noun “Men” they ARE referring to just a specific. The reference is to the sovereign male natural born citizens who have the natural political right to vote recognized in the positive law jurisdiction. Furthermore, in light of history and the political context of the time, and the fact that it was 100 years later when the Minor court declared that they could find no voting rights for women spelled out in the Constitution or in the States at the time of the Adoption, it is clear by logic, and sentence construction, and the use of capitalization, by the Declaration of Independence, by Vattel, and history, and the absence of any other indications, that natural political rights come from males not females and that the intent of the Framers was not to include females, and the Constitution did not provide for their political rights according to the Minor court, which is why we had to have a 19th Amendment. Frankly, I don’t understand how anyone can possibly argue otherwise. I think anyone can see how easy it is to exclude females from the equation. I hope this clears things up for you.

  99. Bob1943   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 10:36 PM

    I disagree with those who say Obama Sr. is not Barry’s real father. I believe the relationship between not having a long-form Hawaii birth certificate, (apparently he doesn’t), and all of the other sealed records, is that almost every one of those records somewhere on it ask for place of birth…and that place of birth is filled in, usually by Barry himself as, Mombasa, Kenya.

    Also, I believe he was listed as a “foreign student” and that is another reason all of his school records are hidden. His Columbia records may also be hidden because….as Reverend Manning says, they do not exist.

  100. 2discern   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 10:05 PM

    It has been some time back I commented, but historically, real historically, back in Abraham’s (yeah, Biblical reference) way before America, that when given a promise from God as to the future of Abraham’s “seed” (a covenant) the Hebrew word in the ancient text for “seed” is ‘sperma’.

    It does NOT de-value the female gender. The order of lineage, heritage, genetic name transfer, and distinctive fulfillment to “passing on the bloodline” is through the male role. Now, in our age we get all this equality debate and confusion over gender. An order of distinction does not denote value. Of course, male & female He (God) created them. It would be difficult, if not impossible to deny the historical context of male genetic distinction as to passing name, lineage, and citizenship status.

    This (Post & Email) excellent site has great forum and debate. We need not have the circular contestment of why male ‘sperma’ historically distinguishes lineage lines. It just has for thousands of years. Barry Soetero (obama) has no citizenship rights, privileges, or exclusions to what his declared father (obama senior) passed on. Namely, British citizenship and possibly Kenyan (future) privileges for rights and citizenship once Kenya came into it’s own formation.

  101. Skipper Dan   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 10:00 PM

    Atty. (some may call him General) Apuzzo is painting a Masterpiece, spending countless hours toiling for Justice. He is a leader and deserves appreciation.

    What is incomplete is the black curtain’s finally being drawn on this mindless charade of an unlawful usurpation of Power, then the restoration of the Republic, all OBAMA Law being adjudicated void ab initio.

    Plus, the OBAMA Confession is proof, free and clear for Citizen (inc. attorney) use:

    http://www.scribd.com/sconnerat

    Miki Booth believes that Justice is coming soon. Rep. Issa (R) is on board. Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and the GOP’s shining brightly. OBAMA has painted himself into a corner. Now, it’s time to go…big day tomorrow on the Jungle Cruise ride!!

  102. NUTN2SAY   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 9:58 PM

    Wasn’t there a time when there was such a thing called ….”PROBABLE CAUSE”? The police use probable cause all the time don’t they? I would think that citizens of the United States of America who have read this nation’s Constitution and in particular Article 2 Section 1 and who also happen to be knowledgeable of the words of Supreme Court Chief Justice Morrison Waite, where Waite substantiates what the Founding Fathers intended Natural Born Citizen to be defined as ( born to a mother and father both who are U.S. citizens at time of birth), have “Probable Cause” and the Constitutional Standing to ask questions about Barack Obama, who because of his non citizen father, his eligibility is and has in the past come to question! Don’t we as in WE THE PEOPLE have a right to know the answer to those questions? Well you know after two years now…apparently the answer is NO! In one subtle subliminal way or another WE THE PEOPLE are being told we have no right to know anything about the past or legal requirements of presidential candidates anymore! We are now being told to accept what ever presidential candidate that is thrown at us and to shut up and not to question about legal Constitutional technicalities! A free country does not do this kind of thing! This is why I say that when Obama moved into the People’s White House…The Constitution of the United States of America died! Nothing will ever bring back the Constitution until this matter of the illegal usurper Obama is properly addressed and Obama is given living quarters at Gitmo! Maybe that is why Obama wants to close Gitmo? He wants to close it before he becomes a resident! Either way! Until this matter is given the proper national attention that it deserves….America is no longer the America you once thought it was!

