Eligibility Update: Patriot’s Heart v. Soetoro Filed; Apuzzo, Kerchner on Obama’s British Citizenship (Updated)
According to the Patriot’s Heart Network, a number of Plaintiffs, including Georgia citizen grand jury foreman Carl Swensson (and being represented by attorney Stephen Pidgeon), have officially filed a Petition for the Convening of a Federal Grand Jury:
FINAL Patriots Heart v Soetoro-PetitionforGJ
More than fifty percent of the petition involves a full 27 exhibits.
Chalice of PHN released the following today:
Patriot’s Heart Network (PHNMedia.com), in the name of our members and represented by Attorney Stephen Pidgeon, along with Carl Swensson (RiseUpForAmerica.com) Robert Debeaux, Robert Pinkstaff, and Dr. Penny Kelso have successfully filed a petition in the US District Court in Washington, D.C. requesting a Federal Grand Jury be assembled to look into high crimes against the United States of America and against our 1st amendment rights. Defendants on the Petition are Barry Soetoro, (aka Barack Obama) Nancy Pelosi, Howard Dean and the Media. These crimes include Conspiracy, False Personation, Intimidation of Voters, Fraud and False Statements, Fraud and related activity, Treason and Misprision of Treason. The motion for relief seeks the appointment of a Federal Grand Jury by the Chief Judge of the DC Court, Royce Lamberth.
This issue about Natural Born Citizenship status and the eligibility to be President is NOT a fringe issue. It is not mere fodder of the misdirected gullible tin hatter clubbers. The mocks of those who attempt to minimize and/or toss away sincere American voices as those who just have ‘no clue.’ Qualification to serve as President is a SERIOUS Constitutional issue and it is time that “We The People” get the answers in which We are entitled. We have been ignored, mocked, and laughed at by many. We remain undeterred in our determination to move forward.
For the past several months, we have alerted the various branches of government to our grave concern about the eligibility of this President to hold this position of power. Two weeks ago, we served Congress with testimony of the grave concerns of 1.2 million voices. In return, we received signed receipts and/ or photographic evidence that We the People have served Congress notice of these Constitutional issues! (Information about the trip is available HERE) Through joint efforts with Rise Up For America, we provide information on how citizens across the country can follow-up with their elected Congressional officials. Attorney Generals have been duly informed as well. One action, PHNMedia encourages all to take is to ask their Senators and Representatives to Define Natural Born Citizen. We did so in DC and found neither Senator interviewed knew the meaning, but they voted to confirm the Electoral College! The video or audio evidence of these interviews will be valuable as part of this case.
Yesterday, another step in our journey for the truth has been taken.
The Petition filed yesterday will go before Chief Judge Royce Lamberth (Bio Here ) This Petition calls for the convening of a Federal Grand Jury. Read the full Petition HERE. The allegations of Treason, Fraud, and Misprision are not to be taken lightly! Our complaint calls out Barry Soetoro, aka Barack Obama, Pelosi, Dean AND IMPORTANTLY the media! However, make no mistake, once a Grand Jury is convened, others may be identified for their complicity in this cover-up. High crimes against our Republic are taking place while those responsible to act and report on such matters remain deafening in their silence. It is crime punishable by terms from 3 to 20 years in jail for falsifying birth documents.This is more serious when it is in pursuit of a Federal job. We the People have not seen the proof Obama is eligible to be President. This Petition before the District Court lays out with solid evidence and reasoning, the fact that our First Amendment Rights were abridged by the crimes of the defendants on the petition.
We, the plaintiffs in this case encourage all of you to read the 181 page Petition. There are other action points we offer for your consideration. Please visit www.phnmedia.com to be kept abreast of these. Join www.phnmedia.net to become part of the Plaintiff voices from Patriots Heart Network.
It’s simple, really. We the People, DEMAND from the Media to accurately “Define Natural Born Citizen.” We DEMAND from all branches of our government PROOF that the person in the White House is NOT a Usurper. We demand proof of his eligibility. If eligibility is not established, then our nation and all of the laws return to January 19, 2009. Every action that a Usurper takes are nullified when lack of eligibly to serve is established. It is the US District Court where such matters are heard. It is in this court where We the People demand Redress through the appointment of a Federal Grand Jury.
We cannot do this alone. We DEFINITELY need your help! Join us today!
