Source: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/04/
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 01:04:37+00:00

Document:
I received an email today regarding our fifth President, James Monroe. What struck me as being applicable today was the article that was attached to the email. The article was a little biography on President Monroe. In that article is contained a part that included President Monroe’s concern about possible usurpation in our government. Below is my reflection on this article.
That these blessings may be preserved and perpetuated will be the object of my fervent and unceasing prayers to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe."
Source: Monroe, James. Dec. 2, 1817, First Annual Message. James D. Richardson (U.S. Representative from Tennessee), ed., A Compilation of the Messages & Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, 10 vols. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, published by Authority of Congress, 1897, 1899; Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Literature & Art, 1789-1902, 11 vols., 1907, 1910), Vol. II, p. 12, as found at http://www.americanminute.com/ .
President Monroe was most dedicated to preserving the great nation that the United States had become. He saw usurpation as a most serious threat to that preservation.
Why was President Monroe so concerned about usurpation? To whom could Monroe have been referring when he spoke about “an usurper?” How could such a person become “an usurper?” Actually, Monroe answered this question by telling us that it was when the people became “ignorant and corrupt” that an usurper will come to power which in the end would produce the “debasement and ruin” of those same people.
What would make some political leader “an usurper” in the eyes of President Monroe? If it was the President and Commander in Chief of the Military that concerned Monroe, was it lack of being at least 35 years of age, of having at least 14 years of residency in the United States, or not being a "natural born Citizen" (the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 eligibility requirements) that so worried him? Who else other than the President could be so important and powerful in our government to give Monroe such concern about “an usurper?” Given the structure and balance of power in our government, it could only have been the President to whom Monroe was referring. And would Monroe be so concerned about age and residency or was it lack of being a "natural born citizen" that so worried him? After all, is it not from being a “natural born Citizen” that sole allegiance to and love of only one country from birth come from? Such love and attachment to only one country from birth would surely have been something that Monroe thought was needed for the well-being, happiness, and preservation of the United States.
This concern by Monroe makes the point about how important it is for us as a nation to assure that the “natural born Citizen” clause is not only honored and protected today, but preserved for the well-being and happiness of future American generations. But for this to occur, the nation must make sure that ill-informed or corrupt people do not allow such an usurpation to occur or to continue.
Our current putative President, Barack Obama, does not meet the constitutional definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” That definition is a child born in the United States to two parents who at the time of the child’s birth were both either “citizens of the United States” or “natural born Citizens.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) ("all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners"); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (acknowledging and confirming Minor’s American common law definition of a “natural-born citizens” but adding based on the English common law that “‘[t]he child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle [birth in the country]’” (bracketed information supplied)). This American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” has never been changed, not even by the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore still prevails today.
Not being a “natural born Citizen, either because he was not born in the United States or because he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents or both, is Obama the usurper of whom President Monroe warned us?
Today, April 10, 2012, Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran had their Barack Obama primary ballot objection heard by Deputy Director and Administrative Law Judge, Jeff S. Masin, at the Office of Administrative Law, 9 Quakerbridge Plaza, Mercerville (Hamilton Twp.), New Jersey 08619. The case started about 9:30 a.m. and lasted to about 1:00 p.m. I represented the Objectors. Mr. Obama was represented by Alexandra Hill of the firm of Genova, Burn & Giantomasi of Newark, New Jersey.
We argued that Mr. Obama has not met his burden of showing that he is eligible to be on the New Jersey primary ballot by showing that he is a “natural born Citizen.” We argued that he has not presented any evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State showing who he is and that he was born in the United States. We also argued that as a matter of law, Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” because he was born to a father who was not a U.S. citizen.
After calling to the witness stand Mr. Moran and Mr. Purpura, who gave testimony as to why they brought the ballot challenge, and introducing documents showing there is a question as to Mr. Obama’s identity, I called Brian Wilcox to testify as an internet image expert. Mr. Wilcox was going to testify on how the Obama April 27, 2011, long-form birth certificate has been altered and manipulated either by computer software or by a human or both, producing a forged documents, and that since the image is not reliable, we need to see the original paper version. Obama’s lawyer objected to my proffered testimony. I then offered that I would not need to have Mr. Wilcox testify, provided that Obama stipulated that the internet image of his birth certificate could not be used as evidence by either Judge Masin or the New Jersey Secretary of States and that he presented to the court or the Secretary of State no other evidence of his identity or place of birth. Judge Masin also asked Obama’s attorney whether she would so stipulate. She did so stipulate, agreeing that both the court and the Secretary of State cannot rely on the internet birth certificate as evidence of Obama’s place of birth and that Obama has produced no other evidence to the court regarding his place of birth. She also argued that Obama has no legal obligation to produce any such evidence to get on the primary ballot. Judge Masin then took the issue under advisement. Having produced absolutely no evidence of his eligibility for the Office of President, Judge Masin will decide whether as a matter of law Obama has a legal duty to produce such evidence before he may be placed on the New Jersey ballot in light of the pending objection filed against him. If he decides that he does, then the Objection will be successful. If he decides that Obama has no such legal obligation, the Objection would fail on the first issue.
