Arizona’s Proposed Interstate Birth Certificate Compact Law Is Both Unconstitutional and Contrary to the Best Interests of the United States

ARE ARIZONA LAWMAKERS NOW TRYING TO COVER FOR OBAMA’S INELIGIBILITY?

by Mario Apuzzo, Esq., ©2011

The Great Seal of the state of Arizona contains the five "Cs" vital to Arizona's economy: climate, copper, citrus, cattle and cotton

(Feb. 27, 2011) — Arizona is considering passing a law that, among other things, would allow a child born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents to be recognized as a “natural born Citizen.” Such a law would be passed in error. Apart from the proposed law being unconstitutional for violating the Supremacy Clause and the Pre-emption Doctrine, a law that recognizes an Article II “natural born Citizen” as including a child born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents would be contrary to what the Founders and Framers designed as a national security safeguard for the Offices of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. In this article, I will address only that part of the proposed law that attempts to define what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is and specifically that part of the law that includes as an Article II “natural born Citizen” a child born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents. In a follow up article, I will address the other parts of the proposed law that I will show are also unconstitutional.

This proposed law is known as SB1308 and is designed to amend Title 36, Chapter 3, by adding what the law calls an interstate compact which concerns U.S. citizenship. The new Article is Article 6, Interstate Birth Certificate Compact 36-361. The proposed law states that the “governor is authorized and directed to enter into a compact on behalf of this state with any of the United States lawfully joined in the compact in a form substantially as follows.”

Article I and III of the new law declare that “[a] person who is born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States is a natural born United States citizen.”

Article II says that “[a]s used in this compact, ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ has the meaning that it bears in section 1 of the fourteenth amendment to the United States Constitution, namely that the person is a child of at least one parent who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, or a child without citizenship or nationality in any foreign country.”

Article II also says that “[f]or the purposes of this compact a person who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is a United States citizen or national, or an immigrant accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States, or a person without nationality in any foreign country.”

The proposed law seeks to define an Article II “natural born Citizen” by tying that definition to the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction” clause. It then sets out to define what “subject to the jurisdiction” means. It ties that clause to the child being born to at least one parent who does not have any foreign allegiance. So, the proposed law seeks to tell us what a “natural born Citizen” is by providing us with its own definition of “subject to the jurisdiction” and allegiance. But as we shall see, given how it defines “subject to the jurisdiction” and allegiance, Arizona would allow even a child born to two alien parents to be included as a “natural born Citizen.”

I.  The Proposed Law Improperly Connects the Meaning of a Natural Born Citizen to the 14th Amendment

Arizona has improperly tied the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” to the 14th Amendment. The meaning of a “natural born Citizen” has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. The Framers wrote the clause in 1787 and the 14th Amendment was passed in 1868. There is no indication in the text of the amendment, its history, or in any court decision that suggests that the amendment changed Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause.

There is a critical difference between a 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States” and an Article II “natural born Citizen.” “Representatives, U.S. Const. Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and Senators, Art. I, § 3, cl. 3, must be citizens. Congress has the authority “to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” by which aliens can become citizen members of our society, Art. I, § 8, cl. 4; the judicial authority of the federal courts extends to suits involving citizens of the United States “and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects,” Art. III, § 2, cl. 1, because somehow the parties are “different,” a distinction further made by the Eleventh Amendment; the Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-Fourth, and Twenty-Sixth Amendments are relevant only to “citizens.” The President must not only be a citizen but “a natural born Citizen,” Art. II, § 1, cl. 5. One might speculate what meaning Art. IV, § 2, cl. 1, has today.” Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634, 651-52 (1973) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).

Anytime Congress uses its naturalization powers, it creates a “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born Citizen.” That is the reason why although a Congressional act or treaty can declare a person to be an “at birth” “citizen of the United States,” doing so does not mean that that person is a “natural born Citizen.” That person would have to satisfy the conditions of being a “natural born Citizen” without being compelled to rely upon the act or treaty to give him or her at most the status of a “citizen of the United States.” The same reasoning extends to the 14th Amendment, which is nothing more than the constitutionalization of Congress’s Civil Rights Act of 1866 and not the People’s amendment of Article II. So any person who is at most made a “citizen of the United States” by the 14th Amendment and who does not otherwise qualify as a “natural born Citizen’ is a “citizen of the United States” but not a “natural born Citizen.”

All the political and legal battles under the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment over who has the right to be admitted to membership in America does not change the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” for these battles have not been about who are “natural born Citizens” under Article II but rather about who are “citizens of the United States” under those laws. There has never been any doubt in our nation as to who the “natural born Citizens” are. As we shall see below, the U.S. Supreme Court has informed us several time throughout our history that a child born in the country to citizen parents is a “natural born Citizen.” This American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen,” based on natural law and the law of nations, has to this day never been changed by the Constitution, Congressional Act, or the U.S. Supreme Court, and continues to prevail as originally written in Article II by the Framers in 1787.

II.  The Proposed Law Improperly Re-defines the Meaning of “Subject to the Jurisdiction”

Article II of the proposed law says that “‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’ has the meaning that it bears in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, namely that the person is a child of at least one parent who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, or a child without citizenship or nationality in any foreign country.”

But the 14th Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction” clause has never been defined in this manner by our federal courts. For example, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) found that a child born in the U.S. to parents who were both aliens and who were domiciled and residing in the U.S. and not serving in any foreign diplomatic capacity was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a born “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment. Hence, Arizona wants to change the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” through an interstate compact. Arizona simply cannot do that, for federal law on the matter is supreme. The Constitution, federal law, and treaties are “the supreme Law of the Land” and therefore trump any conflicting state law. See Constitution Article VI, Clause 2. Such a provision is unconstitutional.

“Subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means “not subject to any foreign power.” Civil Rights Act of 1866. Hence, it is tied to allegiance. Simply being born on the territory and being subject to U.S. laws is not sufficient, for virtually every child born on U.S. soil satisfies that condition by simply being born on the soil (except for children of ambassadors, invading armies, and American Indians as originally believed). Rather, more is needed. While traditionally, citizenship of the child’s parents was needed, Wong Kim Ark changed the law and used domicile and residence of the alien parents as the sufficient link to declare U.S.-born Wong Kim Ark to be a 14th Amendment born “citizen of the United States,” not to be confused with an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Wong’s parents were in the U.S. legally, i.e., with the consent of the U.S. But as far as an Article II “natural born Citizen” is concerned, the natural law/law of nations/common law definition of that term was never changed and prevails today. That definition is a child born in the country to U.S. citizen parents.

III.  The Proposed Law Improperly Defines Not Owing Any Allegiance to Any Foreign Sovereignty

Article II of the proposed law also says that “[f]or the purposes of this compact a person who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is a United States citizen or national, or an immigrant accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States, or a person without nationality in any foreign country.”

This provision is designed to allow a child born in the U.S. to be born to different types of parents so that he or she can still be considered a “natural born Citizen.” First, this provision is contradictory. The law would allow a child born in the U.S. to one alien parent to be not only a “citizen of the United States” but also a “natural born Citizen.” If a child is born to an alien parent, then that child acquires through jus sanguinis an allegiance and citizenship in the alien parent’s nation. But this provision says that a person who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is a United States citizen or national. So first the new law allows not only a “citizen of the United States” but also a “natural born Citizen” to have dual allegiance by being born to an alien parent but then it tells us that a person who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is a United States citizen of national. These provisions are contradictory.

Second, dual citizenship is not prohibited in the U.S. Hence, under the 14th Amendment or Act of Congress, a “citizen of the United States” could be a person who holds allegiance to not only the U.S., but also to some foreign nation. A prime example is Wong Kim Ark to whom the Court gave U.S. citizenship but at the same time recognized that he also had allegiance to and citizenship with China, the nation of his parents. But yet this provision assumes that a “citizen of the United States” does not have any foreign allegiance.

Third, Article II also says that “an immigrant accorded the privilege of residing permanently in the United States” owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty. This is simply not our citizenship and naturalization law. A person who is an immigrant and has the privilege to permanently reside in the United States is a permanent legal resident (LPR) or what is commonly known as a “green card” holder. This person has not yet been naturalized and is therefore not a “citizen of the United States” under the 14th Amendment. This person is an alien under our citizenship and naturalization laws. It is therefore not possible that this person would not owe allegiance to some foreign sovereignty.

Fourth, this provision also says that “a person without nationality in any foreign country” also has no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty. But the fact that someone may have no nationality in any foreign country does not mean that that person has no allegiance to some foreign sovereignty. Simply stated, allegiance and nationality are not the same things. Loss of nationality is a very complex matter and cannot be equated with loss of allegiance without any in depth analysis of all the legal ramifications involved.

IV.  The Proposed Law Improperly Allows a Child Born to One or Two Alien Parents to Be Included As an Article II “Natural Born Citizen”

As we have seen, Article II of the proposed law provides that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the U.S. to “at least one parent who owes no allegiance to any foreign sovereignty, or a child without citizenship or nationality in any foreign country.” As can be seen, the new law defines a legal permanent resident (LPR) as having no foreign allegiance. Hence, under Arizona’s proposed law, the child’s parents could both be non-U.S. citizens or one could be a non-U.S. citizen and the child would be included as a “natural born Citizen.” We have also seen that a legal permanent resident is still considered an alien under our law. The proposed law also includes as a “natural born Citizen” “a child without citizenship or nationality in any foreign country,” without any reference to the allegiance and citizenship of that child’s parents. Hence, Arizona would therefore include as a “natural born Citizen” a child born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents. But such a definition of a “natural born Citizen” is in error.

Why do we need that the child be born to two U.S. citizen parents? Arizona’s proposed law would defeat the whole purpose of the Framers using the natural law definition of a “natural born Citizen” as the standard to be met by any would-be President and Commander in Chief. There is good reason why the Framers relied upon natural law to provide the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Under natural law which when applied to nations become the law of nations, a “natural born Citizen” is defined as “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758). Vattel explains that it is “our extraction, not the place of birth, that gives us rights.” Id. at Section 216. We can see that under natural law and the law of nations, it is the condition of the parents that is critical to making a “natural born Citizen.” Hence, when applying the natural law definition of “natural born citizen,” we have to look only to the citizenship of the parents of the child at the moment of birth. But nations pass positive laws regarding citizenship which impact on the allegiance and citizenship of individuals born in and out of their territory. Hence, we also have to look to the place of birth when nations pass such positive laws concerning the citizenship status of its citizens born either in or out of its national boundaries. Vattel explains that those laws must be followed when a sovereign nation passes such laws. Id. at Section 215.

Under natural law and the law of nations and how the Framers juxtaposed “natural born Citizen” with “citizen of the United States” in Article I and II of the Constitution, a “natural born Citizen” includes all those born with no foreign allegiance and excludes all those born with foreign allegiance. The purpose of having the natural law national character of “natural born citizen” is to show that a person is born with natural allegiance to only one nation. It was because the “natural born Citizen” status gives a person such a natural character from birth that the Founders and Framers chose that natural law status as having to be the one to be held by a would-be President and Commander in Chief of the Military from the moment of birth. Indeed, it was this national character that for them best kept foreign influence out of the Offices of President and Commander in Chief.

A child born in the U.S. to alien parents inherits at birth a foreign natural allegiance from one foreign parent as he or she does from two foreign parents. This occurs under the doctrine of jus sanguinis (inheriting citizenship from one’s parents or other ascendants). With one foreign parent, he or she acquires positive law allegiance to the U.S. from being born on its territory and natural allegiance to the foreign nation of his or her parent by being born to them. With two foreign parents, he or she acquires positive law allegiance to the U.S. and natural allegiance to the two foreign nations of his or her parents. If the child is born out of the United States, he or she will acquire positive law foreign allegiance from the foreign territory on which he or she may be born. The point is that unless the child is born to two U.S. citizen parents in the U.S. which cuts off any possibility that either natural law foreign allegiance, inherited from alien parents, or positive law foreign allegiance, acquired from birth on foreign soil, will attach to the child, he or she will acquire either a natural foreign allegiance or a positive law foreign allegiance. Any one of these conditions under the natural law definition of a “natural born Citizen,” prevents that child from being considered a “natural born Citizen.”