Update: Attorney Mario Apuzzo of Kerchner v. Obama had originally written an article in April (updated in July) concerning Mr. Obama currently being a British citizen that bears repeating (excerpted):
…The British Nationality Act of 1948 provides in pertinent part as follows:
“4. Subject to the provisions of this section, every person born within the United Kingdom and Colonies after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by birth:
Provided that a person shall not be such a citizen by virtue of this section if at the time of his birth—
(a) his father possesses such immunity from suit and legal process as is accorded to an envoy of a foreign sovereign power accredited to His Majesty, and is not a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; or
(b) his father is an enemy alien and the birth occurs in a place then under occupation by the enemy.5.—(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person born after the commencement of this Act shall be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by descent if his father is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies at the time of the birth ….”
Under the British Nationality Act of 1948, Obama’s father became a British citizen under Section 4 by being born on the soil of an English Colony, Kenya. Under Section 5, when Obama was born in 1961 in Hawaii or some other place, he automatically became a British citizen by descent from his father who was a British citizen under Section 4.
Obama has deflected attention to his British citizenship by focusing the public’s attention on his former Kenyan citizenship. Notwithstanding what Obama may lead the public to believe, this British citizenship is not a type of citizenship that he has since lost. Moreover, this citizenship did not expire with Obama’s 21st birthday nor is it one that had to be registered in any specified period of time.
Chapter VI, Section 87 of the Kenyan Constitution specifies that:
“1. Every person who, having been born in Kenya, is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December, 1963…2. Every person who, having been born outside Kenya. [sic] is on 11th December, 1963 a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies or a British protected person shall. [sic] if his father becomes. [sic] . . . a citizen of Kenya by virtue of subjection (1). [sic] become a citizen of Kenya on 12th December. [sic] 1963.”
Under the Kenyan Constitution of 1963, Obama’s father and Obama became citizens of Kenya. But neither Kenya’s independence from Great Britain, nor the Kenyan Constitution, nor the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963, as amended, caused Obama to lose his British citizenship with which he was born. Obama concedes that his citizenship converted from British to Kenyan but he adds that he then lost this Kenyan citizenship when he did not confirm it upon reaching the age of 21. There are no known statements from either Obama or his campaign contending that he eventually lost his British citizenship. Rather, the statements have been that his British citizenship converted to Kenyan citizenship when Kenya obtained its independence from Great Britain in 1963 and that he then lost Kenyan citizenship under the Kenyan constitution and laws when he did not renounce U.S. citizenship at age 21. But since Obama never lost his British citizenship, it does not matter that Obama may have lost his Kenyan citizenship as he contends.
Let us now see how Obama did not lose his British citizenship. The Kenyan Constitution which came into effect in 1963 at Article 97 provides the following:
“97. Dual citizenship
1. A person who, upon the attainment of the age of twenty-one years, is a citizen of Kenya and also a citizen of some country other than Kenya shall, subject to subsection (7), cease to be a citizen of Kenya upon the specified date unless he has renounced his citizenship of that other country, taken the oath of allegiance and, in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament.”While the Kenyan Constitution prohibits dual citizenship for adults, it allows dual citizenship for children. Kenya’s Constitution does, however, specify that at age 21, Kenyan citizens who possess citizenship in more than one country automatically lose their Kenyan citizenship unless they formally renounce any non-Kenyan citizenship, swear an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and in the case of a person who was born outside Kenya made and registered such declaration of his intentions concerning residence as may be prescribed by or under an Act of Parliament. It may be true that Obama did not take any action to preserve his Kenyan citizenship as was required by the Kenyan constitution. But there is no evidence that Obama ever renounced his British citizenship which he originally acquired at his birth under Section 5 of the British Nationality Act of 1948 and which he did not lose under the Kenyan Independence Act of 1963, as amended. Whatever his father may have done regarding his Kenyan and/or British citizenship did not affect Obama’s British citizenship with which Obama was born. Hence, under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama presumably lost his Kenyan citizenship by not renouncing his U.S. (assuming he was born in the U.S.) and British citizenships, by not taking an oath of allegiance to Kenya, and by not registering his declaration to take up residence in Kenya. But under British law, he did not lose his British citizenship because he never renounced that citizenship.
The fact that Obama still has British citizenship is further supported by the following:
“Under United Kingdom law as it has been since the British Nationality Act, 1948, the acquisition of another nationality by a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, of whatever age, makes no difference whatever to his status as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and, therefore, he remains a British subject.
Moreover, it is not possible, under United Kingdom law, for the nationality of a child who is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies to be changed by the decision of his parents. Only the child, when he reaches the age of 21, can renounce his citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies if he is then in possession of another nationality, but during the child’s minority neither the child nor his parents can do anything to forfeit his birthright of British nationality.”
