Tweet
Constitutional Attorneys Respond to Brett Baier’s Unconstitutional Definition of Natural Born Citizen
Birther Report
5/6/2012
Excerpt:
Article II Super PAC Email
"Following is a snapshot from constitutional voices from across the web who weighed in on Fox News Brett Baier’s unconstitutional definition of “natural born Citizen”. These statements are concise, factual and rooted in constitutional law. After reading them, keep them and use them to help advance Article II Super PAC’s goal to educate a majority of voters before the November elections. The electorate must be informed and we are counting on you to help us educate a majority of the voters with the facts.
Herb Titus, Esq.
William J. Olson, P.C.
“Bret Baer commits a common error. He assumes that "natural born citizen" means the same thing as "citizen by birth." They are not the same. A citizen by birth is one who by constitutional or statutory provision is made or recognized as a citizen based upon where or to whom he was born. Under Mr. Baer's view, a natural born citizen, then, is a citizen of a particular nation only by positive law. If a natural born citizen is defined by statute, as Mr. Baer claims he is, then by statute Congress can take away his natural born citizenship status, subject only to the 14th Amendment's definition of citizenship by birth. And even that citizenship can be taken away by an amendment to the constitution. Indeed, according to Mr. Baer, no one could have been eligible to be elected president UNLESS Congress passed a statute designating one's citizenship by birth, or until the 14th amendment definition of citizenship by birth was ratified.”
“A natural born citizen, by contrast, is not dependent upon Congress passing a statute or the constitution being amended. A natural born citizen is a citizen of a specific nation by the law of nature of citizenship. The law of nature of national citizenship is written into the very nature of the universe of nation-states, and is universal as to place, uniform as to person, and fixed as to time. By definition the law governing natural born citizenship exists independent of any human power, legislative or otherwise. That is why "natural born citizenship" is not defined in the Constitution. Such citizenship exists whether recognized by positive law or not. Such citizenship is God-given. To qualify one must be born to a father and a mother each of whom is a citizen of a particular state in order for the person to be "natural born" citizen of that state.”
###
Van Irion, Esq.
Liberty Legal Foundation
“Many of you have e-mailed about Fox News anchor Brett Baier’s claim that Obama is constitutionally qualified simply because he was born here. It should be clear that Mr. Baier is speaking beyond his knowledge. He is quite wrong. His comments displayed his ignorance about the basic structure of our government.”
“Congress cannot override the Constitution, or re-define any term in the Constitution, without going through the entire Amendment process. Anyone that claims that Congress re-defined “natural born citizen” as anyone born on U.S. soil, simply demonstrates their ignorance of how our government works. Congress simply doesn’t have the authority to re-define Article II “natural born citizen” without Amending the Constitution. Any attempts by Congress to do so are without effect. Congress has authority to make anyone born here a citizen, but they cannot re-define “natural born citizen” without Amending the Constitution.”
“Secondly, the 14th Amendment expanded who could be a citizen, not who could be a natural born citizen. If the framers of the 14th Amendment had wished to redefine "natural born citizen" they would have used that term in the Amendment. They did not. Therefore the 14th Amendment ONLY applies to the larger class of citizens, not the smaller class of "natural born citizens."
###
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Apuzzo Law Firm
“He fails to understand that “Citizens of the United States” and their “natural born Citizen” children already existed since after July 4, 1776 and before the Constitution was adopted in 1787. The Founding generation knew who those citizens were. That generation abandoned the English feudal and monarchial notion of subjecthood and perpetual allegiance to the King. They replaced the notion of membership in the civil society by calling their members “citizens” and “natural born Citizens” rather than “subjects” and “natural born subjects” and providing that children followed the political condition of their parents who by free will selected that condition for them until their age of majority at which time they were free to accept or change that choice, not that of some King without choice and for life. While the Constitution itself does not define a "natural born Citizen," historical evidence and case law from the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts do so. That evidence shows that a "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the United States to parents who at the time of their birth were both either "natural born Citizens" or "citizens of the United States." See my blog at http://puzo1.blogspot.com for a discussion of this historical evidence and case law.”
Read the rest of Apuzzo’s statement by clicking – http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Jerome Corsi
World Net Daily
“Baier incorrectly interprets that 8 USC Section 1401 was written to define ‘natural born citizen,’ as specified in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution,” he said. “The purpose of 8 USC Section 1401 is to define ‘nationals’ and ‘citizens’ of the United States ‘at birth.’”
Corsi explained that citizens at birth are not “natural born citizens” under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1.
“Nowhere in 8 USC Section 1401 does Congress make any mention of the term ‘natural born citizen’ or to Article 2, Section 1,” Corsi said.
He went onto say “To novices, the distinction between ‘citizen at birth’ and ‘natural born citizen’ may be trivial. Under law, the distinction is meaningful and important. A mother who takes advantage of ‘birth tourism’ to fly from Turkey or China (or any other foreign country) to have a baby born in the United States might arguably give birth to a ‘citizen at birth,’ under the meaning of the 14th Amendment, extended by 8 USC Section 1401,” Corsi said.”
“But consider that the mother and child return to China and Turkey and raise the child. The child does not learn to speak English and does not learn anything about U.S. history or culture. Yet at age 35, the child returns to the U.S., spends the necessary years here to meet the residency requirements under Article 2, Section 1, and runs for president.”
“He continued, “‘Natural Born Citizen’ is a term of natural law — it specifies that a child must be born in the USA to two parents who were U.S. citizens at birth.”
Read the rest of the Unruh article by clicking
- http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/law-prof-...n-eligibility/
............................................
