Continued from Kerchner v. Obama and the WHOLE COUNTRY. [This article has been updated 5/10/09 to reflect additional research.]
Once again we take up the painful task of reading the lawsuit that reads like a smear campaign, Kerchner v. Obama et al. The following sections are numbered per Apuzzo’s second (longer) amended complaint.
Points 71-74 state the well-accepted fact that Barack Obama’s father was not a United States Citizen. President Obama has himself acknowledged this on his own web site.
75. Under the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” Obama therefore cannot be a “natural born Citizen.” ENDNOTE 14.
14. The origins of the term “natural born Citizen’ and inclusion in the Constitution can be traced to a 1787 letter from John Jay to General George Washington. The letter specifically speaks about the reason for requiring the President to be a “natural born Citizen.” It was believed that there would be less of a chance to have foreign influences put upon the President and Commander in Chief of our Army (military forces) if the person serving as the President is a “natural born citizen”, i.e., being born on U.S. soil and being second generation via both his parents also being U.S. citizens. There thus would be no claim on the President from any foreign power and he would have no relatively recent allegiance and influence via family to a foreign power or from family living in a foreign country. Being a “natural born citizen” dramatically reduces the likelihood of such foreign influence. That is why John Jay, who was a major writer in The Federalist Papers which were critical in the ratification process of getting the Constitution approved, requested that the term be inserted into our Constitution. He was one of the founders who was very concerned about foreign influences being exerted on our new nation, especially on the President and Commander in Chief of the Army. He was not concerned about the loyalties of existing “original citizens” of the new country because they had openly fought for independence. And that is why the Article II grandfather clause is in there for them. But John Jay was very concerned about foreign influences on future Presidents and Commander in Chiefs. Thus he wrote the letter to General Washington. Washington agreed and had the clause put in the Constitution and the delegates agreed and approved it and the “We the People” of those days voted for it and ratified it. And it can only be changed now by a new amendment by today’s “We the People.” Jay would have obtained the term “natural born Citizen” from the leading legal treatise of those times, The Law of Nations (1758), E. Vattel, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212. This work was read not only by the Founding Fathers but was also well known throughout the colonies among the general population. Jay frequently cited this treatise in his writings. Additionally, the term “Law of Nations” is mentioned in the Constitution itself in Article I, Section 8 (defining piracy). There are also many references to The Law of Nations in The Federalist Papers, for the writers relied upon authors such as Vattel, among others. The Journal of Legal History, Volume 23, Issue 2, August 2002, pages 107 – 128.
Point 75 would seem false on the face of it, since Article II has no “definition” of natural born citizen, nor has the Supreme Court or legislation specifically defined it. But let’s examine the footnote. The footnote is a mixture of fact and unsupported assertions about who thought and who knew what.
While the phrase “The Law of Nations” appears in the Constitution, it is totally silly to assert that this is a reference to a partial title of a book whose real title is in French. Apuzzo provides no support for his fantastic assertion that “[The Law of Nations is] well known throughout the colonies among the general population”], given the rate of literacy in the population, the costliness of books, etc. it seems unlikely.
Footnote 14 says:
But John Jay was very concerned about foreign influences on future Presidents and Commander in Chiefs. Thus he wrote the letter to General Washington. Washington agreed and had the clause put in the Constitution and the delegates agreed and approved it and the “We the People” of those days voted for it and ratified it. And it can only be changed now by a new amendment by today’s “We the People.” Jay would have obtained the term “natural born Citizen” from the leading legal treatise of those times, The Law of Nations (1758), E. Vattel, Book 1, Chapter 19, Section 212.
1. There is no evidence of how the phrase “natural born citizen” was added to the Constitution at the behest of Jay, although it is plausible. We do not know that Washington agreed and had the clause added. The natural born citizen clause appeared late in the Convention’s work. Attributing the phrase to Vattel is of course completely spurious, since the English translation available at the time the Constitution was written does not include the phrase (in place of “natural born citizen” it has the untranslated word from the French “indegenes”).
2. You said “future Presidents and Commander in Chiefs” but the Jay letter only refers to Commander in Chief. At that time the two offices were not necessarily tied together. Jay didn’t know; he wasn’t at the constitutional convention and their deliberations were kept secret.
