Mario Apuzzo: Tea Parties, Eligibility and Conspiracies
Mario Apuzzo, attorney for Plaintiffs in Kerchner v. Obama, recently wrote a couple of postings conslidating thoughts on how the Establishment — be it Democrat, Republican or otherwise — feels threatened about confronting especially controversial issues and will even go out of its way to re-state observations in an effort to downplay any sort of activist follow-through.
The first compares the recent tea parties with the question of eligibility:
Clearly, many politicians and media representatives now in power feel threatened by the Tea Party Movement. They will try everything to discredit it, just like they have attempted to do with the Obama eligibilty issue. They attack it by giving it an appropriate name (it is the tea bagging and birthers, tin-foil hat movement). They attack it by misstating who motivated it and who is funding it (the rich invented and are funding it), who is behind it (sore-loser Republicans, racists, right-wing extremists, rednecks, white-power extremists), and whether it is really sincere (it is only Constitutional pseudo law). The picture that these individuals paint is that they and only they are the real representatives of the little, working-class guy and gal. How dare any other party or group attempt to try to take over their role as the protector of the underdog? Yes, indeed, those in power want the public to believe that they alone can and will help the majority of people better their lives. By making the public believe that, those in power only perpetuate their own power.
Those in power would rather stay in power and protect their own political and media jobs rather than do what is best for America today and in future years. As to the politicians, the American public should send all these opportunists, regardless of political party, packing back home to real jobs. As to the media, the public should relegate those media outlets that have either never learned or forgotten what correct media reporting is to the realm of irrelevancy.
The second addresses the issue of the eligibility question being a conspiracy (excerpted):
A commentator recently stated:
“B]ut uh, until there is a link to some primary record of his mom being Kenya [sic] at or around the time of his birth then it’s just a whack conspiracy theory.”The conspiracy motivation is also constantly repeated on various pro-Obama blogs, mainsteam media reports, political discourse at all levels, and even in at least one Federal Court decision dismissing a case filed against Obama. A conspiracy theory is fed by “facts” that are in dispute. That is why it is called a theory.
But these facts are not in dispute: under the British Nationality Act 1948(BNA 1948), Obama’s father was a British citizen/subject when he was born in the English colony of Kenya. Obama’s father continued to be such and not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born in 1961. Under the same BNA 1948, at birth, regardless of where he was born, Obama also became a British citizen/subject by descent from his British father. …
It is public knowledge that Obama has admitted in his writings and otherwise that when he was born, his father was a British citizen/subject and not a United States citizen and that at that time he himself also became such. In fact, his father was not even a permanent resident of the United States, but rather only a student who would probably have been here only on a temporary student visa. Hence, not only was Obama’s father not a United States citizen but Obama himself was born a British subject/citizen. Hence, clearly, Obama is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen,” regardless of where he may have been born, regardless of what his original long-form Birth Certificate may say, regardless of to which countries he may have travelled, regardless of how many passports he may have acquired and used, regardless of whether or not he registered for the military service, regardless of what any of his school or medical documents say, regardless of what foreign schools he attended, and regardless of whether he was ever adopted by some foreign national. The real operative facts are not in dispute. I fail to see where the conspiracy is.
I will remind my readers that two forensics experts — Sandra Ramsey Lines and Dr. Ron Polarik (mentioned here) — have both gone on record to dispute the online certification of live birth as being inconclusive with respect to any governmental authority using such to establish eligibility. Further, as I and attorney Leo Donofrio mentioned months ago, FactCheck.org specifically admits that, at birth, Barack Hussein Obama was a British citizen.
A current listing of eligibility lawsuits can be found here.
-Phil
Obummer has spent almost a million dollars to fight his citizenship problem. How much more unlimited tax dollars has Obummer spent paying off who needs to be. That is the unfortunate reality folks. Meanwhile Obummer is destroying this nation like nothing I have ever seen. Bush was bad enough but Barrack Saddam Huessain Obummer hasn’t stopped any wars or did anything else he said he would except allow millions more abortions to happen around the world at the tax payers expense. Unfrikken believeable! Throw his arse out of the Oval office and then out of this country and back to Africa where he belongs.
