My sense of fairness - my passion for fairness and justice - is being riled by a beast from Alaska slouching towards America to be born again, and again, and again. That is the brouhaha kicked up by the Republican candidate for the Senate, one Joe Miller, being a stickler for legal detail. And if we are not sticklers for legal details, we run the risk of being overwhelmed by people who do not want the rule of law, but the rule of the strongest. Thus the image of a beast from Alaska - from the wilds, where the 'survival of the fittest' reigns - is rather apt.
The situation has been occasioned by his being challenged, after his win in the primaries, by the losing Republican incumbent as a write-in candidate. It was reported that she ended up winning the election by some 10,000 votes. But hold on. There's some details here that need to be looked at.
One is a peculiar situation whereby votes in question were counted for her, but not for Joe. Quote from one of the posters on the thread of an article on CNN to this subject - all of whom otherwise were all over Miller, as a "sore loser":
"...there are only 8K ballots with questions leaving her a 2K lead, but one thing this article fails to report is that machine rejected ballots were only counted in her favor." Curious, that. Worth looking at. The power of the incumbent political machine to control such things, and all - from either side of the political aisle. So there's a legitimate question here, to be looked at more deeply. Besides the "questions" regarding the ballots in question.
This latter seems to be mostly a matter of write-in ballots with his write-in opponent's name on them, in different spelling - 'Merkowsky, Murcowskee" etc etc. Two things. (1) The state law says that such ballots - ballots not being precisely correct according to spelling - must not be counted. Sounds a little dogmatic; but that's the law there. However, the Election Procedures Committee (or whatever their correct name) said before the election that they would in fact allow the 'intent' of the voter to be honored. Curious, that. Not the idea itself; a number of states have such laws. But why the declaration contrary to their state law? Well, let's say that the incumbent political machine had an agenda to win the election for their candidate, but it might well entail that many of the people they rounded up to vote for their candidate could not spell his or her name correctly; how could they get around the state law on the matter? Well, one way would be to fudge a little, and hope they could get away with it. And that's where my fairness detector starts to sound, loudly. And I'll say more about that in a moment; but first, let me finish my thought as started above, in getting to: (2) There was another report that the incumbent political machine not only may well have rounded up voters for their candidate, but may well have 'stacked the deck' in stuffing the ballot boxes with phantom voters; and the suggestion was made that those write-in votes should be checked for the possible same handwriting. One way of which to smokescreen it would be to spell the write-in candidate's name in different ways, to make it look AS IF the ballots were from different voters.
I am saying that there is every reason to believe that there were voting shenanigans going on up there in Alaska, primarily from those incumbent political 'forces' who weren't going to go into the political wilderness without a fight.
I am also saying that there is a major principle here, which needs to be addressed, if the nation is going to continue to live under the rule of law, rather than under the rule of tyrants. And that is, the importance of deference TO the law. And to the fine point of the law. And I come now to my closing, fine point; which has to do with
the election of Barack Hussein Obama to the presidency of the United States of America; and to the quite possible illegitimacy of that election process.
He is, in short, according to the understanding of the English language at the time of the setting of the Constitution of the United States of America, NOT a "natural born citizen". Which meant to the Founding Fathers something more than just a citizen, or a 'native born' citizen. It meant, according to material that I have researched in the matter - that others have researched for me, and for the American public in general - a person who was a citizen by both 'blood' and 'soil' - ie, born of citizen parents ('blood'), and on the soil, or equivalent thereof (as on a military base elsewhere).
It was a hurdle put in place by the Founders for that particular office for a particular purpose; which was to make sure that the person in that particular office did not have any conflicting loyalties - and especially not to the British empire, which the country had just fought a war to declare itself independent of.
Barack Hussein Obama's candidacy for that particular office fell at the first hurdle.
And why wasn't this picked up on?
Because some people with an agenda decided that it was just a 'mere detail', and could be gotten around, by a little playing fast and loose with the detail of the law.
Nothing to see here folks. Just keep moving on.
Well, I for one won't.
And neither should Joe Miller. Until both of these situations are dealt with. Honestly. And fairly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Re: "according to the understanding of the English language at the time of the setting of the Constitution of the United States of America, NOT a "natural born citizen". Which meant to the Founding Fathers something more than just a citizen, or a 'native born' citizen.'
Answer: You have the meaning of Natural Born Citizen at the time of the writing of the Constitution backwards. The meaning at the time referred ONLY to the place of birth. It did not refer to the parents at all. No American writer at the time ever used the phrase Natural Born to refer to parents.
""Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus, those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" and eligible to be President. Much less certain, however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President ..." ---- Edwin Meese, et al, THE HERITAGE GUIDE TO THE CONSTITUTION (2005)
Dear Anonymous,
I'm not sure how far back in time and history Edwin Meese's research took him, but it apparently didn't take him far enough to discover that, on this issue, we are talking about both jus soil and jus sanguinis.