No U.S. Court has ever ruled that a person born on U.S. soil to one or two alien parents is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” On the contrary, the only definition of a “natural born Citizen” ever found in any U.S. Supreme Court case is a child born in the U.S. to citizen parents. As authority for this definition, there exists the following cases: The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites and quoted from Emer de Vattel, Section 212 of The Law of Nations); Inglis v. Trustee of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 29 U.S. 99 (1830); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Daniels, J., concurring); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (gives the same Vattelian definition); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) (not a Supreme Court case but persuasive); Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1883) (not a U.S. Supreme Court case but persuasive); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (not a U.S. Supreme Court case but persuasive); and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) (cites and quotes Minor’s Vattelian/American common law definition of a “natural-born citizen”) and Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) (confirmed that a child born in the U.S. to citizen parents, even if those parents are naturalized U.S. citizens, is a “natural born Citizen”); contra the state case of Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct.App. 2009) (declared that “persons born within the borders of the United States are ‘natural born Citizens’ for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.” But the court never even raised the issue that there was no proof before the court that Obama was “born within the borders of the United States.” In fact, the Ankeny court, while dismissing the plaintiffs’ case, never ruled that Obama was “born within the borders of the United States.” Nor did it rule that he was a “natural born Citizen.” Ankeny mistakenly concluded that the 14th Amendment case of Wong Kim Ark ruled Wong Kim Ark to be a “natural born Citizen” rather than a born “citizen of the United States.” In so ruling, the Ankeny court also incorrectly equated a British “natural born subject” with a U.S. “natural born Citizen” and incorrectly relied upon Wong Kim Ark).

Wong Kim Ark created a new category of a born 14th Amendment “citizen of the United States,” one born in the U.S. to alien parents. It did not in any way amend what an Article II “natural born Citizen” has always been since the Founding. There is plenty of language in the decision which shows that children born in the U.S. to alien parents were “citizens of the United States” while children born to U.S. citizen parents were “natural born Citizens.”

There exists no U.S. Supreme Court decision in which any Justice ever said that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents. When defining the clause, they said born in the U.S. to citizen parents. In Minor v. Happersett, the whole Court gave us that definition of a “natural born Citizen” which the whole court also confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

Also, except for the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was passed by the First Congress and which was repealed by the Third Congress in 1795, the same is true of Congress by process of elimination, i.e., in all its naturalization acts, Congress has never had to tell us that a child born in the U.S. to two citizen parents is a “citizen of the United States.” Since such child is not included in any Act of Congress as needing to be declared a “citizen of the United States,” such child must be a “natural born Citizen.”

There also exists evidence directly from the Founding period which conclusively shows that a “natural born Citizen” was a child born to citizen parents and not to one or two alien parents. In his 1789 essay, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789), while not using the phrase “natural born Citizen,” Ramsay described the original citizens that existed during the Founding and what it meant to acquire citizenship by birthright after the Founding. The Constitution itself shows that the Framers called the original citizens “Citizens of the United States” and those that followed them “natural born Citizens.”

First, Ramsay told us that there is a difference between a “subject” and a “citizen of the United States” and by the way he describes that difference we surely cannot simply say that for the Founders and Framers a “natural born Citizen” had the same meaning as a “natural born subject.” He said:

“A citizen of the United States, means a member of this new nation. The principle of government being radically changed by revolution, the political character of the people also changed from subjects to citizens. The difference is immense. Subject is derived from the latin words, sub and jacio, and means one who is under the power of another; but a citizen is an unit of a mass of free people, who, collectively, possesses sovereignty. Subjects look up to a master, but citizens are so far equal, that none have hereditary rights superior to others. Each citizen of a free state contains, within himself, by nature and the constitution, as much of the common sovereignty as another. In the eye of reason and philosophy, the political condition of citizens is more exalted than that of noblemen. Dukes and earls are the creatures of kings, and may be made by them at pleasure: but citizens possess in their own right original sovereignty.” Id. at 3 (emphasis in the original).

So we can see that with the American Revolution, the Founders and Framers abandoned the notion of a British common law “natural born subject” and replaced it with the new “political character” which they called “citizen of the United States,” a concept that had its genesis in natural law and the law of nations. And this latter term, which Ramsay said described a “political character,” had a meaning which was tied to the form of government chosen by the Founders and Framers, that form being a constitutional republic. It had a meaning that would serve the best interests of a constitutional republic to be led by a representative form of government rather than a monarchial one.

Second, Ramsay then explained the different ways by which the “high character of a citizen of the United States” is acquired in the new republic. He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence:

“None can claim citizenship as a birth-right, but such as have been born since the declaration of independence, for this obvious reason: no man can be born a citizen of a state or government, which did not exist at the time of his birth. Citizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6.

He added that “[t]he citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.” Id. And again, “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7.

In referring to birthright citizenship, Ramsay did not use the clause “natural born Citizen.” Rather, he referred to citizenship as a birthright which he said was a natural right. But there is little doubt that how he defined birthright citizenship meant the same as “natural born Citizen,” “native,” and “indigenous,” all terms that were then used interchangeably and all which meant that the child was born to citizen parents.

Ramsay did recognize that future U.S. citizenship could also be gained by naturalization. Hence, it is only reasonable to conclude that his birthright citizenship was not limited to only the children of direct descendants of the original citizens but would also be available to the children of naturalized “citizens of the United States.”

Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a “natural born Citizen.” Noah Webster, 1828, in explaining how an American dictionary of the English language was necessary because American words took on different meanings than the same word in England, placed David Ramsay among great Founders such as “Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jay, Madison, Marshall, Ramsay, Dwight, Smith, Trumbull…”

For more information on David Ramsay and his influence during the Founding, please see my essay, Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789, accessed at this blog at: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html A copy of David Ramsay’s 1789 dissertation can be found at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/33807636/A-Dissertation-on-Manner-of-Acquiring-Character-Privileges-of-Citizen-of-U-S-by-David-Ramsay-1789

It is also important to understand that Arizona would allow aliens to rear the child who it declares to be a “natural born Citizen.” Aliens become “citizens of the United States” through naturalization which has a very important purpose in the U.S.

“The process of naturalization was specifically designed by Congress to require a foreign national to demonstrate that he or she is familiar with the history, traditions, and institutions of our society in a way that a native-born citizen would learn from formal education and basic social contact. Congress specifically provided that an alien seeking citizenship status must demonstrate ‘an understanding of the English language’ and ‘a knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals of the history, and of the principles and form of government, of the United States.’ 8 U. S. C. § 1423. The purpose was to make the alien establish that he or she understood, and could be integrated into, our social system.

‘Through the system of citizenship classes sponsored by the Immigration and Naturalization Service and the local school system, the alien is aided in preparing himself for citizenship, and every effort is made to give him fundamental and uniform knowledge of our political and social structure. In order that he may intelligently use this fundamental and uniform knowledge and so that he may be a complete and thoroughly integrated member of our American society, the committee [House Judiciary Committee] feels that he should have a basic knowledge of the common language of the country and be able to read, write, and speak it with reasonable facility.’ H. R. Rep. No. 1365, 82d Cong., 2d Sess., 78 (1952) (emphasis added).

See also 8 U. S. C. § 1424, which precludes aliens who manifest certain opposition to our society or form of government from being naturalized. An alien must demonstrate ‘good moral character,’ 8 U. S. C. § 1427 (a)(3), which was intended by Congress to mean a broad “attach[ment] to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and [disposition] to the good order and happiness of the United States.” H. R. Rep. No. 1365, supra, at 80. See also 8 CFR § 332b (1973), detailing the cooperation between the Immigration and Naturalization Service and local schools conducting citizenship education for applicants for naturalization. The above is sufficient to demonstrate, I believe, that Congress provided that aliens seeking citizenship status prove what citizens by birth are, as a class, presumed to understand: a basic familiarity with our social and political mores and institutions. The naturalized citizen has demonstrated both the willingness and ability to integrate into our social system as a whole, not just into our ‘political community,’ as the Court apparently uses the term. He proved that he has become ‘like’ a native-born citizen in ways that aliens, as a class, could be presumed not to be. The Court simply ignores the purpose of the process of assimilation into and dedication to our society that Congress prescribed to make aliens ‘like’ citizens.

But the justification of efficient government is an even more convincing rationale. Native-born citizens can be expected to be familiar with the social and political institutions of our society; with the society and political mores that affect how we react and interact with other citizens. Naturalized citizens have also demonstrated their willingness to adjust to our patterns of living and attitudes, and have demonstrated a basic understanding of our institutions, system of government, history, and traditions. It is not irrational to assume that aliens as a class are not familiar with how we as individuals treat others and how we expect ‘government’ to treat us. An alien who grew up in a country in which political mores do not reject bribery or self-dealing to the same extent that our culture does; in which an imperious bureaucracy historically adopted a complacent or contemptuous attitude toward those it was supposed to serve; in which fewer if any checks existed on administrative abuses; in which ‘low-level’ civil servants serve at the will of their superiors — could rationally be thought not to be able to deal with the public and with citizen civil servants with the same rapport that one familiar with our political and social mores would, or to approach his duties with the attitude that such positions exist for service, not personal sinecures of either the civil servant or his or her superior.” Sugarman v. Dougall, 413 U.S. 634, 659-62 (1973) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).

So, naturalization is a process that serves to integrate an alien into American society. It is reasonable to conclude that a naturalized parent would pass to his or her children those values, attitudes, and knowledge acquired during this integration process. By allowing a “natural born Citizen” to be a child born to and reared by aliens, the Arizona law would remove the requirement that the child’s parents be “citizens of the United States” by birth or by naturalization. By not requiring that both of the child’s parents be citizens at the moment of birth, the proposed law would allow a child born to and reared by aliens to be eligible to be President.

For more information on why the “natural born Citizen” clause requires that both of the child’s parents be U.S. citizens at the time of birth, see my essay published on September 8, 2009, entitled, The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth, accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/09/natural-born-citizen-clause-requires.html

The Arizona proposed law, in how it defines a “natural born Citizen,” also contradicts Arizona HB 2544, which provides that a candidate for President show by competent evidence that he or she “has not held dual or multiple citizenship and that the candidate’s allegiance is solely to the United States of America.” Clearly, if a child is born to one or two alien parents, under the doctrine of jus soli citizenship, that child will be born with dual or multiple citizenships and not have sole allegiance to the United States.

Article VI provides in pertinent part: “B. This compact shall not take effect until the United States Congress has given its consent pursuant to Article I, Section 10, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution.” I do not see any way that the Congress would ever give its consent to any such proposed law which I will explain in a follow up article also contains many other unconstitutional provisions.

As we have seen, Arizona’s proposed law would completely change the American common law definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” In doing so, it would allow foreign influence to make its way into the offices of President and Commander in Chief and thereby dilute the safeguards for the survival and preservation of the nation that the Founders and Framers gave us through the “natural born Citizen” clause. This proposed law is therefore detrimental to the national security and best interests of the United States in how it attempts to re-define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” This proposed law is not only unconstitutional but also ill conceived as to its merits. It should be allowed to suffer a quick death.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
February 24, 2011
Revised February 25, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/

Print Friendly

50 Responses to "Arizona’s Proposed Interstate Birth Certificate Compact Law Is Both Unconstitutional and Contrary to the Best Interests of the United States"

  1. AuntieMadder   Wednesday, March 2, 2011 at 4:07 PM

    Part of the magnificence of the US Constitution is its simplicity. Contrary to what attorneys and the SCOTUS claim, it doesn’t need interpretation. It only needs to be read.