  103. ObamaRelease YourRecords   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 9:49 PM

    I have to agree 100%…

    Disgusting to say the least!

  104. ObamaRelease YourRecords   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 9:48 PM

    I give Mr. Apuzzo an A+ for his fight in this battle, and his superb legal writings…

    “Let’s move on to Philip Berg who scores much better.” Are you serious!?

    It is very easy to sit behind a computer and grade other people’s work, which some of the work you have clearly not completely read…

    Jedi, put your money where your mouth is and go file a suit against the usurper!

  105. Garacka   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 9:47 PM

    Citizen is capitalized in all instances in the Constitution up until the 14th Amendment. Can Mr. Pauly’s logic be used to suggest these all males?

  106. Troy   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 9:39 PM

    This is the second time that I have seen this nonsense posted and my response is the same. — Where are the links to your source material?….They certainly aren’t provided here.

    Answer: There is NO source material other than an OPINION rattling around in your mind…..Everyone has opinions and they are worthless in a court of law unless you can back them up with credible and reputable source material and/or previous legal precedent.

    You know what they say: “Opinions are like __holes – everybody has one.”

    I hope that you’ll stick to physics and leave the legal arguments to the lawyers and constitutional scholars….You’re way off base.

  107. Karen   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 9:30 PM

    Jedi, what about the following:

    1. What if Obama Sr. is not BHO’s biological father? I have very slowly come to believe that Obama Sr. is not BHO’s father. His real father must be a US Citizen. The question then becomes: is it okay to deceive the American people about the sorted details of your conception/birth, etc. It is likely that BHO was deceived, himself, for many years. This is the only possibility that makes any logical sense. I think that’s why everyone has left this very serious matter alone. The notion — that everyone in the US Govt (both parties) and the media (both sides) is so corrupt and evil that they would permit Article II to be so blatantly violated — is simply not plausible. Something else is going on. The problem is that the PUBLIC record says — and there are kids books to that effect — that British/Kenyan Citizen Obama Sr. is President Obama’s father.

    2. What if BHO’s mother was very promiscuous and had intercourse with several black men. 2 were US citizens and the 3rd was Obama Sr. (a non-citizen). In other words, we do not know which of the 3 is Obama’s true father. As long as his father is NOT Obama Sr., BHO II is a NBC of the US. What do we do in this situation? As I recall Gerald Ford was adopted. His biological parents are unknown. On the other hand, Ford’s true parents — even though not his biological parents — were his adoptive mother & father.

    3. The NBC requirement — born to 2 US citizen parents on US soil — is the logical meaning IF the objective is to protect the nation from overt foreign influence in the single most powerful position in the US Govt — President and C-in-C. It’s ludicrous to believe that a dual or tri-citizen of the US and a foreign nation(s) can be trusted to be exclusively loyal to the U.S. Why gamble? Why take that risk? It’s a fool’s risk. This is truly a matter of national security.

    4. I agree with Mario Apuzzo, Esq. If you are the child of two US citizen parents serving the interests of the US Govt in the military, foreign service, CIA, diplomat, and you were merely/incidentally born on foreign soil, then you are also a NBC of the US. It’s beyond the pale insane, cruel and non-sensical to punish our military, diplomats, etc. by rendering their children not-NBCs when the ONLY reason the child is not born in the US is b/c the US Govt has essentially forced the parents to live abroad in order to serve the interests of the US Govt.

    3. A NBC is “naturally” — by his/her very nature — only, obviously, exclusively, can be nothing other than a NBC of the US. A NBC is not born with citizenship “choices” — he/she cannot choose between US citizenship, British Citizenship, Kenyan Citizenship or Indonesian Citizenship, etc. He/She is exclusively and only a US citizen. Michelle Obama is a NBC of the US. Meliah & Sasha are NBCs of the US. Barack is not a NBC of the US.

  108. Kevin J. Lankford   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 9:06 PM

    The true point is to have proof of where ones loyalty lie. obama has denied Americans any true insight into this. We have only our insticnt to rely on and he fails to
    instill any trust in me. Explaination Unnecessary.