Children Bill [Lords], HC Deb 27 June 1958 vol 590 cc743-830.“It is now the law that all persons born in the United Kingdom or its Colonies, or in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born, have British nationality whether they are legitimate or illegitimate. . . .
Also, it is part of our law that children of a British male born abroad can have British nationality.”
British Nationality, HC Deb 16 July 1963 vol 681 cc341-3.Additionally, if one examines the British Nationality Act of 1981, as amended, there is nothing there which shows that Obama, once having the British citizenship that he acquired by descent from his father at the time of his birth, automatically lost it at age 21. On the other hand, the act contains provisions concerning “declaration of renunciation” at Section 10, 12, and 13. Not that doing so would make Obama an Article II “natural born Citizen,”there is no evidence that Obama ever filed any “declaration of renunciation” of his British citizenship.
What does this mean? Under the Kenyan Constitution, Obama is presumably no longer a Kenyan citizen because he did not renounce at age 21 his British citizenship and his U.S. citizenship (assuming he was born in the U.S.). Obama is still however a British citizen not only under English common law (in the words of Coke and Blackstone, a natural-born subject of the United Kingdom) but also under British citizenship statutes. Neither Kenya’s 1963 constitution nor any statute erased the consequences of the British common law and nationality statutes that were in effect at the time of Obama’s and his father’s birth. Obama’s continuing British citizenship is further confirmed by English law which provides that persons born in countries which were Colonies at the time when they were born are still British citizens. Hence, Obama continues to be a British citizen despite Kenya’s independence and new constitution.
Charles Kerchner, lead Plaintiff in the above case, recently took out another ad in the Washington Times weekly edition; he also manages and solicits support at ProtectOurLiberty.org.
I really have to admit — after having read Mr. Apuzzo’s article once more, I am becoming convinced that Mr. Obama really could still be a British citizen. The question is whether or not Mr. Obama, at or after becoming a legal adult, specifically renounced his Kenyan, British or US citizenship.
According to the above, Mr. Obama’s British citizenship would not have automagically waned into non-existence unless he would have specifically denounced it. And there we have the other crux of the argument.
What do I mean?
While it may be true that if the public will ever be able to investigate Mr. Obama’s background documentation, including his long-form birth certificate (or whatever “vital records” are on file in the great State of Hawaii), it may actually show his being physically born in the State, the truth of the matter is that it’s also very likely that he maintains his British citizenship — the one “hidden-in-plain-sight” disqualifier for Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the American Constitution.
So, to me, it appears that Mr. Obama was not only born a British citizen, but may continue to be a Subject of Her Majesty the Queen to this day.
See the following links regarding the eligibility saga:
- Obama’s Presidential Eligibility: What You Need to Know
- Obama’s Sealed Background Documentation
- Newsmax.com: Obama Birth Certificate Not Released
- What’s the Difference Between a Birth Certification Versus a Birth Certificate?
- Keyes v. Lingle: Forensic Examiner and IT Expert Disprove Certification of Live Birth
- Obama Citizenship Facts
- The State Department and Sen. Patrick Leahy’s (D-VT) Natural Born Citizen Resolution (April 10, 2008)
- Citizen Grand Jury Updates and Eligibility Lawsuit Listing
-Phil
Subscriptions -=- Twitter: @trsol -=- Facebook (TRSoL) -=- Facebook (Rightside Phil)
[...] According to Dr. Penny Kelso (now that’s scary), Barry Soetoro was born in Indonesia. The lawsuit also names Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean as defendants. « Pole Dancing Doll: [...]
Sharon 2: Thanks to you, too. Very interesting anthropological information.
misanthropicus: Thanks. That was brilliant!
Phil,
“I would therefore recommend getting a life away from the blogosphere — as long as it doesn’t entail politics.”
This is my source of entertainment for free. It is interesting to see what kind of “wild and crazy” stuff birthers come up with.
“It’s simple…We DEMAND from the Media to accurately “Define Natural Born Citizen.” We DEMAND from all branches of our government PROOF that the person in the White House is NOT a Usurper. We demand proof of his eligibility.”
Now that Orly finally has been discredited, Pidgeon steps in for the Obama Campaign and files a petition destined for failure and to bring more ridicule to legitimate Eligibility Issues.
