Attorney Mario Apuzzo
What is hilarious is how John Woodman, who claims to be a conservative Republican, is running around the internet proclaiming that he has saved the United States, its Constitution, and not only putative President Barack Obama, but also Republicans, Sen. Marco Rubio and Sen. Bobby Jindal (all three were not born to citizen parents, both of whom are citizens of the United States at the time of their birth) from the “Birthers.” He adds that he has proven that Attorney Leo Donofrio’s and my position on the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is nothing but “lies.”
There is plenty of historical evidence that I have provided which shows that John Woodman is nothing more than a creation of his own mind and rhetoric. I have shown that history and legal precedents do not support what he and some others maintain is the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., any child simply born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of the parents. I have shown that at the Founding, unlike the states which put in place statutes and state constitutions which retained the English common law on the state level except to the degree those laws were abrogated by the state legislature, the national government did not adopt the English common law for the needs of the national government, but rather the law of nations which was natural law applied to the affairs of nations. In fact, unlike the states, there is nothing in the Constitution or any Act of Congress which suggests that the English common law continued to have any effect on the national level. I have shown that in that connection, we adopted the definition of a “natural-born citizen” as provided by Emer de Vattel in his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758), where he tells us:
The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
The definition that the law of nations provides, a definition that has been incorporated into American common law and recognized by Congress in 1790, 1795, 1802, and thereafter, is a child born in a country to citizen parents.
CONTINUED HERE: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/04/faux-claims-of-john-woodman-regarding.html
-ARTICLE II ELIGIBILITY FACTS HERE: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html
'
24 comments:
Sheriff joe went on meghan kelly yesterday and didn't say a word about obama's eligibility. HE IS A FUCKING FRAUD.
Instead of bragging about his amicus brief filings, he should wait until a court actually acknowledges that the briefs are meaningful.
Factcheck.org (Joe Miller) states Barack Obama's KENYAN citizenship EXPIRED in 1984 on his 23rd birthday. No Natural Born Citizen, could ever have their FOREIGN citizenship "expire"!
--Obama placed court seals on his student records and student loan records, because he attended Occidental College and Columbia University as a FOREIGN student! He even lived on campus at Occidental in the "International Dorm" which was restricted to FOREIGN students only!
Obama is INELIGIBLE to LAWFULLY hold the office of president.
and it's already embedded in current citizenship law
anybody who is a statutory citizen is not a natural born citizen
DUH
so just born here, or with only 1 US Citizen parent, those are just statutory citizens
no statutory citizen is ever a natural born citizen
senator leahy aleady stated that natural born citizens requires two parents who are US citizens
so did judge waite in 1870s Minor vs. Happersett case
no other supreme court case or constitutional amendment says otherwise in regard to article II definition of natural born citizen. NONE- NO HWERE.
Obama has already started his frontal assault on the judiciary to the point that the fools in the supreme (not so) of the Peach State have caved, bent over, surrendered to this treasonous usurpe.
This attack on the judiciary over Obamacare is political misdirect slight of hand since the primary goal is really shoring up the defences (offences) to protect his hide over obamafraudgate.
His intimidation as far as the media will tell you is over Obamacare but he is covering his tracks over future eligibility claims at which point he will state that activism is what is taking him down not his violation of the law.
@Anonymous
Complete and utter made-up BS.
Leahy did not say (nor would he be correct if he did) that nbc "requires" two citizen parents. McCain happened to have two citizen parents. That does not mean it's required. It's clearly not.
Minor is not precedent for nbc and does not state that two citizen parents are required to be nbc. Recently several courts have confirmed that is nonsense.
Woodman wasn't needed to prove Donofrio's and Apuzzo's "position" on nbc to be lies, history, the Constitution and the courts did that long ago.
@Anonymous
Which they won't.
Why would Associate supreme court Judge Clarence Thomas say, 'That's an issue we're avoiding.' If there was no issue? Wouldn't he have willingly claimed that the issue was settled law, otherwise?
Who better then a Supreme court justice could have put this 'issue' to bed and didn't or couldn't when challenged? If the issue is crap on the floor you walk around it, thus avoiding the 'issue'. If there is no crap on the floor what are you avoiding, dancing oddly around a non existent turd?