  109. Jedi Pauly   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 8:17 PM

    Sorry Harry but you are way off base buddy. What you fail to realize is that I have absolutely no “birthright” to a Japanese citizenship and I am not, nor ever have I said, or implied that. You are confusing natural rights with legal rights which are just privileges. They are not the same thing. A “birthright” is a natural right that must be inherited from another human being and it does not come from soil. This is just a natural fact of reality and not my opinion. My right to a Japanese citizenship is a legal right only, not a natural right or “birthright” unless my dad was a Japanese citizen and he was not. I was not even born with that legal right because they did not even offer to me the legal right of a Japanese citizenship until I turned 18. On the day of my birthday I got a letter in the mail from the Japanese embassy and I was shocked. I did not even know that I even had a legal right to a Japanese citizenship. Then, I filled out the form and said no to a Japanese citizenship and mailed it back to the Japanese embassy. I never received any legal privileges, not a birth, and not even when I turned 18! You can not owe anyone anything if you never did receive anything from them! Not to mention the fact that I could not possibly owe any allegiance to Japan because political allegiance is only a function of natural laws since it is a subject of political rights and political rights are natural rights. I think I should know whether or not I owe any political allegiance to Japan or not and I know I don’t. You are confused Harry. You don’t quite have this difference between natural rights and legal rights worked out. You only owe political allegiance due to receiving natural rights not legal privileges. If you receive a legal privilege then you might owe a duty for the privileges but that is not at all the same as owing a political allegiance for receiving your natural political rights. I never received any natural political rights from Japan which is only a legal fiction and not a human being from where natural rights come from. Even in a monarchy, you do not owe a political allegiance to England an artificial legal fiction, but you did owe a political allegiance to the King, another human being!

  110. Bob1943   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 8:15 PM

    Mr. Apuzzo, have you had a chance to look at the document that Congress apparently uses as their “Bible” for Obama’s eligibility? It is a 14-page document by the Congressional Research Service and credited to Jack Maskell. After 14 pages of opinion and case law it concludes with this paragraph:

    Quote:

    “The constitutional history and relevant case law thus indicate that one born “in” the United States, and subject to it’s jurisdiction, that is, when one’s parents are not official diplomatic personnel representing a foreign nation in the U.S. would be considered a U.S. citizen “at birth” and thus a “natural born Citizen” of the United States, regardless of the citizenship of that individual’s parents.”

    If you need a hard copy of the document, check your U.S. Mail tomorrow

  111. 1776reloaded   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 7:44 PM

    Obama has admitted that under the British Nationality Act 1948 when he was born, his father was a British subject/citizen and not a U.S. citizen and that he himself was a British subject/citizen by descent from his father. Therefore, what is clear and established by his own factual admissions is that Obama cannot satisfy the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” -Mario Apuzzo

    4. THE FIRST LEGAL DEFINITION OF CITIZENSHIP AND ITS ACQUISITION
    ABROAD: First Congress in 1790, children born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent: “And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United
    States”. (Act of March 26th, 1790, 1 Stat. 103).
    Citizenship would be transmitted at birth to a child [[ BORN ABROAD ]] to a U.S. citizen father provided only that the father had ever previously “been resident” in the United States. [[ SUCH CHILDREN WERE TO BE CONSIDERED “NATURAL BORN” CITIZENS AT BIRTH ABROAD ]].

    In 1795 the Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 which removed the words “natural born” from the term “natural born citizen” and thereby just left “citizens” as the status to be given to children born out of the United States. The fact that the 1790 Act as written was short lived and was only retrospective shows that Congress just wanted to make certain persons born abroad during the early years of the Republic “natural born Citizen” so that they could be eligible to be President. This sort of special allowance was comparable to the grandfather clause of Article II which allowed a “citizen” to be President provided that he was such at the time of the adoption of the Constitution which the Framers in 1790 knew occurred in 1789. It seems that the Third Congress passed this amendment to the 1790 Act to clarify for those living at that time who was and who was not a “natural born Citizen” per the Framers intent at that time, since the 1790 Act had introduced confusion into that subject regarding the use of those special words as found in Article II.
    http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html

    Thomas Jefferson. Virginia’s Citizenship statue in 1779, “Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that all white persons born within the territory of this commonwealth and all who have resided therein two years next before the passing of this act, and all who shall hereafter migrate into the same; and shall before any court of record give satisfactory proof by their own oath or affirmation, that they intend to reside therein, and moreover shall give assurance of fidelity to the commonwealth; and all infants wheresoever born, whose father, if living, or otherwise, whose mother was, a citizen at the time of their birth, or who migrate hither, their father, if living, or otherwise their mother becoming a citizen, or who migrate hither without father or mother, shall be deemed citizens of this commonwealth, until they relinquish that character in manner as herein after expressed: And all others not being citizens of any the United States of America, shall be deemed aliens.”