From Emer de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations':
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens..."
And it is this sort of understanding that informed the considerations of the Founding Fathers, as various private correspondences attest to. See puzo1.blogspot.com.
The American people have bought - were led to buy - a pig in a poke. They deserve better.
Let's see ALL of his records. And why not.
Re: "From Emer de Vattel's 'The Law of Nations''
Sure, but Vattel was SWISS, and he never wrote that a Natural Born citizen required two citizen parents. He wrote that an "indigines' (whatever that is) required two citizen parents. The words Natural Born Citizen were used to replace indigines by a British translator ten years after the Constitution was approved.
Moreover, Vattel recommended that every country should have a state religion and force people to join it or allow them to leave the country. Since we did not adopt that, what is the evidence that we adopted Vattel's meaning of "indigines."
Since Vattel did not use Natural Born, who did? Blackstone did, in his definition of a Natural Born subject--AND, there is not a single AMERICAN writing at the time of that the original constitution was written who ever used Natural Born to refer to parents. Any mention of parents is jus sanguinis, and the American colonies and the early US states only used jus soli.
Vattel is not even referred to in the Federalist Papers. He was an expert on international law, but elections are a domestic matter.
"what is the evidence that we adopted Vattel's meaning of "indigines." The evidence is in the clear intent of the Founding Fathers to make sure that no person of dual loyalty - and especially not to the British - ever succeeded to that particular office. Why else write it so clearly in the Constitution, and not make it a similar requirement to hold any other federal office.
The evidence is also in the private correspondence that Apuzzo has unearthed, and referenced. Sorry, I don't have it immediately to hand; but as you are so clearly very serious abut this matter, I encourage you to go through Apuzzo's material for yourself. It may well answer other questions for you (he also goes into the history of the phrase) - or give you material to debate. I'm interested in the subject, but I'm no expert; go to the lawyers who are making this a federal issue, so to speak.
"Vattel is not even referred to in the Federalist Papers. He was an expert on international law, but elections are a domestic matter." Again, see Apuzzo's researched responses to this sort of question. The bottom line: It goes to the issue of intent. Liberals don't like that way of looking at law - it limits them; keeps them from making the law mean whatever they want it to mean. But like Humpty Dumpty, one can have a great fall that way. And unfortunately, take other people down with such a one. As is happening in America today, where the populace has gotten away from the law as she was wrote, and into the realm of personal socio-political proclivities. Hence, fudging the law about Obama's eligibility. It matters.
With no Constitution, there are just power blocs. I won't have it. Nor should the American people stand for it. There lie dragons.
Thursday, November 18, 2010
Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship and Sole Allegiance At Birth
by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Written: April 23, 2009
Reposted: November 18, 2010
Article II of our Constitution has a lot to say about how a would-be President is born. "Natural born Citizen" status requires not only birth on U.S. soil but also birth to parents who are both U.S. citizens by birth or naturalization. This unity of jus soli (soil) and jus sanguinis (descent) in the child at the time of birth assures that the child is born with sole allegiance (obligation of fidelity and obedience to government in consideration for protection that government gives (U.S. v. Kuhn, 49 F.Supp.407, 414 (D.C.N.Y)) and loyalty to the United States and that no other nation can lay any claim to the child's (later an adult) allegiance and loyalty. Indeed, under such birth circumstances, no other nation can legally or morally demand any military or political obligations from that person. The child, as he/she grows, will also have a better chance of not psychologically struggling with conflicted allegiance and loyalty to any other nation.
Unity of citizenship and allegiance is based on the teachings of the law of nature (natural law) and the law of nations, as confirmed by ancient Greek and Roman law; American, European, and English constitutions, common and civil law, and statutes; and Vattel's, The Law of Nations, all of which the Founding Fathers read and understood. These sources have taught civilizations from time immemorial that a person gains allegiance and loyalty and therefore attachment for a nation from either being born on the soil of the community defining that nation or from being born to parents who were also born on that same soil or who naturalized as though they were born on that soil. It is only by combining at birth in the child both means to inherit these two sources of citizenship that the child by nature and therefore also by law is born with only one allegiance and loyalty to and consequently attachment for only the United States.