  2. Cody Judy   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 9:19 PM

    Those who begrudge Mario Apuzzo’s elaboration also oppose the simplicity, the genius, and the intellectual prowess of the Founders and Framers ability to K.I.S.S.

    Thank God our U.S. Constitution is not 2000 pages long. One of the greatest tools used to ‘subject’ a people, is to promote their ‘stupidity’ and our Founders knew all too well the designs of such tactics. Tell the people they are stupid, and soon they will believe that those telling them that have the ‘right’ to rule over them.

    Contrary to that ‘tool’ of enslavement, our Founders and Framers enshrined the simple and raised up those who were weak, to see that they themselves could be Kings in their own House, and Citizens of a great Country.

    By diluting the “Citizen”, and in relative manner fogging “The Natural Born Citizen” , subjection very clearly is the motive and goal; and a wake of destruction follows those whose cruel intentions are stained with the blood of our patriots.

    We are better by Taking A Stand

    Cody Robert Judy

  3. lana   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 5:55 PM

    No I mean when he said that he is the son of an immigrant and being born in the US is all you need to be President. Is it true he said that? I had a relative send me a email saying he said in in a speech that but I ca’nt find it on the google.

  4. Harry H   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 4:42 PM

    Lana, please clarify. If you are refering to what Justice Antonin Scalia recently said to Orly Taitz about hearing a Quo Warranto case, World Net Daily quotes him thus: “He [Scalia] said, ‘Bring the case, I’ll hear it, I don’t know about others.’ ” What is so bad about that?

    Read more: Scalia: You need 4 votes for Obama eligibility case http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=91345#ixzz1FO1CUeJ5

  5. Harry H   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 4:22 PM

    By way of footnote to Professor Charles Rice’s “Obama Eligibility” article, which I referenced here yesterday, I went ahead and mailed copies of it to my U.S. representative and to Senator Roy Blunt. Also gave a copy to the editor of my local paper. To those recipients Prof. Rice might sound like a radical right-wing racist, but to readers of The P & E he must sound perfectly reasonable and correct, as in these samples:

    “. . . the Obama controversy involves significant issues of fact and law that deserve some sort of official resolution.”

    “. . . ‘birthers’ have raised legitimate questions.”

    “This is potentially serious business. . . . it could be the biggest political fraud in the history of the world.”

    “It is difficult to imagine, to borrow Wilson’s phrase, a more pressing ‘affair of government’ than the question of whether a sitting president obtained his office illegally, and perhaps even by fraud.”

    Coming from a prominent professor, these words may have the power to persuade less informed minds to at least admit the need for investigation. Rice’s article is at http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/110227.

  6. lana   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 2:29 PM

    Is anyone else as depressed as I am about what Scallia said? I thought for sure he was on are side. Do we even know he really said it?

  7. AuntieMadder   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 1:13 PM

    This prompts other questions. Was Barky legally adopted by Soetoro and, if so, was his name legally changed to Barry Soetoro? If yes, did he have his name legally changed to Barrack Obama or is it still Barry Soetoro? Has he been signing a name that is not his to hundreds of papers?

  8. Bob1943   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 11:37 AM

    If Obama’s father was someone other than Barack Obama Sr. and Obama’s legal name turns out ot be other than Barack Obama, would that not be enough fraud to have Barry’s butt kicked at least into the middle of next month?

    I don’t think you can sign hundreds of papers as, “president” Barack Obama, and then have it discovered that is not your real name and get off with just saying, “whoops, sorry about that”, not even if you own the media and Congress.

  9. Daniel Cutulla   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 9:51 AM

    > These non-natural born citizens are eligible to be President.

    That sentence is in direct contradiction with the Constitution.

    > This person is not born subject to the foreign country and is born with exclusive allegiance to the US.

    While that is correct, it does not change the fact that he is not natural born and thus not eligible.
    I don’t see how you can argue away the importance of birthplace.

    If you agree with the English Common Law theory about “natural born” (subject), then Obama/Soetoro would be eligible if born in Hawaii to whomever (so even if you could argue ius soli is not the only way to be NBC – I haven’t looked into ECL deep enough -, you would still “lose” because Obama/Soetoro would be an NBC by that theory).

    If you agree with the Vattel theory, he talks about “les naturels ou indigènes”. “Indigenous” means “born into”, so you can’t go without ius soli.

    So you have the dilemma that either you need ius soli as necessary (not necessarily sufficient) condition *or* you end up with an eligible Obama/Soetoro (provided he could at least prove Hawaiian birth).

  10. Daniel Cutulla   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 4:57 AM

    > Even if Obama were to try to wriggle out of this by claiming that he had a different ‘natural Father’, then that would not help him, because of issues of fraud and deception.

    Joe, could you elaborate on that argument? I don’t see how lying about his father would make him guilty of fraud.
    As you probably know, not every lie constitutes fraud, and “deception” is not a crime by itself. To establish fraud, you need more than just someone telling a lie (otherwise any candidate who ever told any lie in his entire life would be disqualified from presidency).

    To me, the main issue remains that he didn’t prove he is a natural born citizen. Simple as that.

    Speculation whether, should he actually have been provably born in the US to two citizen parents, he is still not qualified because he “lied about his father” is moot for several reasons, not the least of which is the difficulty to establish whether (a) he actually lied (or simply relayed what he was told by others, after all no-one has first-hand knowledge who his father really was) and, if yes, whether (b) that constitutes fraud in the legal sense.

    > It is entirely unnecessary and unwise to discard birthplace as a determinative factor here.

    Exactly! We have no idea which parts of his alleged life story are true and which are not. Some may be true, some may be false, others may be deliberately obfuscated to create a decoy to lure us away from the “juicy bits”. We need to doubt everything until proven.

  11. NUTN2SAY   Tuesday, March 1, 2011 at 4:28 AM

    AMERICA PLEASE HELP YOURSELF

  12. AuntieMadder   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 11:40 PM

    Joe The Blogger says: “I agree, Harry. However, the place of birth question has often been used to divert attention away from the legal FACT, as admitted by Obama himself, that at the time of birth, his Father was a British Subject, who was born, of indigenous parents, in British East Africa (which included the Country now known as Kenya).”