Sue, Earl, and Historian Dude,
Why don’t you become Facebook Friends, and “Socially” enlighten one another?
http://www.facebook.com/frank.arduini
“Yes, you’re projecting, considering that the overwhelming majority of commentary by you on my site is of a condescending, bitter and hate-filled tone.”
Whatever you say Phil, after all, it is your blog.
“I’ve already profusely explained this. I’ve never claimed that any sort of faith impugns upon the presidential eligibility clause.”
Actually Phil, I believe you have in a reply comment to HD. The gist of your comment was “Muslim = further proof of divided loyalties, blah, blah, blah.”
Sue,
I would therefore recommend getting a life away from the blogosphere — as long as it doesn’t entail politics.
-Phil
Sue,
Yes, you’re projecting, considering that the overwhelming majority of commentary by you on my site is of a condescending, bitter and hate-filled tone.
I’ve already profusely explained this. I’ve never claimed that any sort of faith impugns upon the presidential eligibility clause.
-Phil
earl,
Seriously — this site doesn’t exist to have my or others’ opinions validated by you.
-Phil
Pat Smith,
I do not comment here to change anyone’s mind.
“I have to commend Phil on his patience in dealing with those children.”
Save your insults for someone they might work on.
“Even though I already know you seethe with bitterness and hatred towards my site, the truth of the matter is that questioning anything about this President’s background is not, in and of itself, a harbinger of being otherwise not interested in the truth.”
Then again, the biases that you have towards me and/or my site show that you are clearly not after the truth. Of course, this is your prerogative; it would just be nice for you to quit projecting them on my site in your commentary.”
Phil,
Bitterness? Hatred? Talk about projecting.
Please explain to me why you think the Muslim faith (religion) has anything to do with someone’s citizenship?
Pat Smith says:
August 23, 2009 at 2:11 pm
“Historian Dude and Sue still very hard at work trying to convince us Birthers we are wrong about Obama’s eligibility…..
I want a Poll to see if those 2 OBots have changed anyone’s mind. ”
The ultimate clue that you are consumed by a conspiracy fantasy is that even in the face of overwhelming evidence that what you believe about Pres Obama is not true, you continue to cling to any scrap of possibility that it is true. People like you will never believe Pres Obama is eligible. This is why the President will never give you the time of day. No matter what he showed you, you would always want to see something more and nothing you were shown would ever change your mind anyway so why would he bother. You birthers had your moment in the sun, and you are now declining because your Queen Orly has shown the world what a bunch of goofballs you are.
Jefferson’s father was Peter Jefferson, a planter and surveyor in Albemarle County (Shadwell, then Edge Hill, Virginia.) He was of Welsh descent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson
According to Stephen Oppenheimer 96% of lineages in Llangefni in north Wales derive from Iberia. Genetic research on the Y-chromosome has shown that the Welsh, like the Irish, share a large proportion of their ancestry with the Basques of Northern Spain and South Western France, although the Welsh have a greater presumed Neolithic input than both the Irish and the Basques.[24] Genetic marker R1b averages from 83-89% amongst the Welsh.[2
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_people
The Huguenot rebellions, sometimes called the Rohan Wars after the Huguenot leader Henri de Rohan, refers to events of the 1620s in which French Protestant Huguenots, mainly located in southwestern France, revolted against the central Royal power of the French government.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguenot_rebellions
Good thing Tommy Jefferson was grandfathered in! He may have some of that Frenchie blood.
On a somewhat related note, although the proof may be less stringent, you still have to have 50% Hawaiian blood to benefit from the Hawaiian Lands Program. You still have to be a natural born citizen to be president. The framers didn’t require DNA testing or a genealogy report, just being natural born.
Poppet:
You have accidentally stumbled onto another of the reasons the “de Vattel” definition is so absurd. De Vattel did not say that children of non-citizens were not “natural born” citizens. He said they were not citizens at all.
If he is right (and you Birthers just love him) then most Americans are not citizens either. Even if our ancestors got here 150 years ago.
Rich:
Not even close! The wishful thinking and fantasies you guys entertain just get funnier as the objective slips further and further away from you.
Here’s what the State Department says:
You will note that applying for foreign aide doesn’t make the list.
Pat Smith:
Oh, Pat…. please don’t think that for a second. We fully accept that we will never convince most of you, because you do not actually care about the evidence or the law.
And if you think this is “working hard,” I feel very bad for your boss. If this was hard work it would be so much less fun.
And it does not matter if we convince you or not. Nothing that takes place in Birther blogs matter. What matters is what takes place in the courtroom. And to this point, we Obots are pretty satisfied with how that’s been going.