I argued that the Founders and Framers did not adopt the English common law to define the term, but rather natural law and the law of nations which under Article III became part of the “Laws of the United States.” I explained that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” comes from natural law and the law of nations as commented upon by Emer de Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations (1758), which definition was recognized as American “common-law” in Minor v. Happersett (1875). I also explained that Wong Kim Ark confirmed Minor’s definition (a child born in a country to citizen parents) and did not change it.
I explained that Congress through the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 abrogated the English common law as the law to define U.S. citizenship and that through those acts it told us that a child born in the United States to alien parents was an alien and not a “citizen of the United States.” I went through the historical evidence, including but not limited to Emer de Vattel and St. George Tucker, which shows that the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” as a child born in the country to citizen parents and not as the English common law defined a “natural born subject.” I explained how Madison wrote to Washington that at the constitutional convention, the delegates did not adopt the English common law for the new republic. I explained that the English common law continued to have effect in the states, even being included in their constitutions and statutes, but not on the federal level where both the Constitution and Acts of Congress did not do the same as the states did. I explained that there is a constitutional distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen,” and that the two terms cannot be conflated and confounded as per Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison, who told us that each clause of the Constitution must be given its own meaning. Judge Masin also reserved decision on the question of whether a “natural born Citizen” must be born to two U.S. citizen parents.
Judge Masin will be contacting counsel today or tomorrow morning either by telephone or email as to his decision, stating “yes” or “no” on both issues. He will then provide his written decision to the Secretary of State no later than Wednesday, April 11, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. Counsel will be able to object to Judge Masin’s initial decision. The Secretary of State will make the final decision. After her decision, the parties can then appeal to the New Jersey Appellate Division and then to the New Jersey Supreme Court. After that, the parties can appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.
New Jersey state statutes (N.J.S.A. 19:23-7 and N.J.S.A. 19:23-15) state that a person must be eligible to run for the office he or she seeks. They make no exception for someone running for the Office of President. N.J.S.A. 19:25-3 provides that a presidential candidate does not have to file his or her consent to be nominated for that office. But the statute does not say that such candidate does not have to show under the previous cited statutes that he or she is eligible for the office sought.
New Jersey statute N.J.S.A. 19:29-1(b) provides that voters can contest the New Jersey election of any candidate who is not eligible for the office he or she seeks.
Upon my request that she so stipulate, Obama’s lawyer agreed during the trial that there was absoulutely no evidence before the court as to who Obama is or where he was born, including excluding from evidence the internet image of Obama’s alleged Certificate of Live Birth he released on April 27, 2011. The ALJ confirmed that to be the case.
Yet, in his decision, the ALJ said that because he does not have to consent to his nomination it did not matter who Obama is or where he may be born because he has no legal obligation to show that he is constitutionally eligible to run in the New Jersey primary for the Office of President. During the hearing, ALJ had said that even "Mickey Mouse" could run for President.
The next step is an appeal directly to the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division.
Today, April 5, 2012, I filed with the New Jersey Secretary of State in Trenton, New Jersey, the Objection Of Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran To Petition Of Nomination Of Barack Obama, also Known As Barack Hussein Obama II, Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Soetoro, and Barack Hussein Obama Soebarkah. That office reviewed the Objection and decided that it did merit a hearing before an Administrative Law Judge.
The Objection to Obama’s nominating petition is that he has not provided competent and sufficient evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State showing his identity and that he was born in the United States, and that even if he were born in the United States, he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen” because he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents. The Objection therefore demands that the Secretary of State not permit Obama’s name to be printed on the primary and general election ballot.
There will be a plenary hearing on Tuesday, April 10, 2012, at 10:00 a.m. before an Administrative Law Judge at the Office of Administrative Law, 9 Quakerbridge Plaza, Mercerville (Hamilton Twp.), New Jersey 08619.
The Objection may be read at http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/88210603-Purpura-Moran-Objection-to-Obama-Nominating-Petition-4-5-12 .
UPDATE: The hearing will take place not at 10:00 a.m., as we were initial told by the New Jersey Division of Elections, but at 9:00 a.m. It will be before Deputy Director and Administrative Law Judge, Jeff S. Masin, on Tuesday, April 10, 2012, at the Office of Administrative Law, 9 Quakerbridge Plaza, Mercerville (Hamilton Twp.), New Jersey 08619.
I have been advised that there are reports on the internet that the court has already dismissed the case and that the hearing has been cancelled. These reports are false.
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.