I am not anonymous I'm Bob M. from Ohio
The U.S. Constitution itself specifically differentiates "natural born Citizen" from "citizen" AND elevates the former above the latter by virtue of the fact that ONLY a "natural born Citizen" may serve in the highest government position while any "citizen" may serve in any lower government position.
SCOTUS case Minor v Happersett specifically defined the term "natural born Citizen" as born to citizen parents and, since it has never been over-ruled/over-turned, remains precendent.
Obama's claimed father was never a U.S. citizen and, therefore, per SCOTUS precedent, Obama cannot be a "natural born Citizen". PERIOD!
The constitution died on January 20, 2009.
Isn't John Woodman that DemocRAT from Utah that was running for the GOP presidential nomination?
I think they had him there to make the other RINOS look good.
Yeah, his opinion is really important!
@Anonymous
Arizona Sperior Court judge ruled that Minor v.Happersett does not say this. Mario needs to file amicus brief in this appeal.
Fourth Circuit Court judge in Tisdale v. Obama says it is settled law that anyone born in the US is natural born.
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana said that Minor decision did not define natural born.
This is a losing argument in the courts.
Mario needs to start by writing a law review article and getting it published. He needs to convince the people who teach Constitutional Law that his interpetation is the correct one.
Until someone starts to educate the next generation of lawyers and judges, the Minor decision will never mean what you and Mario want it to mean.
Have you noticed that the word "Kenyan" is verboten from many blogging sites? What is up with that? Bad word?
@Torch n PitchForks
I don't think they're the same guy.
@Anonymous
Yes, Leahy DID state that---there's even a audio tape of it! And Barack Obama signed THAT Resolution! (Leahy stated: Now it's to my understanding that a natural born citizen is one born to two citizen parents, is that everybody else's understanding?" Another Senator said, "yes, that's to my understanding of the Constitution, as well.")
I'm going to try one more time to explain why Minor vs. Happersett does not fly with any Court.
I'm going to paraphrase, because I'm tired of cutting and pasting from the original ruling:
It simply states that THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THOSE BORN OF PARENTS WHO ARE CITIZENS, ARE NATURAL BORN CITIZENS.
For those who need remedial English reading classes, this is an INCLUSIVE statement. No different than saying, BILLIONAIRES ARE RICH! Or, LAWYERS ARE COLLEGE GRADUATES. And for the real thick ones: HUNGRY PEOPLE EAT!
Get it? It does NOT SAY that those born of other parents ARE NOT Natural Born Citizens. Just as you don' have to be a billionaire to be rich! And sure as Hell, you don't have to be a lawyer to be a College graduate. And you don’t have to be hungry to eat!
If you read the entire ruling, it even specifies that other "authorities" believe that the citizenship of parents does not matter. And finally, it even says that is not the purpose of the ruling to define who is a Natural Born Citizen.
I fully agree that the Founding Fathers had in mind an NBC according to Vattel. Nevertheless, none of the Supreme Court Rulings commonly cited define who IS NOT an NBC. There may be one somewhere, but Minor vs. Happersett is not it!
Everyone knows that this Pile of Living Garbage has FORGED birth certificate. That means that he is not ANY kind of citizen… Go after that!
I agree with Torch n PitchForks @ 6:51PM. Let's just say Barry is NBC for the sake of argument. If he went to Pakistan as an adult (which he did) on an Indonesian passport and then attended college as a foreign student, plus availed himself of any scholarships, grants, loans, etc., available to foreign students only, then he has given up his U.S. citizenship and must be Naturalized. He would then give up any chance at eligibility for POTUS by using a foreign passport and posing as a foreign student seeking funds (and attempting to commit or committing fraud) in the U.S.
Additionally, the signed sworn affadavit of the Ayers parents' mailman stated that Obama was introduced to the mailman as a foreign student. Would the mailman put his security and reputation on the line unless it were the truth? I think not, as he would not have anything to gain by this, but a lot to lose.
Barry Soetoro enters Occidental College but after the summer break he shows up at Columbia University as "Barack Obama"?
You just can't make up a name and start using it without going to court to LEGALLY change your name. No record exists showing Obama legally filed for a change of name.
@Anonymous
No he attended Occiental as Barry Obama. In fact that is the name he used from the 5th grade through the begining of his College years.
“WHY THE SUPREME COURT WILL STRIKE DOWN ALL OF OBAMACARE”
By Peter Ferrara
Excerpt:
“Barack Obama made a national laughingstock out of himself with his recent comments on the
Obamacare law now before the Supreme Court. Obama said on Monday, “I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” (emphasis added).