(cont'd)
(cont'd)
Our Constitution requires unity of U.S. citizenship and allegiance from birth only for the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, given the unique nature of the position, a position that empowers one person to decide whether our national survival requires the destruction of or a nuclear attack on or some less military measure against another nation or group. It is required of the President because such a status gives the American people the best Constitutional chance that a would-be President will not have any foreign influences which because of conflict of conscience can most certainly taint his/her critical decisions made when leading the nation. Hence, the special status is a Constitutional eligibility requirement to be President and thereby to be vested with the sole power to decide the fate and survival of the American people. Of course, the status, being a minimum Constitutional requirement, does not guarantee that a would-be President will have love and fealty only for the United States. Therefore, the final informed and intelligent decision on who the President will be is left to the voters, the Electors, and Congress at the Joint Session, to whom hopefully responsible media and political institutions will have provided all the necessary vetting information concerning the candidate's character and qualifications to be President.
(cont'd)
Through historical development, unity of citizenship and sole allegiance at birth is not required for U.S. born citizen Senators, Representatives, and regular citizens under the 14th Amendment and Congressional enactments. In contradiction and which confirms the Founding Fathers' meaning of what a "natural born Citizen" is, naturalized citizens, since 1795, before becoming such must swear an oath that they renounce all other allegiances to other nations. During the Washington Administration, the First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 in which it provided that new citizens take a solemn oath to support the Constitution and “renounce” all “allegiance” to their former political regimes. This is during the time that most of the Framers were alive and still actively involved in guiding and forming the new national government and Constitutional Republic. Today, we still require that an alien upon being naturalized must give an oath that he/she renounces all former allegiances and that he/she will “support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Hence, allegiance is not simply a thing of the past but very much with us today. It is important to also understand that naturalization takes an alien back to the moment of birth and by law changes that alien’s birth status. In other words, naturalization, which by legal definition requires sole allegiance to the United States, re-creates the individual as though he were a born Citizen but only does it by law and not by nature. This is the reason that the 14th Amendment considers a naturalized person to be a “citizen” of the United States and not a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. This recreation of birth status through naturalization which also existed under English common law also probably explains why John Jay underlined the word “born” when he recommended to General Washington that only a “natural born Citizen” (as to say born in fact, by nature, and not by law) be allowed to be President. Consequently, naturalized citizens stand on an equal footing with born Citizens (who are so recognized and confirmed by the 14th Amendment or by an Act of Congress and who can be but not necessarily are also “natural born Citizens”) except that they cannot be President or Vice President, for they were born with an allegiance not owing to the United States and acquire that sole allegiance to the United States only after birth. Surely, if a naturalized citizen, even though having sole allegiance to the United States, is not Constitutionally eligible to be President, we cannot expect any less of someone who we are willing to declare so Constitutionally eligible.
The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of the survival of the Constitutional Republic, the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military be free of foreign influence and intrigue. It is the "natural born Citizen" clause that gives the American people the best fighting chance to keep it that way for generations to come. American people do not have the Constitutional right to have any certain person be President. But for the reasons stated above, minimally they do have a Constitutional right to protect their liberty by knowing and assuring that their President is Constitutionally eligible and qualified to hold the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: apuzzo [AT] erols.com
TEL: 732-521-1900 ~ FAX: 732-521-3906
BLOG: http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####
Re: "The evidence is also in the private correspondence that Apuzzo has unearthed, and referenced. Sorry, I don't have it immediately to hand; but as you are so clearly very serious abut this matter, I encourage you to go through Apuzzo's material for yourself."
Answer: I have read a great deal of Apuzzo, and I have challenged him to come up with a quotation from an American at the time that the Constitution was written that showed that they used Natural Born to refer to the parents.
The best that he could do was to show someone who said that to be a citizen required two citizen parents. But that is not the issue. US citizenship is defined by the 14th amendment and by US statute law. The issue is what did Natural Born mean?
It referred only to the place of birth. It was a synonym for native born, which was not a popular phrase at the time. Natural Born was used all the time, and it was always used to refer to the place of birth. It was like Ohio-born, which is not affected by the citizenship of parents. If you were born in Ohio, you are Ohio born. You might not be a citizen, but you would be--and always would be--Ohio born.
Natural Born was a similar geographic expression. Not all people who were Natural Born at that time were citizens, but if they were Natural Born and citizens, they were of course Natural Born Citizens.
I have respect for Mario, but it is HIGHLY unlikely that he would be right and the CONSERVATIVE Heritage Foundation guide (under the editorship of Edwin Meese, Ronald Reagan's attorney general)be wrong on this matter.
And:
“Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad.” — Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.
Re: "The Founding Fathers emphasized that, for the sake of the survival of the Constitutional Republic, the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military be free of foreign influence and intrigue. '
Answer: Of course. They solved this matter by declaring in Article II that foreigners could not be president (the citizen part of Natural Born Citizen)and that naturalized citizens could not be president (the Natural Born part of Natural Born Citizen). But there is no evidence that they considered the US-born children of foreigners to be foreigners. If they did, they would have told us, and they didn't.