Feedback is a gift, Pat. If you do not care about the arguments that actually influence the decision makers, even if they don’t change your mind, well that’s okay too. But you can’t say nobody told you.
Sue,
Even though I already know you seethe with bitterness and hatred towards my site, the truth of the matter is that questioning anything about this President’s background is not, in and of itself, a harbinger of being otherwise not interested in the truth.
Then again, the biases that you have towards me and/or my site show that you are clearly not after the truth. Of course, this is your prerogative; it would just be nice for you to quit projecting them on my site in your commentary.
-Phil
And, after all these and other things will be said again and again, and more display of lawyership and scholarship will be applauded or booed, more money will be spend by one or another party, and the country will further slip in contentiousness, a little, simple question will still hover over everything – a $12 fee to the Hawaii DH will sure solve this matter.
Why mister Obama, embodiment of wisdom, statemanship and humanity doesn’t exercise this expense to spare the country of strife?
Why does he make the choice of confrontation instead of appeasing?
Is a $12 fee that much for him or for his supporters? If so, I (and so many others) would gladly write a check in behalf of mister Obama for this purpose.
Yes sir -
Or even where they said it anywhere else outside of the Constitution.
Teo Bear:
Oh, how sad. The bomb went off and its residue is all over your argument.
You quoted the law as follows:
If you actually had bothered to read that sentence, you would have noticed that you were wrong to then claim…
Because that is not what the law says at all.
They were absolutely made citizens of France (“naturels Francaise”) at birth purely because of their descent and with no additional action necessary. This is “the quality” to which the law refers. And this is exactly the same as any other national law that grants citizenship via jus sanguinis. Even that of the United Kingdom.
What they did not get without repatriation was “rights attached to that quality.” And this is (again) exactly the same as any other national law that grants citizenship via jus sanguinis. Even that of the United Kingdom. Even (by the way) that of the United States.
It is exactly the situation that Obama finds himself under regarding British citizenship. Even as a British citizen under UK law he cannot gain the “benefit from rights attached to that quality” unless he repatriates to the UK. And he has not done so. Neither, by the way, did any of the eight US Presidents who were (by French law) citizens of France.
The circumstances are identical.
And the absurd Birther psuedolaw regarding dual citizenship and natural born citizenship is demonstrated for the nth time to be unrefined nonsense.
I wonder if Malia and Sasha realize that they too are not natural born Citizen’s,
as their father who was born a British Subject and has yet to prove he is a citizen of the U.S.?
I would check out their “long form BC as well… Dan Smith, NY
Historian Dude and Sue still very hard at work trying to convince us Birthers we are wrong about Obama’s eligibility…..
I want a Poll to see if those 2 OBots have changed anyone’s mind.
I have to commend Phil on his patience in dealing with those children.
Phil,
I read with interest Kalani’s comments about what Farah thinks about Obama and the timeline.
1. The issue if Obama was born in Kenya.
2. Obama adopted as infant.
3. Obama adopted, reclaimed citizenship.
I answer all of these the same: I don’t know, and no amount of circumstantial evidence will settle the issue. Speculation, no matter how logical, will provide peace for those invested in the Constitutional process.
I could consider many different pathways of how Obama got here from there. The only one that matters is the Constitutional issue, is he eligible for the office he holds. We already KNOW that he is a liar(to many to cite), and is likely corrupt (Rezco/Blago/Pharma/ect.), but the question really is about the Constitution and Voter Fraud. Dirty politics, lies, obvious racism, excesses, drug abuse, homosexuality, and intimidation tactics don’t make you ineligible for office.
The problem today has to do with the internet and the media. The media is no longer the watchdog of the public, they are part of the corporate/executive branch conglomerate, or simply put, propaganda. Any intelligent human being has to wonder why Obama can’t release a long form BC, why he has multiple SS #’s, why nobody can remember him at Columbia University, but can’t forget him at Harvard, why there are no available records for his dead mothers travels. Need I go on here?
Perhaps this was always the way the games were played, but the balance to all this has become the internet and sites like yours make the public actually question. Perhaps the real story here has always been the ‘lack of a story’ by the traditional media. I sense that people have become ‘aware’ that the media has been subverted, that they have been manipulated. Hopefully, this can be overcome with the natural processes foreseen by our founding fathers, before the public feels the need for either a violent solution or a territorial divorce.
Article II, section 1, clause 5 read’s, natural born Citizen,
not natural-born citizen, or Natural Born Citizen.