  112. CT Global Documents   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 7:33 PM

    To Mr. Jedi Pauly,

    These are opinions based on known facts.

    We note that Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq. (www.OrlyTaitzEsq.com) has also raised the issues (in filed federal court pleadings) of Soetoro/Obama’s stolen Connecticut Social Security Number 042-68-4425 and other criminal acts. These issues supplement Dr. Taitz’s original arguments on the definition of “natural born.”

    Mr. Phil J. Berg (www.ObamaCrimes.com) cannot “go all the way” with the SSN issues because he may implicate his ally Hilary Clinton, who could be accused of being a co-sonspirator. When we talked to him a few months ago, Berg was trying to refute the stolen SSN arguments, and he failed miserably. After that, we wrote him off as insincere because he won’t “go all the way.”

    The totality of circumstances also indicates that Soetoro/Obama is not qualified simply because he’s spent so much time and money covering up the matter.

  113. Harry H   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 7:11 PM

    Although Jedi Pauly is verbose and sometimes incorrect, he is right about the central issue that is in play regarding Obama’s eligibility: it takes an American father to be a natural born citizen of the U.S. Pauly’s talk about other paths to nbc status is off-base, and at times he seems to confuse “citizen” with nbc.

    I don’t believe Pauly is eligible to be president, as he claims, since he was born in Japan. He even acknowledged that he was born with the right to claim Japanese citizenship/allegiance at age 18. A U.S. nbc is not born with any politcal rights in a different nation. Apuzzo’s case is superior in this respect. Incredibly, Pauly acknowledged the birthright his Japanese birth gave him but then denies that birthplace has anything to do with being nbc. He seems oblivious to Vattel’s repeated references to being born “in the country,” which were oft reinforced by the Supreme Court.

    I was opposed by some on this site when I opined some time ago that fatherhood was the key to nbc status. Lacking an American father, Obama is not and cannot be president. He is only a president-elect, and his election in no way cancels the MANDATE that our president be nbc. Although Congress should have vetted Obama earlier, it still can and should disqualify Obama under its authority per the 20th Amendment, Section 3. Congress would be virtually compelled to do just that after a definitive ruling on nbc by the Supreme Court, for which, if it comes, we will be forever indebted to Mario Apuzzo.

  114. Jedi Pauly   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 6:27 PM

    The beauty of it is, is that all you need to prove your case with them is the Declaration of Independence, definition of Natural Law and Natural law jurisdiction, definition of Positive Law and Positive Law jurisdiction, realization that political rights are Natural Rights that are inherited from our fathers (Declaration of Independence), realization that the office of President is a political office implying political rights, the Intent of Article II to prevent a monarchy, the fact that kings create allegiance via the soil and we don’t do that any more since we won the war in 1776, the rules of English grammar (proper noun Citizen in Article II, this one is a big oversight by the attorneys) and one Supreme Court case Minor v Happersett 88 U.S. 162 (1875). The rest is just logic and reason. All of the definitions can just be read out of a few law dictionaries or researched on line from legal sources. This is not rocket science.

  115. Mario Apuzzo, Esq.   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 6:20 PM

    Hello Jedi Pauly,

    I read your article and criticism of my position on what is a “natural born Citizen.” I must respectfully advise you that you do not understand my position. I would recommend that you read with care what I have written in my briefs to the courts and on my blog. You might then better understand what I have written.

    I would like to now address what you have written. I do not know why you place me together with Orly Taitz on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” I believe you understate the extent of my work by doing so. Again, you can read Orly’s work and my work so that you can fully understand what each have contributed to the understanding of the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.”

    I have never said that the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” has changed over time. I do not know where you got that from. Please provide a quote from me with a citation to support your allegation. On the contrary, I have always argued that the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” has always been the same and has to this day, unlike the meaning of a “citizen of the United States,” never changed.