President Obama is not stupid. But he thinks you are. He knows the Obamacare health care takeover was not passed by a strong majority. But he figures you’re so dumb he can rewrite recent history in plain sight. The law passed a House with a huge Democrat majority at the time by only 219-212. It did not get a single Republican vote, but the opposition was bipartisan.
The law also barely squeaked past a Senate filibuster despite an overwhelming 60 Senate Democrats, and even then humiliating buyoffs were necessary. Public opposition was so strong that the ultraliberal Democrat controlled Massachusetts, the only state to go for George McGovern in 1972, elected a Republican in a special election for Sen. Ted Kennedy’s seat, to terminate the Democrats’ filibuster-proof majority. That required final passage of the law improperly in violation of Congressional rules as a reconciliation measure, which is only to be used to clean up the budget and so cannot be filibustered.
And given that Obama is so certain you can’t remember what happened just two years ago, he is more than certain that you have never heard of the ancient history of Marbury v. Madison, where the 14-year old Supreme Court in 1803 took the then unprecedented step of overturning a provision of law adopted by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress, in the Judiciary Act of 1789. That case was where the Supreme Court first recognized its power of judicial review, under which it is empowered to strike down laws found unconstitutional. As the Wall Street Journal observed on Tuesday:
“In the 209 years since, the Supreme Court has invalidated part or all of countless laws on grounds that they violated the Constitution. All of these laws were passed by a ‘democratically elected’ legislature of some kind, either Congress or in one of the states. And no doubt many of them were passed by ‘strong’ majorities….probably stronger majorities than passed the Affordable Care Act.”
See The Forwarded Entire Article Here From The Wonderful Website: http://www.MichaelSavage.com:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/04/05/why-the-supreme-court-will-strike-down-all-of-obamacare/
The sad fact is - we can argue till our faces turn blue, with all the historical docs and factual evidences, it is useless, simply because they are all scared to death to address this issue honestly.
"They" insist that being born in USA makes one a natural born citizen. Well then show genuine, original docs to impartial party to scrutinize and prove without a doubt his place of birth!
Of course they WILL NOT do it - they say the online digital images are the real thing despite a law enforcement officail has determined there is probable cause that they are forgeries!
No one can win any arguments with the left because all levels of gov are on their side!
The only way is to vote him out (even though obozo is inelgible to be on the ballot)!
He was 'voted in' in 2008 and they consider it legitimate, so when he is voted out in 2012, it will be legitimate! See if they can void the votes and declare obozo win!
Certainly they will commit fraud again to steal another election in 2012 - that's way we must have massive voter turn-out to VOTE HIM OUT!
Ignore 'financial crisis', 'martial law' or his 'civilian armies'! Give them h*** if they dare to do that! WE CAN ONLY TAKE SO MUCH!
VOTE OUT THE USURPER!!!!
CHRIS IN NJ
@Anonymous
anonymaous at 3:49
The Minor decision said: as to the first (born in USA to USA citizen parents) there is no doubt, but as to the others there is doubt....
So it effectively determines that nbc is definitely one born on US soil to US parents.
As for all others - there is/are doubt(s).
So the left can't ignore (actually no one can ignore) this supreme court saying and take it on themselves to conclusively determine that those born in USA, disregarding parentage, are nbc!
Ankeny is wrong - Minor case shows 'no doubt' that nbc = only those born on US soil to 2 US parents; others? doubtful - that means it must be proven/ruled definitively. Where is the definitive rule/proof? Can the denier cite any real cases ruling nbc = born on USA but never mind the parents's citizenship? Even obozo himself, Hillary, Leahy and ex-Homeland security chief Chertoff declared a nbc is one born to 2 USA parents!
Chris NJ
Georgia Supreme Court
Farrar v. Obama et al.
Disposition Date: April 11, 2012
Application denied
All the Justices concur.
http://www.gasupreme.us/docket_search/results_one_record.php?caseNumber=S12D1180
Post a Comment
“As long as I am an American citizen and American blood runs in these veins I shall hold myself at liberty to speak, to write, and to publish whatever I please on any subject.” - Elijah Parish Lovejoy(1802-1837)
Comments posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of BirtherReport.com. Readers are solely responsible for the content of the comments they post on this web site.