    While it’s true that Barrack Obama I was a British Subject in the British East Africa in a country now known to us as Kenya, it has yet to be established as legal FACT who was named as his father on Barky’s birth certificate at the time of his birth. That Barky claims it was Barrack Obama I means nothing. That you, along with Palin, Bachman, O’Reilly and many Americans are willing to take him at his word on this means nothing. That I suspect that he was born in Kenya to Barrack Obama I and Stanley Ann means nothing. It could have been Barrack Obama I, Soetoro, Dunham, Davis, or some man whose name is unknown to us at this time.

    Not only has his birthplace never been established has legal and verifiable fact, Barky’s parentage has never been established as a legal and verifiable fact.

  13. AuntieMadder   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 11:24 PM

    Jan Brewer appointed to Obama’s imperial “Council of Governors”
    http://arizona.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/02/jan-brewer-appointed-to-obamas-imperial-council-of-governors/

  14. Texoma   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 7:14 PM

    No one challenged Chester Arthur regarding the citizenship of his father at the time of Chester’s birth. No one in 1880 knew that Chester Arthur’s father became a naturalized citizen when Chester was 14 years old. This fact was unknown until some 20 years ago.

    The challenge to Chester Arthur came from a reporter named Hinman who claimed that Chester was born in Canada. Chester knew he was born in Vermont, and allowed these rumors about a birth in Canada to survive, all the while he hid the fact of his father’s Irish citizenship at the time of his (Chester’s) birth.

  15. Texoma   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 7:04 PM

    Robert, a natural born citizen is indeed someone born in the US to US citizen parents. This person is born with exclusive allegiance to the US. This exclusive allegiance at birth is a “strong check” against foreign influence, and this was the intent of the Founding Fathers with the use of the term “natural born citizen”.

    However, Mario Apuzzo argues, and I have come to agree with him, that while all natural born citizens are born with exclusive allegiance to the US, there are persons who are born with exclusive allegiance to the US who are not natural born citizens. These non-natural born citizens are eligible to be President. The best example is a person born to US citizen parents in a country that has no jus soli. This person is not born subject to the foreign country and is born with exclusive allegiance to the US.

  16. Harry H   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 3:28 PM

    So what is the best way out of this constitutional crisis? I have long believed and advocated that if there is any question about the legitimacy of our Commander-in-Chief, Congress should investigate ASAP and definitively determine whether the C-in-C’s power of command is legitimate or not. Now that Republicans control the House, there is no excuse whatever for the House not to investigate the eligibility of Barack Obama/Barry Soetero.

    And now comes a professor presenting a low-key but persuasive argument to which any reasonable person of good will can assent. Here is Professor Charles Rice’s plain, simple truth that our representatives must act on: “The House of Representatives is an appropriate body to inquire into the facts and legal implications of a President’s disputed eligibility for the office.” http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/110227

    We must demand that a House committee immediately investigate this matter, which is of the gravest importance for this nation. I can’t get my own Republican representative to even acknowledge my correspondence, and that includes a certified letter, but hopefully some representatives are still open to persuasion. Prof. Rice’s calm reasonableness could surely reach through some of the screens that cover our politicians’ ears.

    If I thought my representative would read/hear it, I would forward a copy of Rice’s reasoning to her, but I fear her ears are not only screened but blocked and soldered shut. I know my emails are blocked, and I don’t even get a receipt for a certified letter. Some representation that is.

  17. Joe The Blogger   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 2:36 PM

    “This proposed law [SB1308] is not only unconstitutional but also ill conceived as to its merits”.

    It must be obvious that the people who have concocted this outrageous proposal are fully aware of its legal flaws. I see this as an encouraging sign. They know that they have lost the legal arguments on Presidential eligibility and are desperately trying to wriggle out of the consequential predicaments. This is analogous to the current death throes of Colonel Gadaffi in Libya. These idiots are going down fighting.

    However, we are on to them and we will not allow them to trash our Constitution. We should carry out a rigorous invetigation of EVERYONE who has played a part in this insult to the law of ‘We The People’. The guilty culprits must be identified and vilified. There must be no hiding place for this criminal cabal.

  18. Bob1939   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 12:34 PM

    If America wants to gamble on who should be POTUS without proper (normal) vetting, then maybe we should try a Somali Pirate next. I’m guessing that our chances for success would be much better than what we have now !!!!! Hopefully we could teach him to be a nice person, and a good leader. Liberals could help there…

  19. Daniel Cutulla   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 12:28 PM

    > My citizenship status has been questioned/looked into twice

    Yes, but not whether you were natural born, that’s what “bill” is referring to.

    > get the feeling that the mice are scurrying frantically about because they know that something is slithering close at hand

    I don’t think anyone can retroactively change the status of a natural born citizen to “not natural born” and vice versa.
    Besides, a state cannot redefine a constitutional term.

    No matter what a state might enact as law, it would not “save” Obama/Soetoro.
    So what’s the purpose anyway? Simple stupidity? Or trying to create a swing in public opinion to openly support the “ius soli” interpretation of NBC?

    I wonder what it is with state legislators these days. Some try to bend around Full Faith And Credit, others are trying to make literally anyone “natural born”. Don’t these people ask a lawyer before they come up with such unconstitutional stuff?

  20. Joe The Blogger   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 12:26 PM

    I agree, Harry. However, the place of birth question has often been used to divert attention away from the legal FACT, as admitted by Obama himself, that at the time of birth, his Father was a British Subject, who was born, of indigenous parents, in British East Africa (which included the Country now known as Kenya).

    This legal FACT, means that the man who calls himself Barack Hussein Obama II, cannot be classed as a ‘natural born Citizen’, within the meaning of Article II of The Constitution of The USA. Even if Obama were to try to wriggle out of this by claiming that he had a different ‘natural Father’, then that would not help him, because of issues of fraud and deception.