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...espond-to.html
Birther Report
5/6/2012
Excerpt:
Article II Super PAC Email
"Following is a snapshot from constitutional voices from across the web who weighed in on Fox News Brett Baier’s unconstitutional definition of “natural born Citizen”. These statements are concise, factual and rooted in constitutional law. After reading them, keep them and use them to help advance Article II Super PAC’s goal to educate a majority of voters before the November elections. The electorate must be informed and we are counting on you to help us educate a majority of the voters with the facts.
Herb Titus, Esq.
William J. Olson, P.C.
“Bret Baer commits a common error. He assumes that "natural born citizen" means the same thing as "citizen by birth." They are not the same. A citizen by birth is one who by constitutional or statutory provision is made or recognized as a citizen based upon where or to whom he was born. Under Mr. Baer's view, a natural born citizen, then, is a citizen of a particular nation only by positive law. If a natural born citizen is defined by statute, as Mr. Baer claims he is, then by statute Congress can take away his natural born citizenship status, subject only to the 14th Amendment's definition of citizenship by birth. And even that citizenship can be taken away by an amendment to the constitution. Indeed, according to Mr. Baer, no one could have been eligible to be elected president UNLESS Congress passed a statute designating one's citizenship by birth, or until the 14th amendment definition of citizenship by birth was ratified.”
“A natural born citizen, by contrast, is not dependent upon Congress passing a statute or the constitution being amended. A natural born citizen is a citizen of a specific nation by the law of nature of citizenship. The law of nature of national citizenship is written into the very nature of the universe of nation-states, and is universal as to place, uniform as to person, and fixed as to time. By definition the law governing natural born citizenship exists independent of any human power, legislative or otherwise. That is why "natural born citizenship" is not defined in the Constitution. Such citizenship exists whether recognized by positive law or not. Such citizenship is God-given. To qualify one must be born to a father and a mother each of whom is a citizen of a particular state in order for the person to be "natural born" citizen of that state.”
###
Van Irion, Esq.
Liberty Legal Foundation
“Many of you have e-mailed about Fox News anchor Brett Baier’s claim that Obama is constitutionally qualified simply because he was born here. It should be clear that Mr. Baier is speaking beyond his knowledge. He is quite wrong. His comments displayed his ignorance about the basic structure of our government.”
“Congress cannot override the Constitution, or re-define any term in the Constitution, without going through the entire Amendment process. Anyone that claims that Congress re-defined “natural born citizen” as anyone born on U.S. soil, simply demonstrates their ignorance of how our government works. Congress simply doesn’t have the authority to re-define Article II “natural born citizen” without Amending the Constitution. Any attempts by Congress to do so are without effect. Congress has authority to make anyone born here a citizen, but they cannot re-define “natural born citizen” without Amending the Constitution.”
“Secondly, the 14th Amendment expanded who could be a citizen, not who could be a natural born citizen. If the framers of the 14th Amendment had wished to redefine "natural born citizen" they would have used that term in the Amendment. They did not. Therefore the 14th Amendment ONLY applies to the larger class of citizens, not the smaller class of "natural born citizens."
###
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
Apuzzo Law Firm
“He fails to understand that “Citizens of the United States” and their “natural born Citizen” children already existed since after July 4, 1776 and before the Constitution was adopted in 1787. The Founding generation knew who those citizens were. That generation abandoned the English feudal and monarchial notion of subjecthood and perpetual allegiance to the King. They replaced the notion of membership in the civil society by calling their members “citizens” and “natural born Citizens” rather than “subjects” and “natural born subjects” and providing that children followed the political condition of their parents who by free will selected that condition for them until their age of majority at which time they were free to accept or change that choice, not that of some King without choice and for life. While the Constitution itself does not define a "natural born Citizen," historical evidence and case law from the U.S. Supreme Court and other courts do so. That evidence shows that a "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the United States to parents who at the time of their birth were both either "natural born Citizens" or "citizens of the United States." See my blog at http://puzo1.blogspot.com for a discussion of this historical evidence and case law.”
Read the rest of Apuzzo’s statement by clicking – http://puzo1.blogspot.com
Jerome Corsi
World Net Daily
“Baier incorrectly interprets that 8 USC Section 1401 was written to define ‘natural born citizen,’ as specified in Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution,” he said. “The purpose of 8 USC Section 1401 is to define ‘nationals’ and ‘citizens’ of the United States ‘at birth.’”
Corsi explained that citizens at birth are not “natural born citizens” under the meaning of Article 2, Section 1.
“Nowhere in 8 USC Section 1401 does Congress make any mention of the term ‘natural born citizen’ or to Article 2, Section 1,” Corsi said.
He went onto say “To novices, the distinction between ‘citizen at birth’ and ‘natural born citizen’ may be trivial. Under law, the distinction is meaningful and important. A mother who takes advantage of ‘birth tourism’ to fly from Turkey or China (or any other foreign country) to have a baby born in the United States might arguably give birth to a ‘citizen at birth,’ under the meaning of the 14th Amendment, extended by 8 USC Section 1401,” Corsi said.”
“But consider that the mother and child return to China and Turkey and raise the child. The child does not learn to speak English and does not learn anything about U.S. history or culture. Yet at age 35, the child returns to the U.S., spends the necessary years here to meet the residency requirements under Article 2, Section 1, and runs for president.”
“He continued, “‘Natural Born Citizen’ is a term of natural law — it specifies that a child must be born in the USA to two parents who were U.S. citizens at birth.”
Read the rest of the Unruh article by clicking
- http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/law-prof-...n-eligibility/
............................................
View the complete Birther Report presentation at:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogs...espond-to.html