    I never said that children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents serving in our military are not “natural born Citizens.” On the contrary, I was probably the only one of the eligibility attorneys who said that a child born abroad to military U.S. citizen parents qualifies as a “natural born Citizen” under Vattel’s, Section 217.

    As far as your distinction between males and females, natural law makes none other than what distinctions exists between them on a physical level. Whatever positive laws have said or may say about their rights does not change their equality in nature. I do not know why you discount the female so easily. The point is that both parents must be U.S. citizens when the child is born on U.S. soil (or its equivalent). Under natural law, the child acquires as much natural allegiance from the one as he/she does from the other.

    I hope that this clears things up for you.

    Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

  116. Jedi Pauly   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 6:04 PM

    Remember that Vattel was 50 years before the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Even in Vattel’s time female natural born citizens in England and other countries could not vote. Keep in mind that females inherit the same natural political rights as males, inherited from their citizen fathers, but their political rights have not always been recognized in the statutory positive law jurisdiction by the government, or kings, or emperors. You can go way back to Greek and Roman times, or examine 1000 years of English history, and you will discover that females have had an even longer struggle than males to secure the recognition of their natural political rights that they also inherit from their fathers. Both males and females have had to fight with other males to secure the recognition of their natural political rights. In 1776 males defied King George and produced the Declaration of Independence and fought the males of king Georges British army to secure the recognition on their natural political sovereignty and rights. Almost 100 years later the women’s suffrage movement began in America and women peacefully protested until they secured recognition of their natural political rights away from males. (19th Amendment). Then at that time, the sovereign body politic suddenly expanded from free white males born to free citizen fathers to include free white females also born of citizen fathers. Originally, in the States, not even all natural born citizen males who were created by citizen fathers could vote because most of the States required, in addition, that you had to own land and be worth so much money in order to vote. Also, those that were not of good character or who were guilty of crimes could not vote. Read Minor v Happersett. It will shed much light.

  117. ELmo   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 5:54 PM

    Dear Sharon,
    This article by Jedi Pauly is excellent and although there is always room for disagreement there can be no argument that it is well thought out and well written.
    The one possibility that hasn’t been dealt with here is: Obama (the Fraud) is lying about who his father is. What if it turns out his father was actually Anne Dunham’s father or Frank Marshall Davis? Then the problem becomes his attainment of the office of President through fraud (and that you would have to agree is another can of worms altogether).
    Good Job Dr. Pauly
    Great News Site Sharon Rondeau
    ELmo

  118. Jedi Pauly   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 5:48 PM

    That is not what the Minor v Happersett court determined. I suggest you read that case.

  119. Jedi Pauly   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 5:47 PM

    If they do their job they will have no choice because that is what Article II means and has meant ever since it was written, and that has never changed in all of legal history.

  120. Jedi Pauly   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 5:44 PM

    The entire point of my post is that they are in fact not correct and I have proven that. The only thing that they are correct about is that Obama is not qualified under Article II, and in this we are all in agreement.

  121. michaelsr   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 5:38 PM

    An amazing piece of work, Mr. Pauly. I hope it leads to a well-deliberated and justified outcome in SCOTUS. I do not believe we must live as slaves, so why keep punishing ourselves? Why keep supporting the elites? When all else is being done fairly, taxes should be considered a fair price to pay for that fairness. But when our Constitution is not being adhered to — if I had my druthers — I would encourage a fair portion of the population to increase exemptions (with an eye to reducing federal withholding tax to around zero) and make payment of our income taxes contingent upon restoration of the Constitution and installation of an eligible, properly elected Executive. With the beginning of a new year not far off, now is the perfect time for debate.

    Have I made it clear that I resent this usurper or that footing my share of the bill for his Far-East White House really galls me?

    P.S. If you think that I’ve lost it, please be gentle; you might be right.

