Saturday, July 25, 2009

Putting the pressure on congress!!!

This is a recent email I sent to Senator Byron Dorgan; with a copy to Senator Kent Conrad, Representative Earl Pomeroy, and Governor John Hoeven of North Dakota. And I thought I would share it here.

Byron -- First, your duty is to the State of North Dakota and the Constitution of the United States of American; that you are failing to carry out.

I can appreciate your not wanting to revisit Obama's birthright; but, not doing so makes you complicit in his cover up of his true citizenship status.

You again state that he was born in Hawaii, and therefore he is a "Natural Born Citizen", I disagree, at best he could only be a Citizen of the United States of America, that is NOT a Native or Natural Born Citizens by any stretch of the imagination; from what legal source do did you determine he is in fact a "Natural Born Citizen"?

If you will read Article II of the United States Constitution, and then look at Vattel's Law of Nations which the founding fathers used in their drafting of the constitution you will find volumes on native/natural born citizenship.

To be born a native/natural born citizen it cannot be bestowed on any one by a act of legislation, or a court of law; this can only be by birth to two (2) United States Citizens.

I know you, along with the other members of both houses of congress as still in denial. Your candidate won, but it is not about the issue of candidates or who won it is about the Constitution of the United States of America.

It is being extensively reported that Congress was well aware of the eligibility issue before they ever came to a conformation vote. All 535 of you, because of this knowledge, were in fear of overturning the election because of the riots that would certainly have occurred; and because you did not want to be labeled Racists; while in fact ignoring your constitutional duty.

Dick Chaney was as much to fault for this occurring as was every member of the certifying congress. You all, the entire congress and President of the Senate, Dick Cheney, violated your oaths of office; by basically wimping out when you should have stood up or our constitution. It is part of your oath of office.

Now, read this, Obama, even if he was born in Hawaii, can never be a "Native/Natural Born Citizen" you cannot get there by legislation; it has to be a procreation act by two (2) already United States Citizens; that is a natural act as Vattel describes it in the Law of Nations. Therefore, even if Obama was born in Hawaii only one of his parents considered a United States Citizen; One is not Two (plural). His father was a Kenyan, a British Subject, by Obama's own admission, though well documented in research, therefore there is a missing citizenship link here.

Many will argue that Common Law says otherwise, but remember this, English Common Law had no effect on US Laws or Statutes since the founding fathers did not use English Common Law as a reference tool while drafting the constitution of the United States of America; and guess why, they were throwing of the yoke of British oppression, and the King's Law.

International Law has not place in the United States Legislature or the Judicial System as much as the liberal/socialist/Marxists of this country would like it to be a deciding factor in our legal system.

By Constitutional Law none of you in congress or Dick Cheney can be held liable for your failures, and cannot be arrested or prosecuted while sitting, going and coming from congress; but you al can be held liable by the people who elect you and that my friend is coming home to roost. Also remember treason is punishable for acts or lack of acts committed in legislative sessions; and is not exempt from being carried out when discovered and prosecuted in the federal courts.

So when you tell (me) you do not want to revisit Obama's ineligibility again, I can understand where you stand on the Constitution of the United States of American; and that you are unwilling to defend it when it does not suit your needs, or the need of the liberal/socialist agenda that has been building over the last 50 years.

For me, I am, 1st a Constitutionalist and, I believe the founding fathers had it right when the held that the legislature would try to meddle in the very constitution they were about to ratify, that they need(ed) safeguards, and they were right; 2nd I am a Capitalist/Free Enterprise/Market person; I believe that any thing congress gets there hands on they will screw it up, management by committee never works, I believe that the wealth of the nation is in its people, who when left alone will get it right, and prosper; will they fail at times, yes; but it will be their failure and learning curve; will people get hurt along the way, yes; but again it is a learning experience; will be people get taken advantage of, yes, but that is also a learning experience, and if they learn anything from the experience they won't put themselves in that position again; can the people along the way have a redress to their problems, yes, but they need to take the initiative. Congress reminds me of the father and mother who ride herd over their offsprings to the point of not letting them fail at anything, and therefore direct their entire lives; this is what congress, and the president, are doing today, and have done in the past.

Too big to fail, I don't think so, let the free market place take care of the ills of capital wrongly placed or misdirected.