'They would have told us, and they didn't'. See, eg:
"Apuzzo is arguing the "Vattel theory," which asserts that the term "natural-born citizen" as used in the Constitution was defined by French writer Emer de Vattel. Vattel, whose work, "The Law of Nations," was widely known and respected by the founding fathers, used the term to mean an individual born of two citizens.
"According to Apuzzo, Congress and the courts have addressed the question of who can be an American citizen, for example regarding former slaves, Asian immigrants, and American Indians. However, the term "natural-born citizen" has never been altered.
"The courts and Congress have never changed the definition," said Apuzzo. "The founding fathers understood that the commander-in-chief of the armed forces needed to have two American citizens as parents so that American values would be imparted to him."
"Apuzzo said the Supreme Court had clearly accepted Vattel's definition of "natural-born citizen" in "dicta," or statements made in opinions on cases addressing other matters. He cited Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall's opinion in the 1814 "Venus" case, in which Marshall endorses Vattel's definition.
"Apuzzo also cites the writings of founding father David Ramsay, an influential South Carolina physician and historian who used similar language to Vattel."
- from Brian Fitzpatrick's article at wmd on 23/11. And also, in Apuzzo's article cited, ref. to John Jay's correspondence to General Washington. Point: They knew what they meant by the term.
Would you agree that the subject deserves its day in a court of law?
Re: "Would you agree that the subject deserves its day in a court of law?'
YOU WOULD LOSE NINE TO ZERO.
I would be delighted, of course. So I would be glad if the Supreme Court were to take the case. But it won't because it regards it as a waste of time. Only if four justices think that there is an issue would they take the case, and it is highly unlikely that four justices do think that there is an issue.
To think that there is an issue requires such justices as Scalia and Alito to believe that the writers of the Constitution thought that there were three categories of citizen: citizens born in the USA to US citizens (under some theories two, under others just the father); citizens born in the USA to foreign citizens and naturalized citizens.
It is clear that the constitution bars non-citizens and naturalized citizens from becoming president. But, the Vattel theory holds that the children born in the USA to non-citizens are lower in status than the children born in the USA to citizens.
There is NO evidence that the writers of the constitution thought that. These are the same men who had written: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."
To be sure, they did not really believe that all men were equal. Many of them held slaves, and they certainly did not believe that they were equal. And, they did not believe that foreigners or naturalized citizens were equal to Natural Born citizens either.
But there is NO evidence that they considered the US born children of foreigners to be foreigners, or that they considered the US-born children of foreigners to be lower in status, or less able to trust, than the US-born children of US citizens.
Re: ""Apuzzo also cites the writings of founding father David Ramsay, an influential South Carolina physician and historian who used similar language to Vattel."
Answer: Yes, he was the one who wrote that you had to have two US parents to be a citizen. But he never wrote that you had to have two US parents to be natural born. That, at the time that he wrote, would have been like writing "you have to have two Georgia-born parents to be Georgia-born." It would have been a laughable statement since Natural Born referred only to the place of birth.
That's it, then. Thanks for the one point of agreement. See you in court. (So to speak.)
P.S. Would you also agree that the American citizenry have a right to see all of Obama's bona fides - especially as he invoked transparency as part of his campaign for the office?
Re: "Would you also agree that the American citizenry have a right to see all of Obama's bona fides - especially as he invoked transparency as part of his campaign for the office? '
Obama has shown the OFFICIAL birth certificate of Hawaii, and the officials in Hawaii and governor of Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed the facts on it that he was born in Hawaii.
As for college records. It would be wonderful to have a law that says that every candidate for president must show all his college records, graduate school records, etc. But there is no law, and it is highly unlikely that either Republicans or Democrats who want to run for president in the future would support such a law, since many of them had lousy grades.
Since there is no law, Obama does not have to show the college, graduate school, passport, etc. records, and he shouldn't because the idea that the first Black president should have to show more than other presidents is repulsive.
Re: "Transparent." Obama isn't being transparent with regard to his personal documents or even with regard to the government (which is what he was talking about, transparency in Government). Do presidents sometimes promise things that they do not do when they are elected? Sure.
Anonymous, if you truly, truly believe that that thing that the Obama site shows as being a bona fide birth certificate is worth the pixels that make it up, it makes me wonder seriously about the case you make regarding the NBC question. On the surface you're making an interesting case. But boy, do I have a bridge to sell you.
Obama is asking the American people to buy a pig in a poke for their presidency. It is unseemly. It is an insult. It must not stand.
Goodnight.
Re: "if you truly, truly believe that that thing that the Obama site shows as being a bona fide birth certificate..."
The McCain and Hillary campaigns looked into the allegations of forgery, as they looked into the allegations of birth in Kenya, and found them both false.
The Republican officials in Hawaii and the Republican governor of Hawaii have repeatedly confirmed the facts on Obama's birth certificate.
Post a Comment