JeffM wrote:
Why merely assume when I put the link right there in front of you? The reference is now free, on-line. You can use the “Search in this book” box to quickly find “natural-born citizen”. Here it is again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fAEFbgkpWg
In Perkins v. Elg, the Supreme Court held Marie Elizabeth Elg to be a “natural born citizen” of the U.S., regardless of whether she had also been a Swedish citizen. That is the only use of “natural born citizen” in the decision.
http://supreme.justia.com/us/307/325/case.html
brygenon said:
I sure hope you are referring to Perkins v. Elg. I assume not, since they confirmed the meaning of “Natural Born” as it pertains to the original intent of the Constitution. And it was in the ’30’s so I guess the item you posted from 1904 is just a nice library piece. Nothing more, nothing less.
Thanks for the literary reference though.
earl said:
I don’t even know where to begin on this statement. Aside from the fact that you clearly have no idea what you are discussing because you have failed to do your homework on citizenship in the 1700’s, I have to say that you just ignored what I wrote regarding the Naturalization Act of 1790, followed by the Naturalization Act of 1795.
Please, go back and read these 2 laws, ones that were ratified in the same timeframe as the Constitution and you will finally understand that “natural born” is a unique requirement that goes above and beyond “plain ‘ole citizenship”. And yes, I can quote at least 2 framers of Amendment XIV who will verify it does in no such way supersede Article II. I can also cite the Law of Nations, common law of England, and numerous other sources that say Natural Born applies to Natural Law which coincides with allegiance, something Soetoro has a real problem with.
JeffM wrote:
I read it, and linked it so anyone can read it — and it’s free. It very clearly explains “natural born citizen”, as of 1904.
http://books.google.com/books?id=cJENAAAAYAAJ
As for the the quote, regardless of who first said it, the reference cites it to a court decision, which I included and you decided to snip. Other arguments by the same attorney may, as you say, be irrelevant, but the court agreed with that one.
JeffM says:
April 24, 2009 at 2:11 pm
“natural born citizen. And it has never amended, clarified, or redefined anywhere else in the Constitution. ”
Jeff, you and everyone who keeps insisting there is some special form of citizenship called “natural born citizen” that exists outside of the definition of citizens in the 14th amendment, are wrong. This is simple grade school civics. Amendments to the Constitution supersede, replace, amend anything in the original that is the subject of the amendment. Find an amendment that tells you what place in the original it amended. They don’t. They become the law, so it doesn’t matter what the original says anywhere. The two definitions of citizen in the 14th amendment replace any other definition of citizen in the original Constitution. There are only two kinds of citizen: born and naturalized. If you are born here, you are born a citizen and eligible to be President. If there was an exception for eligibility to be President, it would have been spelled out in the 14th amendment.
I challenge you to contact a constitutional law professor at your best local law school and ask him this question. This insistence that there’s some special natural born citizen status is like arguing that because the original Consitution says only white, male, landowners can vote, then technically the votes of women, blacks really don’t count.
From a correspondent of mine:
Here is another thing to consider. The COLB that Obama offers as his proof (and has been deemed unreliable) just showed up without explanation. There is nothing from the State of Hawaii about Obama requesting a copy of his BC. Obama, nor the DNC has come forward with evidence of a request for the copy so where did it come from? These cost $10 to get and if requested via the phone would have had to use a credit card or sent a check or money order by mail, yet, nothing is, or ever has been, offered as proof of even a request for the copy. Someone could have said here is a CC receipt, or a canceled check, or the remitters copy of a MO. Someone should have this without a doubt.
This is something that could even be forged easily but not even a forged receipt of any kind has been offered.
The reason for this is that Obama’s COLB is a forgery and no one even thought to forge a receipt for it from Hawaii.[/quote]
Really good point. Why didn’t I think of that?
Q: Is that COLB a false document like some people are claiming?
A: No, of course not, here is the receipt for the COLB from the State of Hawaii.
earl said:
I didn’t say he wasn’t a citizen based on Amendment XIV. I said he wasn’t a Natural Born citizen “based on Amendment XIV”. The DnC also fell into this trap. They assumed Amendment XIV grants “Natural Born” status. It clearly does not and they put themselves into the proverbial ringer once this all shakes out.