So will you hear from me again, yes, will I drop the Obama eligibility issue, no; the only way you can shut me up is to restrict my access to your eamil; then I will have to resort to snail mail and pay the postage, which by the way has gone up another $.02; good management by that organization; maybe we should out source this to the United Parcel Service; they have to turn a profit or their shareholders get real excited, I believe they are a little more efficient that the USPS could ever hope to be, even with a change in management; point to ponder.

As always, I am still here.

Jim Buzzell
Retired Senior Chief Petty Officer
United States Navy


  1. Re: "Then look at Vattel's Law of Nations which the founding fathers used in their drafting of the constitution you will find volumes on native/natural born citizenship."

    Sure Vattel said it. The question is whether the writers of the Constitution followed Vattel. There is no evidence that they did. They did not follow his advice on other things.

    No member of the Constitutional Convention actually said "Let's follow Vattel on the issue of Natural Born." Nor did anyone say "to be President, a person has to have two US citizen parents."

    The term "Natural Born Citizen," which is used in Article II of the Constitution, comes from the laws in the colonies before the Revolution, which referred to a "Natural Born Subject." And natural born subjects were people who were born in the colony regardless of the number of their parents who were already subjects. (This must have included people with dual nationality because if someone was born in Georgia or another colony to French parents, he would be considered a Natural Born Citizen, despite the fact that even in those days he would also have nationality in France because France considered someone to be French if they had French parents).

    I can show you quotations from leaders at the time of the Constitution in which "Natural Born Citizen" is used as a synonym for "Natural Born Subject." In particular, John Adams, John Jay, and Benjamin Franklin used "Natural Born Citizen" as a synonym to "Natural Born Subject" in their drafts of the treaty of peace between Britain and the USA.

    And that is why such prominent conservative Senators who are also lawyers as Orren Hatch and Lindsay Graham say that a Natural Born Citizen is simply one who was born in the USA:

    Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), said:

    “Every child born in the United States is a natural-born United States citizen except for the children of diplomats.” (December 11, 2008 letter to constituent)

    Senator Orrin G. Hatch (R-UT), said:

    “What is a natural born citizen? Clearly, someone born within the United States or one of its territories is a natural born citizen.” (Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hearing on OCTOBER 5, 2004)

  2. To: SMRStrauss

    We will continue to dialog on this issue since I find your assumption worth exploring further.

    Please bring your references to Natural Born Subject used as a synonym for Natural Born Citizen.

    Judge Jay, Adams and Franklin, as well as the rest of the founding fathers, were using Vatell as their reference; not the Common Law of England or the King's Law. Their reference material was three copies of Vatell's Law of Nations, which was still in French and not translated, which Franklin ordered for the founding fathers, keeping one copy for his personal reference tool. There was never any reference to the copies of the Common Law of England or the King's Law mentioned by the founding fathers being used as a reference while drafting the constitution, nor any of its ammendments that I can recall.

    Remember, the founding father were throughing off the yoke of The British Empire, Why would they use the Common Law of England or the King's Law which they were trying to make sure never saddled this nation; once the constitution was written and ratified?

    The founding fathers in their infinite wisdom reserved the definition of what and how a "Natural Born Citizen", sometimes using Native Born Citizen as a synonym, occurred.

    To be a "Natural/Native Born Citizen" requires a "procreative act" by two, not one, US Citizens; in Obama's case even if it were to be determined he is a US Citizen there is still a missing link; the other US Citizen in the chain of events.

    If you correctly read the constitution you will also see that the founding fathers reserved to the constitution the right to determine how a "Natural/Native Born Citizen" is created; they specifically exempted congress from the right to make that decision; instead leaving congress to determine and establishe the rules to become a US Citizen, which is not a
    "Natural Born Citizen".

    You also sighted Senators Graham and Hatch as an authority on this issue in their declarations. I find both of them in error; which comes from years of not practing law, but sitting in the Senate; if they were to re-read the constitution and ammendments I am sure they would ammend their statements. Interesting enough the statements made in McCain's Senate Resolution was in error also; and remember Congress does not get to determing how a "Natural Born Citizen" is made, and that is what they did in my opinion, their determination was; because McCain was born to TWO US Citizens while his naval father was stationed in Panama made him a "Natural Born Citizen", again they cannot determine that since it is in direct conflict with the US Constitution since it requires the child be born on soverign soil, US soil, if you will; and that did not happen. Why, because all US Military Bases overseas are not sovereign soil since they are controlled by a least agreements with the countries they are located in; had McCain been born on the US Embassy grounds in Panama then he would have met the requirements since all embassies are sovereign territory of the embassy and not considered foriegn soil.