  122. Jedi Pauly   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 5:17 PM

    Thank you for your support, but one correction and clarification. The proper quote from Article II is “natural born Citizen” not “natural born citizen”. The overlooking of the English grammar aspect of this is what is causing so much confusion. Let me explain. These two terms “natural born citizen” and “natural born Citizen” are homonym terms. They are both spelled the same and pronounced the same but they mean something quite different. The term “natural born citizen” spelled with a lower case “c” is a generic legal phrase that includes all types of natural born citizens. It includes female natural born citizens and male natural born citizens. It includes natural born citizens by statutory definition like those that are just citizens by the soil jurisdiction without regard to the citizenship of your parents. It also includes a natural born citizen that is created just by your citizen mom, or it can mean a natural born citizen just by your dad, or it can mean a natural born citizen by both parents without soil, or it can mean a natural born citizen by both of your parents and including the soil all three! So, you have this entire collection of similar things called natural born citizens but they are all defined by different circumstances. One of the purposes of capitalizing a noun in a sentence is when there is a collection of similarly named objects but you mean to convey a specific one from among the collection of similar objects. Article II uses the proper noun “natural born Citizen” to indicate a specific natural born citizen from among the universe of natural born citizens. My post needs to be corrected because when Sharon edited it she made an accidental mistake and she has changed my meaning because she has accidentally capitalized in places that should not have capitol “C” when the original had it correct. I am working on this right now and I will forward this correction to Sharon shortly. Sharon has done a lot of work editing my post and she has done a good job and improved my document greatly but we need to address the capitalization issue that she has accidentally changed from my original. It is totally understandable because this is one great source of confusion. I know Sharon will understand when I explain it to her and she will correct this situation. Stand by.
    —————
    Mrs. Rondeau replies: My apologies for any errors made during the editing process. These have been corrected according to Jedi Pauly’s instructions.

  123. rxsid   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 4:40 PM

    The question isn’t whether or not Agnew’s father was from Greece…but whether or not Agnew (& his mother) were citizen’s of the U.S. when Agnew was born in the U.S.

    “Theodore” Spiro Agnew (his father) was a Naturalized citizen at the time of his son’s birth.

    (Naturalized) citizen father + citizen mother + born in the U.S. = Natural Born Citizen.

  124. Sallyal   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 4:36 PM

    But it would NOT be “based only on the citizenship status of the father”. Even considering the mother’s citizenship, the fact still remains the if O Sr. is his father, BO is a dual citizen.

  125. rxsid   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 4:35 PM

    That’s right. I had forgotten that fact. Thanks!

    Bottom line, I disagree with the author’s opinion in this article…which appears to tie the (“legal”) right to vote to the natural right to be a natural born citizen.

    There doesn’t appear to be any proof what-so-ever that the framers would not have considered women to be citizens at the time of the adoption of the Constitution or Natural born citizens if they were born in the country to citizen parents of the country.

  126. Benaiah   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 3:32 PM

    Article II, Section 1, Clause 5: No person except a natural-born citizen …shall be eligible to the office of President.

    The issue of whether or not Obama is “eligible to the office of President” depends upon whether or not he is an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    The phrase “natural born citizen” “must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution”.

    United States v. Wong Kim Ark., 18 S. Ct. 456, 169 U.S. 649 (U.S. 03/28/1898)

    [1] SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

    [16] The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words [“citizen of the United States,” and “natural-born citizen of the United States”], either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except in so far as this is done by the affirmative declaration that “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” In this, as in other respects, it [The Constitution] must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162 [At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 (1874]; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 624, 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U.S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U.S. 270, 274.

    The “common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution” was plainly expressed by the Supreme Court of the United States in the dissenting opinion of Scott v. Sandford, which quoted Vattel, and explicitly stated, “The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…”

    Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (U.S. 01/02/1856)

    [1] UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

    [418] …The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens…

    Furthermore, the Supreme Court of the United States in 1814 relied upon Vattel’s “Law of Nations” as the authority on citizenship issues, and stated in The Venus, “The natives, or indigenes [natural-born citizens], are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 1814

    “Vattel, …is more explicit and more satisfactory on it [CITIZENSHIP ISSUES] than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, [Vattel] says, ‘…The natives, or indigenes [natural-born citizens], are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’ ”

    Vattel’s Law of Nations: § 212. Citizens and natives

    …The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.

    Finally, the Supreme Court of the United States, in Minor v. Happersett, confirmed the definition of a “natural born citizen” as “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens”.

    Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 (1874)

    “ ‘No person except a natural-born citizen …shall be eligible to the office of President’… 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.”

    Simply put, Article II “natural born citizens” are those citizens who are “born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

    Hence, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States, even if he was born in Hawaii, as his father was a “foreigner”…

    To reiterate, Obama’s father was not a citizen of the United States.