    However, I believe that when all of the original vital records, held in Hawai’i are exposed, then some of the carefully crafted LIES and DECEPTIONS of Obama’s life story, will be exposed. That would, of course, be very EMBARRASSING for Mr Obama. It is very embarrassing to be exposed to the world as a liar and a cheat.

    That is why the release of ALL of the original records, such as they are, is important.

  21. Daniel Cutulla   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 12:20 PM

    > If two citizen parents were not required for ‘Natural Born Citizen’ status then there is no possible logical reason for the adoption clause in Article 2 Section 1.

    That’s not quite correct. Even if, arguendo, “ius soli” were enough, the grandfather clause was required because none of the founders was born on US soil because there were no US when they were born.

    > Before the authorities could seize them Arthur took all his family documents and burned them in his back yard effectively covering up the fact of his ineligibility to hold office.

    It just makes you wonder why he wasn’t properly vetted back then. After all, eligibility is a positive qualification, meaning you have to prove you’re eligible if you want to become president, not that others have to prove you’re ineligible.

  22. Jack   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 12:19 PM

    Maybe it’s possible we are missing the relevant “issue” here. On January 8, 2011, the “Chicago Way” was implemented in Tucson, Arizona to send a very clear message to all those who would dare to oppose the usurper-in-chiefs policies, that those who do not play along, may end up gone for good.
    Ask this question, “Why has the main-sleaze-media, then and now, given almost -0- coverage to the murder of United States District Court for the District of Arizona Chief Judge John Roll?” Do a little digging and find out about the ruling Judge Roll made a few days before his assassination. These criminals play hardball, this is not the first time this tactic has been employed, at least two other instances come to mind.
    It’s hard to imagine a single elected official, on either side of the aisle, that has slept soundly since the new rules of the game were explained.
    This may shed some light on this seemingly insane, absurd piece of legislation, and the apparent lack of resistance to it, coming from of all places Arizona??? Who by the way is being sued by the fed for attempting to defend their borders??? jmho

  23. Bob1943   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 11:14 AM

    I’m pretty sure Obama had to produce nothing to get a security clearance. There are many reasons such as, terrorist friends, the Reverend Wright, membership in anti-American organizations, etc., why Barry could not get a security clearance….so, they just ignored it all and gave him one because he was fraudulently elected president.

  24. Harry H   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 10:51 AM

    Wrong, Mr. Thorburn, when you say, “Obama’s birth certificate is relevant only if . . . .” You are ignoring the excellent exegesis by Mario Apuzzo on which you are supposedly commenting. Obama’s birthplace is highly relevant and has never been established as a legal and verifiable fact.

    It is entirely unnecessary and unwise to discard birthplace as a determinative factor here. Those who do so commit the “either/or” logical fallacy by thinking birthplace and blood are somehow opposed, and we must choose one or the other. False dilemma.

  25. Stephen Thorburn   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 9:09 AM

    If two citizen parents were not required for ‘Natural Born Citizen’ status then there is no possible logical reason for the adoption clause in Article 2 Section 1. All the founders were charter citizens with non-citizen parents because the country did not exist when their parents gave birth to them. And there were many citizens at that time who were born on U.S. soil but not to citizen parents. The founders knew it would take a generation to produce the first ‘Natural Born Citizen’ born on U.S. soil from parents who were citizens and free from any direct foreign birthright allegiances. The founders needed to include the charter citizens in order to have Presidential candidates (themselves) until a ‘Natural Born Citizen’ could be available for candidacy. Obama’s birth certificate is relevant only if it confirms that Barack Obama Sr. was his father he claims in his book and on his website. Barack Obama Sr. was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama’s birth.

    President Chester Arthur faced a challenge by those who believed his father was not a citizen when Chester was born. Before the authorities could seize them Arthur took all his family documents and burned them in his back yard effectively covering up the fact of his ineligibility to hold office. It was only recently in 2009 that a researcher found documentation which confirmed that Arthur’s critics were right about his ineligibility because his father was not a citizen at the time of Chester’s birth.

  26. RacerJim   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 8:03 AM

    My citizenship status has been questioned/looked into twice, the first time when I was in the U.S. Army and the second time when I was a main-frame computer systems anlayst for a DoD contractor, both times regarding my national security clearance. Given all the prominent radical Communists, Marxists and Socialists Obama sought out and associated with begining in high school there’s no way in hell he should have even the lowest level of national security clearance.

  27. Challenger   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 7:59 AM

    There is Democrat chicanery going on right now in the states where legislation is being considered on the eligibility issue. On February 4, 2011 Ulsterman on Word Press had an article on the ‘Insider’ wherein it was claimed that Vallerie Jarrett, in a meeting about state legislative initiatives on eligibility, said “She [Jarrett] is worried though that if more than one or two states challenge the president’s eligibility, the issue would turn against them. Measures are being taken to make certain that does not happen. What those measures are, I don’t know at this point.

  28. RacerJim   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 7:48 AM

    Info about the 3-3-2011 rally in front of the White House please. I’m in Rockville MD, about 12-miles NNW from the White House.

  29. Tim   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 6:53 AM

    Where’s the Birth Certificate?-Jerome Corsi

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMx4vqjBdjY&feature=player_embedded

  30. Tim   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 6:49 AM

    Obama and Holder taking on Arizona’s SB1070

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsH8xvjTAlo&feature=player_embedded#at=258

  31. Larry Brian Radka   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 5:38 AM

    I wonder how many more traitors in our state legislatures are going to bow out of finding out the truth? Communist Russia was a credit to the tyranny we are living under in the United States now! Nevertheless, this is a fine article, but I doubt any of Arizona’s representatives will read it.

  32. Robert Laity   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 4:10 AM

    Brewer knows NOW. I have just sent her a link to this story and have CC’d Ms.Rondeau.

  33. Robert Laity   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 4:06 AM

    Many such proposals are “Dead on Arrival”.

  34. Robert Laity   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 4:05 AM

    Obama could have been born in the Lincoln Bedroom and he would still be ineligible to serve as POTUS.

    His father was NOT an American.

    Therefore,Obama,even in that scenario,would still be ineligible.