    Isn't this fun?

  3. Yes. I think it is fun.

    Re the quotations. Here they are. They are a little tough to get through, so let me show a very short section from the quotations first so that you can see where the gist is. Both full quotations are from drafts of the Peace Treaty between the USA and Britain after the Revolution. Neither draft, I believe was actually adopted, but all that I am trying to show is that Natural Born Citizen was used as a synonym for Natural Born Subject. The, when you look up the definition of Natural Born Subject, you will see that it means that someone was born in the country (except for the children of diplomats).

    Here is the short selection from the full quotations:

    "...subjects of the Crown of Great Britain shall enjoy in all and every of Said United States, all Rights, Liberties, Privileges and Immunities and be Subject to the Duties and Allegiance of natural born Citizens of the Said States---and, on the other hand, all the citizens of the Said United States shall enjoy in all and every of the Dominions of the Crown of Great Britain all Rights, Liberties, Privileges and Immunities and be Subject to the Duties and Allegiance of natural born Subjects of that Crown, excepting Such Individuals of either Nation as the legislature of the other shall judge fit to exempt."

    You see the parallelism: subjects of Britain will have the rights of Natural Born Citizens, and citizens of the USA will have the rights of Natural Born Subjects.

  4. Here is the full quotation:

    Draft Articles to Supplement the Preliminary Anglo-American Peace Treaty [ca 27 April 1787 [in Paris]

    Articles agreed on by David Hartley Esq., Minister Plenipotentiary of His Brittanic Majesty for &c in behalf of said Majesty on the one part, and J.A. [John Adams], B.F. [Benjamin Franklin], J.J. [John Jay] and H.L [Henry Livingston, who was also at the US Embassy in France, but is not as famous as the other three], ministers plenipotentiary of the United States of America for treating of peace….in addition to the articles agreed on the 30th day of November 1782…The subjects of the Crown of Great Britain shall enjoy in all and every of Said United States, all Rights, Liberties, Privileges and Immunities and be Subject to the Duties and Allegiance of natural born Citizens of the Said States---and, on the other hand, all the citizens of the Said United States shall enjoy in all and every of the Dominions of the Crown of Great Britain all Rights, Liberties, Privileges and Immunities and be Subject to the Duties and Allegiance of natural born Subjects of that Crown, excepting Such Individuals of either Nation as the legislature of the other shall judge fit to exempt."

    End quotation

    Another way of wording the same thing, in another draft, was that “the subjects of his Brittanic Majesty and the citizens of the United States shall mutually be considered as Natural born Subjects & enjoy all rights and privileges as such in the Respective Dominions and Territories in the manner heretofore accustomed.”

    What does this mean? It means that as far as the writers of this document were concerned (Adams, Franklin, Jay and Livingston on the US side), the term natural born citizen is equivalent to natural born subject.

    The term “natural born citizen” meant to these US writers just what “natural born subject” meant to the British. It could not be that in the arrangement for equal treatment between the USA and Britain, that someone had to have two US parents to be treated just the same as a natural born subject in Britain who simply had to be born in the British realm.

  5. The question is where do you get the idea that a Natural Born Citizen requires two US parents? Did any of the writers of the Constitution say it? Sure, Vattel said it, but he recommended many things that the Constitution did not adopt, so where is the evidence that the writers of the Constitution followed his advice and did not use "Natural Born" to mean the same thing that they were familiar with in the Colonial laws that used "Natural Born Subject" to mean someone who was born in the territory?

    Subjects and Citizens are different, sure, but the question is what is the proof that they different where their parents are concerned? Why, unless there is a framer saying so, does "natural born citizen" require two parents while "natural born subject" merely requires birth in the country?

    This is what Blackstone said: This is what Blackstone said:

    "The children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects and entitled to all the privileges of such. In which the constitution of France differs from ours; for there, by their jus albinatus, if a child be born of foreign parents, it is alien.”

    (And the minor exceptions referred to in “generally speaking” refers to the children of foreign diplomats.)