    Therefore, Obama is not an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States.

    Thus, Obama is not “eligible to the office of President”.

  127. Benaiah   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 3:24 PM

    Jedi Pauly,

    Mario Apuzzo is an American hero.

    For you to make disparaging remarks about his efforts, describing his works as incomplete, is not only inappropriate and unpatriotic, but it also informs me that you aren’t familiar with his works or efforts.

    Benaiah

  128. Kevin J. Lankford   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 3:19 PM

    This seems to be another example of over complicating the issue. Orly Taitz and
    Mario Apuzzo may not meet your standards of eloquent expression, but they are
    completely correct in their assertions.
    I believe you would surely agree it is not the lack of convincing arguement on their
    part, but the blatant refusal of congress and our courts to adress the facts. Sadly the
    overwhelming republican wins which have just occurred show little promise of changing
    that.

  129. Louis Lipps   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 3:13 PM

    Does anyone truly believe that SCOTUS is going to decide in 2010 that natural born citizenship exists based only the citizenship status of the father?

  130. rxsid   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 2:54 PM

    Women were considered citizens long before the 19th Amendment…were they not?

    Does Vattel make a distinction of who may be a NBC other than those born in country to citizen parents? Does he say that only white males may be NBC?

    Is voting considered a “Natural” right? If it is, why do some prisoners NOT have the right to vote? Why must someone be 18, and “registered” in order to vote?

    Clearly, only (white) males could vote when the Constitution was drafted and ratified. Therefore, naturally, only white males wound up as POTUS.

    However, that doesn’t mean that a NBC could only be one who was eligible to vote.

    Isn’t it therefore possible, that Vattel (& thus the framers) considered women to be a NBC (assuming born in country to citizen parents)…that just didn’t happen to have the “legal” right to vote at that time?

    I don’t think you can tie the legal right to vote with a natural right to be a natural born citizen.

  131. Jedi Pauly   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 2:42 PM

    Thank You very much for your kind words. I am better than a lawyer, I am a PHYSICIST class of 87′ Purdue University West Lafayette Indiana! My advantage is that, because I have a science degree and lots of math, I understand and recognize Natural Law and how to formulate hypotheses and prove Theories. That was my approach to determining the true meaning and interpretation of Article II. I started out confused on this issue like most people are and I had to discover this truth with scientific methodology. I realized that law is an applied science and my degree is in Applied Physics. I have also always been fascinated by the study of law, and history, and philosophy. I learned long ago about Natural Law philosophy and its influence on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I took a law course once that started out teaching about jurisdiction, and it started with the Natural Law jurisdiction and then discussed the Positive Law jurisdiction and explained how these two jurisdictions are opposite and opposed to each other. The law course went on to explain that the common laws of any country, are the results over time, of these two competing jurisdictions pushing against each other, each trying to assert their dominance, and what falls out of this struggle is the common laws and customs and civil code.

    Once you realize that there are only two types of rights, Natural Rights which come from the Natural Law jurisdiction, and Legal Rights which come from the Positive Law jurisdiction, and that legal rights are considered to be privileges, and that the Declaration of Independence declares political rights to be Natural Rights and the office of President is a political office, then it was a relatively simple matter to put everything together with context and history. I am glad if this helps you to understand. It is my sincere hope that this will help Walt, assuming that he did not already know this. I would hope this information could also help Col Lakin and his team but I don’t know how to get this to him. Please help us spread the word and direct people to the truth. Thank You again.

  132. whats_up   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 2:36 PM

    I hate to bring this up but it is not true that women didnt have the right to vote before the 19th Amemdment. Women in New Jersey were able to vote up until 1807, In New York they had the right to vote until 1780, in Massachusetts they had that right until 1776.

  133. lana   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 2:18 PM

    I’m confused. What do we do about Agnew who had to meet eligibility requirements just like a President to bee VP but had a father who was from Greence or have the judges been doing this wrong even for reupllicans since the 70s?

    Please also give the actual law numbers of these cases so I can show it too all the lawyers here who call me stupid for knowing Obama is;nt eligible.

    Thanks!!

  134. Uncommonsense   Thursday, November 4, 2010 at 1:41 PM

    Mr. Jedi, this is an incredible piece of writing! Are you a lawyer? How long have you been practicing? Maybe you could help Walt?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.