There is only one place that mentions “Natural born” in the U.S. Constitution. And it has never amended, clarified, or redefined anywhere else in the Constitution. If there was a connection to Natural Born and “plain ole citizen”, this country’s first Congress would never have removed the “Natural born” verbiage defined in the Naturalization Act of 1790 by passing the Naturalization Act of 1795.
earl,
Let’s look at what the amendment actually says:
I’m not sure what’s so confusing about this. In other words, if the Constitution doesn’t specifically enumerate a power or authority to the federal government, it is then reserved for exercise by the States or the People.
That seems pretty straightforward to me.
-Phil
Jacqlyn Smith says:
April 23, 2009 at 1:50 pm
“show us”
Here is the requirement for first time passport. See step 2.
http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/first/first_830.html
“A certified birth certificate has a registrar’s raised, embossed, impressed or multicolored seal, registrar’s signature, and the date the certificate was filed with the registrar’s office, which must be within 1 year of your birth. Please note, some short (abstract) versions of birth certificates may not be acceptable for passport purposes. ”
If your short form is deemed unacceptable, here are other forms of identification that is acceptable. If you were born in the United States and cannot present primary evidence of U.S. citizenship, you may submit a combination of early public records as evidence of your U.S. citizenship.
http://travel.state.gov/passport/get/Secondary%20Evidence/Secondary%20Evidence_4315.html
There are lots and lots of documents that are acceptable to the state department as proof of citizenship besides a “long form” birth certificate. ( my BC is a 5 x 7 typed card with a notary seal. )
It has been nice chatting with you. I will no longer respond to you.
JeffM Says:
“14th amendment?”
Yes, Jeff, the 14th amendment defines citizenship. It defines two types of citizen: born and naturalized. Amendments supersede the original constitution so after the 14th amendment, the “natural born citizen” phrase in Article II became moot. There are born citizens and naturalized citizens. That’s it. Title 8 of the USC fills in the fuzzy spots:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001401—-000-.html
Barack Obama could have been born anywhere in the world and he’d still have been a citizen at birth. Same for John Sidney. The whole special Senate declaration for JSM was like a belt and suspenders.
Jacqlyn Smith says:
April 23, 2009 at 1:50 pm
“you are telling a lie”
No I am not. Obama has a US Passport. The original that was available for review in Chicago is notarized by the State of Hawaii. Apparently it was acceptable to the US Dept of State.
“you’ve never had a passport”
Yes, I have a current passport. For my first passport, a certification of live birth from my county of birth was accepted as proof of citizenship for a US Passport in the State of California. Like you, I have renewed by sending in the expiring passport.
“the piece of garbage doesn’t show a birthplace”
Yes it does. You never looked at it yourself did you or you would know it very clearly states Obama’s birthplace:
“City, Town or Location of Birth: Honolulu”
“Island of Birth: Oahu”
“County of Birth: Honolulu”
http://msgboard.snopes.com/politics/graphics/birth.jpg
” No hospital has come forward, and his sister…..”
Obama’s hospital records are protected by HIPAA laws. Obama’s sister is 9 years younger than Barack, she’d have no knowledge better than his of where he was born. The hospital in which he was born is not meaningful.
Jacqlyn Smith says:
April 23, 2009 at 2:16 pm
“how do you know it’s not just a copy of the fake”
Why would I go look at it? I believe Obama and the State of Hawaii. I encourage you to contact Andrew Napolitano, Fox News chief legal analyst. Fox News legal team examined the BC and determined it to be authentic. In addition, the Fox News legal team found no evidence to suggest Obama is not a natural born citizen. Contact him, he’ll send you Fox’s position statement.
brygenon said:
Please read your own citation as this was a quote by Mr. William Rawle from A View of the Constitution of the United States 84–101 1829. He was an Attorney of the late 1700’s and early 1800’s and had more interest in emancipation. His work was to identify inconsistencies with the naturalization process at the time. Some states made it easier for aliens to become citizens than others.
Nevertheless, I will cite his work from 1829 so you get a clear perpsective on why your argument holds nearly no merit using the proper context of Rawle’s document:
and…
and…
In other words the alien he is referring to as “enjoying the same benefits of citizens” are those who would be citizens in one or more states but an alien in another. Nice try henpicking though. It was an honest attempt.