    Sure, Vattel disagreed with this and said two citizen parents are required, but there is no evidence that the writers of the Constitution followed Vattel. Jay, who used the term "Natural Born Citizen" in his letter to Washington, can be shown in the quotations above to be using Natural Born from the legal expression he was familiar with, "Natural Born Subject."

    Re: McCain. The resolution by the US Senate has no weight whatsoever. A law requires passage by both houses of Congress and signature by the president (unless passed over a veto by two-thirds vote), and this was merely one house that wrote a special bill for one of its members.

    The thing that the Senate was trying to do was to add another category to the ONE clear definition of Natural Born Citizen, which is born in the USA. It wanted to add that two US parents make a Natural Born Citizen, so long as the child is born on a US base. Whether this is true or not, or if McCain was actually born on the Base (Colon Hospital was outside the Canal Zone) will never be known and is irrelevant.

    The resolution was not passed with the motive of taking back the original definition of Natural Born Citizen (born in the USA), and it could not because that would require a Constitutional Amendment. So the original meaning continues.

    So, I continue to say that Graham and Hatch were correct. Moreover, I think that since of the five votes you might think you would get on the Supreme Court, Scalia and Alito had fathers who were Italian citizens (maybe they were naturalized before the sons were born but that is not important), the chances of the 'two US parents are required" theory winning is remarkably low.

    After all, if your father was ever a citizen of another country, you tend to ask "would I be any less loyal if my father were naturalized after I was born than before I was born?" And then you ask: "What is the evidence that the writers of the Constitution believed that the nationality of the father affected the loyalty of the child AT ALL?"

  6. Comment 1
    Congress can only verify the candidate(s) meet the Article II definition of "Natural Born Citizen" they cannot define a "Natural Born Citizen".

    The following is a cite from a Mario Apuzzo, ESQ. article written in his blog; which I will use to further facilitate the NBC definition since it is well written and cites accurate:

    "That the “natural born Citizen” clause is based on undivided allegiance and loyalty can be seen from how the Founders distinguished between "citizen" and "natural born Citizen." This distinction is based on the law of nations which became part of our national common law. According to that law as explained by E. Vattel in, _The Law of Nations_ (1758), Vol.1, Section 212, Des Citoyens et Naturels, a "citizen" is a member of the civil society. To become a "citizen" is to enter into society as a member thereof. On the other hand, Vattel wrote that a native or indigenes (written in French as /les naturels/ or /indigenes/) or “natural born Citizen” as the term later became translated from French into English, is a child born in the country of two citizen parents who have already entered into and become members of the society. Vattel also tells us that it is the “natural born Citizen” who will best preserve and perpetuate the society. This definition of the two distinct terms has been adopted by many United States Supreme Court decisions. (The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814) and Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) to cite just two.) With the presidential qualification question never being involved, neither the 14th Amendment (which covers only "citizens" who are permitted to gain membership in and enter American society by either birth on U.S. soil or by naturalization and being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States), nor Congressional Acts (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401), nor any case law (e.g. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) has ever changed the original common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.” This amendment and laws have all dealt with the sole question of whether a particular person was going to be allowed to enter into and be a member of American society and thereby be declared a "citizen." The 14th Amendment did not involve Article II, let alone define what a “natural born Citizen” is. Never having been changed, the original constitutional meaning of a "natural born Citizen" prevails today. We can also see from these definitions that a “citizen” could have more than one allegiance and loyalty (acquiring allegiance from one’s foreign parents or from foreign soil) but a “natural born Citizen” can have only one and that is to America (soil and parents are all united in one nation)."
    See post 2:

  7. Post 2:
    See Happersett: Chief Justice Waite


    "Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides6 that 'no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President,'7 and that Congress shall have power 'to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.' Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

    The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that 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. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words 'all children' are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as 'all persons,' and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

    Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided 'that any alien, being a free white person,' might be admitted as a citizen of the United States, and that the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under twenty-one years of age at the time of such naturalization, should also be considered citizens of the United States, and that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. 8 These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since. In 1855, however, the last provision was somewhat extended, and all persons theretofore born or thereafter to be born out of the limits of the jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were, or should be at the time of their birth, citizens of the United States, were declared to be citizens also.9"

    So again, two US Citizens for lingage which equals two generations to be eligible for POTUS/CIC.

    I rest.