This video proves the purported long form birth certificate produced on April 27, 2001 is a fake. It has multiple layers. Just download a copy and open it in Adobe Illustrator. They should have flattened the document.
There does not exist one U.S. Supreme Court decision that defined national citizenship under English common law as commented upon by Blackstone, except for U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898). This decision defined a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States” (not to be conflated with an Article II “natural born Citizen”) under colonial English common law rather than under natural law, the law of nations, and American common law which up to that time the Supreme Court had always relied upon to define national citizenship in the United States. There was no need for Wong Kim Ark to resort to the English common law, for Vattel tells us in Section 215 that if the father [meaning parents because of unity of husband and wife] has [have] “entirely quitted his [their] country in order to settle elsewhere,” i.e., has [have] become a “perpetual inhabitant” of that other country, and has [have] a child in that other country, the father [those parents] will become a member [members] of that other society and his [their] child born in that country will follow his [their] condition and also become a member of that same society. Vattel considers these children to be only “members” of that country which under Section 212 translates to “citizens” and not “natural-born citizens.” He does not say that they become “natural born citizens” of that country. Vattel clearly distinguishes between the two, with initial “members” of a society being just “citizens,” not “natural-born citizens.” This dichotomy of citizenship is consistent with the views of Samuel von Pufendorf who divides born citizens into two categories, the original citizens and their descendents. Note that he calls the children of the original citizens “Indigenes, or Natives.” He states: “Citizens are either Originally so; that is, such as are born in the Place, and upon that Account claim their Privileges; Or else, Adscititious; that is, such as come from Foreign Parts. Of the first Sort, are either those who at first were present and concerned in the forming of the said Society, or their Descendants, who we call Indigenes, or Natives. Of the other Sort are those who come from Foreign Parts in order to settle themselves there. As for those who come thither only to make a short Stay, although they are for that Time subject to the Laws of the Place; nevertheless, they are not looked upon as Citizens, but are called Strangers or Sojourners.” The Whole Duty of Man According to the Laws of Nature (William Tooke trans., Ian Hunter & David Saunders, eds., Liberty Fund 2003, Book II, Chapter 6, xiii (1691)
Given that Wong Kim Ark found that Wong was born in the United States to alien parents who were domiciled in the United States, the Court could have also found that Wong’s parents were “perpetual inhabitants” of the United States and that Wong was born a member of American society (born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States) and thus a born “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment by using Vattel and the law of nations. Under such a scenario, Wong would be treated the same as an original citizen. We can only speculate why Justice Gray did not use natural law, the law of nations, and American common law (meaning Vattel’s rules on citizenship) to declare Wong a “citizen of the United States” like Chief Justice Waite did in Minor to show that Happersett was a “natural-born citizen.” One thing that comes to mind, however, is that if Justice Gray would have relied upon Vattel and American common law rather than English common law to declare Wong a “citizen of the United States,” he would have had to recognize that President Chester Arthur, the President who appointed him to the Supreme Court, was not eligible to be Vice-President or President because he was born in the United States to an alien father and mother (his U.S. born mother also became an alien through then merger of citizenship in the alien father) and at most he would have been a born “citizen of the United States” but not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” In this connection, we should also consider Senate Resolution 511, passed by the Senate on April 30, 2008, to declare Senator John McCain a “natural born Citizen” and the legal analysis of Theodore Olson (former Solicitor General) and Laurence Tribe (Harvard Law School Professor) on which the U.S. Senate relied to come to its conclusion regarding McCain status and which Senator Leahy requested be printed in the Record. Olson and Tribe did not use Vattel’s Section 217’s born abroad to citizen parents while serving “in the armies of the state” as a ground to declare Senator John McCain a “natural born Citizen.” Their using Vattel would have exposed Putative President Obama’s ineligibility to be President the same as Justice Gray using Vattel would have shown President Arthur’s ineligibility for that same office.
does President Chester Arthur's story sound familar? so basically this Vattel states that your father has to be a citizen to be a natural born citizen. He states that if born to an alien father and mother (his U.S. born mother also became an alien through then merger of citizenship in the alien father) so when obama's mother married a kenyan and moved to Indonesia she was no longer a citizen. It all falls on the fact that he was not born to two u.s. citizens in the usa.
link
definning "natural born citizen"