  35. Robert Laity   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 4:00 AM

    Tom, the definition oif NBC is “Those born in a Country of parents who are citizens” .
    Based on the proffered facts as they stand,absent the production of the BC,Obama has never been POTUS:

    Obama’s Mother was American (Amereican Jus Sanguinis)
    Obama’s Father was British (British Jus Sanguinis)
    Obama if born outside the U.S.(Foreign Jus Soli)
    Obama if born IN the U.S. (U.S. Jus Solli)

    A POTUS MUST meet both requirements and have both 100% American Jus Sanguinis AND American Jus Soli. Obama has both British and American Jus Sanguinis and his Jus Soli status is in dispute,He is DISQUALIFIED and MUST be removed from Office.

    His removal based on the prima facie facts is mandated.

  36. Robert Laity   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 3:45 AM

    “This proposed law…should be allowed to suffer a quick death”:

    In Biology some Persons after being conceived in the womb, become unable to develop properly because of gravely dysfunctional or mutated cell disorders. These poor souls spontaneously abort.

    Analogously,U.S.Cionstitutional Law, on it;s face, determines that “This proposed Law” cannot properly develop and IT will likewise,spontaneously abort.

    “Foreign influence” HAS already made it’s way into the Oval Office.Obama supports “Zakat”,Sharia Charity which requires that 1/8th of all contributions to it go to the Islamic Military and Sharia Financing. Obama is a very Radical Islamist who has given aid and comfort to the enemy.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUaGe63Aqv4
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQG8PIqLp7k

    Obama has never been POTUS and Obama has never been loyal to the U.S. Obama is
    “Guilty of treason” as well as fraud. In arguendo,if Obama were able to prove that he is an NBC,he would still have the obstacle of defending treason charges,conviction of which,precludes him from holding “any office under the U.S.”
    See 18USC,Part 1,Chapter 115,Sec.2381.

    I want to thank you for enlightening me about 8USC,Sec.1424. Obama was born a British Subject/Citizen. under the British Nationality Act of 1948. Not unlike,some of his treasonous predecessors in the 18th Century,Obama,a Brit. at birth is not allowed to be POTUS,is similarly against the US and is not loyal to it.Obama,as a radical islamist and HAS manifested opposition to our form of government on several occasions.

  37. Crazy old coot   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 1:35 AM

    bill says:
    Sunday, February 27, 2011 at 3:00 PM
    ///////////////////
    Unless you are running for President or Vice President, you have no reason to prove you are a Natural Born Citizen. However, I have had to produce my original birth certificate numerous times to get a security clearance. Why doesn’t Mr. Obama??

  38. Bob1943   Monday, February 28, 2011 at 1:14 AM

    I have seen no sign that Governor Brewer wants anything to do with trying to expose Obama’s ineligibility. She has passed up chances to have “standing” regarding Obama’s ineligibility, and she did nothing.

  39. Bob1943   Sunday, February 27, 2011 at 11:50 PM

    How you doing Lucas, and what’s happening with the BC?

  40. Bill Kay   Sunday, February 27, 2011 at 11:44 PM

    I can not believe that Gov Brewer would approve of this , somthing fishey here , who ever proposed this CRAP should be kicked out of town, or better yet out of the country.

  41. 12thGenerationAMERICAN   Sunday, February 27, 2011 at 11:00 PM

    I don’t believe anyone has proved he was NOT born in Kenya either!?!?!

  42. MRR   Sunday, February 27, 2011 at 10:07 PM

    It this was put in the bill using sneaky language, maybe Governor Brewer should be told. Could be she doesn’t know or if she does is working to do something about this.

  43. Joe Maine   Sunday, February 27, 2011 at 9:58 PM

    So, Lucas, did you show that Obama was born in Kenya yet?

  44. Thomas   Sunday, February 27, 2011 at 8:36 PM

    “OBAMA” Show the entire world your Real Birth Certificate!!– Because even if “OBAMA” was born in Hawaii that would @ most make him a “Native ” Citizen not “Natural born Citizen ” “OBAMA” is not the Constitutional President of The U.S.A. , because his Dad, a Kenyan National, was not a U.S. Citizen; therefore “OBAMA” Is legally not the Constitutional President of the U.S.A. !!-Legal definition of Natural born Citizen per U.S. Supreme Court late 1700’s & Sill upheld Today = “A child born on U.S. Soil to Parents not owing foreign allegiance to any other Country “ “OBAMA” s dad owed allegiance to Britain
    Therefore not Legally the President of the U.S.A.!! – “OBAMA” Is not a “Natural born Citizen “

  45. Lucas D. Smith   Sunday, February 27, 2011 at 7:06 PM

    Attorney Apuzzo,

    Fantastic work on your new report.

    Respectfully,

    Lucas D. Smith

  46. sky   Sunday, February 27, 2011 at 6:33 PM

    http://www.KnowTheLies.com

  47. sky   Sunday, February 27, 2011 at 4:25 PM

    3-3-2011 rally in front of the white house 12:00-11:30pm,or your state capital.

  48. Donna   Sunday, February 27, 2011 at 4:15 PM

    I hope the people in arizona fight this. What is Governor Brewer THINKING????

  49. bill   Sunday, February 27, 2011 at 3:00 PM

    This is a very interesting proposal that has suddenly surfaced. What makes it so interesting is not the mechanics of the proposal, but the necessity of this proposal itself.I personally haven’t had anyone question my “Natural Born citizenship” nor have I heard of any of my friends having theirs questioned. I am not sure about any of the “postemail” readers. I do, however, get the feeling that the mice are scurrying frantically about because they know that something is slithering close at hand. The dealer has called the game, and now the dealer wishes to change the game during play. I really must give credit to these charlatans for their clever tricks, but sorry, folks! Too many Americans are awake now. Cheers.

  50. Harry H   Sunday, February 27, 2011 at 1:01 PM

    If you love the Constitution, you gotta love Mario Apuzzo, Esq. His explanations of eligibility per Article II are far superior to anything his detractors have written.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.