The upper case “C” is there for a reason….
“American” does not necessarily imply “State Citizen”!!
“Americans” can also be born in D.C., or Puerto Rico,
neither of which are States of the Union.
READ ON …
Notice how the existence of two classes of citizens in America
is clouded by use of the terms “citizen” and “American” below;
as we now know, in the Qualifications Clauses the term “Citizen”
is spelled with an UPPER-CASE “C”:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag5_user.html#art2_hd22
Clause 5. No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been Fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
[Ed. Note how a lower-case "c" creeps into this research discussion, however.]
QUALIFICATIONS
All Presidents since and including Martin Van Buren were born in the United States subsequent to the Declaration of Inde[p.434]pendence. The only issue with regard to the qualifications set out in this clause, which appears to be susceptible of argument, is whether a child born abroad of American parents is “a natural born citizen” in the sense of the clause. Such a child is a citizen as a consequence of statute.94 Whatever the term “natural born” means, it no doubt does not include a person who is “naturalized.” Thus, the answer to the question might be seen to turn on the interpretation of the first sentence of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment, providing that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States” are citizens.95 Significantly, however, Congress, in which a number of Framers sat, provided in the Naturalization act of 1790 that “the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, . . . shall be considered as natural born citizens. . . .”96 This phrasing followed the literal terms of British statutes, beginning in 1350, under which persons born abroad, whose parents were both British subjects, would enjoy the same rights of inheritance as those born in England; beginning with laws in 1709 and 1731, these statutes expressly provided that such persons were natural–born subjects of the crown.97 There is reason to believe, therefore, that the phrase includes persons who become citizens at birth by statute because of their status in being born abroad of American citizens.98 Whether the Supreme Court would decide the issue should it ever arise in a “case or controversy” as well as how it might decide it can only be speculated about.
94 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 .
95 Reliance on the provision of an Amendment adopted subsequent to the constitutional provision being interpreted is not precluded by but is strongly militated against by the language in Freytag v. CIR, 501 U.S. 868, 886–887 (1991), in which the Court declined to be bound by the language of the 25th Amendment in determining the meaning of “Heads of Departments” in the appointments clause. See also id., 917 (Justice Scalia concurring). If the Fourteenth Amendment is relevant and the language is exclusive, that is, if it describes the only means by which persons can become citizens, then, anyone born outside the United States would have to be considered naturalized in order to be a citizen, and a child born abroad of American parents is to be considered “naturalized” by being statutorily made a citizen at birth. Although dictum in certain cases supports this exclusive interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 702– 703 (1898); cf. Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308, 312 (1961), the most recent case in its holding and language rejects it. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971).
96 Act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, 104 (emphasis supplied). See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 661–666 (1927); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 672–675 (1898). With minor variations, this language remained law in subsequent reenactments until an 1802 Act, which omitted the italicized words for reasons not discernable. See Act of Feb. 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604 (enacting same provision, for offspring of American–citizen fathers, but omitting the italicized phrase).
97 25 Edw. 3, Stat. 2 (1350); 7 Anne, ch. 5, Sec. 3 (1709); 4 Geo. 2, ch. 21 (1731).
98 See, e.g., Gordon,Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 L. Rev.1 (1968).
–
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Paul Andrew Mitchell, B.A., M.S.
Private Attorney General, Criminal Investigator and
Federal Witness: 18 U.S.C. 1510, 1512-13, 1964(a)
http://www.supremelaw.org/decs/agency/private.attorney.general.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/index.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/support.policy.htm
http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm
All Rights Reserved without Prejudice
Dan Smith, NY
Dear Phil -
Good day to the troops! I wonder if Connerat got his idea about this issue from Gen Apuzzo. See Connerat vs. Obama – 4/14/2009:
He has unlawfully seized power, knowing full well that he is ineligible; in fact, under the British Nationality Act of 1948, he remains a British subject, having never renounced his born allegiance, acquired via his father, to the United Kingdom. The specter of allowing and supporting a British President was an anathema to the Founding Fathers, and in particular to the first Chief Justice of the United States, John Jay, who believed the insertion of the words “natural born” to be of tremendous import, as stated in his July 25, 1787 letter to Gen. George Washington, the presiding Officer of the Constitutional Convention, in Philadelphia. “Permit me to hint,” wrote Jay, “whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the Administration of our national Govt., and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the Am. Army shall not be given to nor devolve on any but a natural born Citizen.”
Best to the Georgia, North Carolina corps,
Joe