I have shown that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 makes a critical constitutional distinction between an Article I “Citizen of the United States” and an Article II “natural born Citizen.” I have shown that this distinction necessarily means that any U.S. citizen who is not a “natural born Citizen” is only a “Citizen of the United States,” a member of American society and nothing more. I have shown that the Founders and Framers gave us only one and only one definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” which is a child born in the country to parents, both of whom are citizens of the United States at the time of such birth. I have shown that the Founders and Framers sought to have a "strong check" on foreign and monarchial influence and to make sure that it stayed out of the administration of government and the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. I have shown that Congress, through the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, showed us through a process of elimination that only a child born in the country to citizen parents did not come within the naturalization reach of any of those laws which means that it was only that child which Congress deemed to be a “natural born Citizen.” I have shown that influential and highly respected Founders, David Ramsay and St. George Tucker, both limited birthright citizenship after July 4, 1776 to the children of citizens and that Tucker even maintained that the "civil right" to be elected president belonged only to the children of citizens. I have shown that throughout American history, there has been debate as to the doubtful meaning of a “citizen of the United States,” but never as to the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” whose meaning has never been in doubt.
This time-honored natural law/law of nations/American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen” has also been recognized and accepted by a Founder and member of our U.S. Supreme Court as early as 1814 in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Chief Justice John Marshall dissenting and concurring for other reasons). It was also again confirmed by Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830) and Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830). It was again confirmed by Justice Daniels in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). I have shown that the original American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen” was not changed by either the Fourteenth Amendment or U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649 (1898), which only deal with a “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the same original definition of a “natural born Citizen” was again expressly confirmed by the whole U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649 (1898), and a lower federal court in Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) and United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890). Finally, this same definition was implicitly confirmed by Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) and Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964).
My essays on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” can be found at this blog, http://puzo1.blogspot.com/. Additionally, I wrote a brief which Attorney Karen Keifer filed in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in the ballot challenge in the case of In Re: Barack Hussein Obama, II et al Objection of : Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. and Dale A. Laudenslager. That brief may be read at http://www.scribd.com/doc/83104811/Kerchner-Laudenslager-v-Obama-Ballot-Challenge-Brief-on-Behalf-of-Objectors-Filed-28Feb2012. That brief thoroughly presents the evidence showing that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the United States to citizen parents, both of whom are citizens of the United States at the time of such birth. Finally, on March 20, 2012, I filed a proposed amicus curiae brief in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Tisdale v. Obama, No. 3: 12-cv-00036-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012) (order dismissing complaint) (dismissing in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and holding that “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens” and that plaintiff’s contentions otherwise are “without merit”), which is currently pending in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia. That brief, which can be accessed at http://www.scribd.com/doc/86241834/Tisdale-v-Obama-4th-Cir-Appeal-2012-03-20-Apuzzo-Amicus-Brief , contains a shortened version of the evidence and my arguments showing that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the United States to citizen parents, both of whom are citizens of the United States at the time of such birth.
of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.
Id. at 665-66 (citing and quoting Horace Binney, The Alienigenae of the United States Under the Present Naturalization Laws (1853)). Later in his opinion when he provides his holding, Justice Gray again emphasized that the child of an alien, "‘if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’” Id. at 693.
Now John Woodman wants to show that I am a “liar” by having the public view the first and third editions of Mr. Binney’s papers, but keeping from them the second edition which contains the above quoted language in the footnote by Mr. Binney. Here is the first edition, http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/4393418?n=1&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25&printThumbnails=no , and here is the third edition http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3301752.pdf?acceptTC=true& , which are the only two editions that John Woodman presents on his blog. A reading of these editions shows that the footnote does not contain the language quoted above. He does not present the second edition which is the only edition which contains the quoted language as part of the footnote and which Justice Gray relied upon in his Wong decision. The second edition can be read at Mr. Donofrio’s blog at http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/binney-2d.pdf.
Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark included the quoted Binney additional language from the second edition of Mr. Binney’s paper, even though the passage does not appear in either the first (December 1, 1853) or the third (Feb. 1854) editions of that paper. Justice Gray explained: “This paper, without Mr. Binney's name and with the note in a less complete form and not containing the passage last cited, was published (perhaps from the first edition) in the American Law Register for February, 1854. 2 Amer.Law Reg.193, 203, 204.” Id. at 666. As we can see, Justice Gray acknowledged all three editions of the Binney paper and said that the footnote in the second edition was the more complete and is the one from which he quoted the Binney passage. As John Woodman knows, using either the first or third editions of the Binney paper is much better for anyone trying to morph a “citizen of the United States” into a “natural born Citizen” and thereby erase the constitutional distinction between the two classes of citizens. It is critical that Justice Gray did not attempt to do what John Woodman tries, for Justice Gray, in the spirit of Chief Justice John Marshall who in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 163 (1803), cautioned that we cannot simply ignore clauses that are written in the Constitution, did not obliterate a “natural born Citizen” by blending one into a “citizen of the United States.” Rather, Justice Gray left intact Mr. Binney’s full footnote and inserted the complete language into his decision and by so doing acknowledged that he recognized that there are “citizens,” who also include those born in the United States to alien parents, and there are “natural born Citizens,” who only include those born in the United States to citizen parents. Justice Gray acknowledged that while both classes of persons were “citizens,” only the latter, who were born “in the country” to citizen parents, could be “natural-born citizens.” At that time, there probably was no better authoritative source than the second edition of the Binney paper which drove this point clearly home the way that Mr. Binney did in his complete footnote.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.