3. You said “Jay would have obtained the term “natural born Citizen” from the leading legal treatise of those times, The Law of Nations (1758), but again the term was not in de Vattel when it was translated from French to English in 1759 nor in the first American edition in 1787. The phrase “natural born citizen” did not appear in de Vattel translations until a dozen years after the Constitution was written. The leading legal treatise of the time was Blackstone’s Commentaries, not The Law of Nations.
4. Would you assert that the Massachusetts Acts from 1776-1790 and those of New York (1770) also get their usage from de Vattel? They seem to infer rather strongly that natural born citizenship is equivalent to birth location.
The fact of the matter is that the First Congress passed an immigration law (1790) which allowed the children of two citizens overseas to be “natural born citizens”, an act which would be unnecessary if de Vattel’s book was what defined citizenship since in his view, and according his philosophical treatise The Law of Nations, one citizenship status always f0llows one’s father.
In subsequent court cases (except for the infamous Dred Scott v. Sanford) original intent citizenship has been defined according to the common law in effect at the time of the ratification of the Constitution, and that was exclusively one of place of birth and NOT de Vattel’s
racist-leaning arguments in The Law of Nations. This was particularly argued by the Supreme Court of New York in Lynch v. Clarke (1844) and by the US Supreme Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
Apuzzo’s argument has already been rejected by the Supreme Court in Wong. He’s trying to re-try Wong in the “court of public opinion“.
One must also point out that President Chester A. Arthur was also born of a British citizen father too.
- The “Natural Born Citizenship” Clause (Updated)
- The Assassination of Chester A. Arthur
- Natural Born Citizenship For Dummies
- Wikipedia article on Natural Born Citizenship
- The Great Mother of All Natural Born Citizen Quotation Pages
- Two Kinds of Citizen
- SCOTUS & “Natural Born Citizen” – A Compendium
- Judge and Jury: Arguments on “natural born citizen”
- Associated Press: Obama “plainly” natural born citizen
- Appeals Court on Natural Born Citizen
- De Vattel for Dummies
- De Vattel: Revisited
Until late last year when the disinformation campaign started, Americans did and always have overwhelmingly understood that to be president, one has to be born in the United States, without regard for who one’s parents are, because this is all it takes to be a citizen and “natural born citizen” means nothing more or less that “citizen at birth”. Even de Vattel understood it that way. The courts and Congress understand it that way. I daresay Apuzzo understands it that way too.
Next we pick up in the fictional narrative of Barack Obama’s life with an alleged adoption by his step father, Indonesian national, Lolo Soetoro.
76. Obama was adopted by his mother’s second husband, Lolo Soetoro, an
Indonesian citizen, and taken to Indonesia. It is likely that Obama lost whatever
citizenship he had and became a citizen of Indonesia upon his adoption.
No evidence has ever been presented of such an adoption. However, even if it had happened both US and Indonesian law would have prevented any change in Obama’s citizenship status. For more information see Hollister v. Indonesian Citizenship Law.
77. There also are questions raised about Obama’s move to Indonesia when he
was a child and his attendance at school there when only Indonesian citizens were allowed in that nation’s schools. His school records indicate his citizenship as Indonesian.
The school record (assuming it is genuine) notwithstanding, both US and Indonesian law would have prevented any change in Obama’s citizenship status. For more information see Hollister v. Indonesian Citizenship Law. The comment that only Indonesian citizens were allowed in the nation’s schools is a silly made up factoid.
78. Obama also stated publicly that he traveled to Pakistan in the 1980s. But
such travel was forbidden to American citizens at that time. There therefore exists a legitimate question as to what type of passport and declaration of citizenship Obama used to gain entry into Pakistan.
It is a well-documented fact that the travel ban to Pakistan is a myth. For documentation see Barack Obama traveled to Pakistan on an Indonesian passport (updated).
Points 79-83 argue that Barack Obama may be “an illegal alien”; however this argument relies on Barack Obama not being born in Hawaii which is preposterous given a birth certificate, a newspaper birth announcement and confirmation by Hawaiian Health Department Officials.
I think this ends the part of the suit dealing with the quo warranto claim and the part connected with Obama citizenship denial and conspiracy theories. One notes also that private citizens have no right to bring quo warranto claims in federal court.
Over 200 more points remain and my sympathy goes out to the poor law clerk and judge in New Jersey who is going have to deal with this stuff. Given the number of lies in the pleading, I suggest a nice fat Rule 11 sanction.