Monday, March 9, 2009

Natural Born Citizen - a 'Term of Art' put in our Constitution in 1787 by Jay - Written & Defined by Vattel in 1758 - The Law of Nations Tome 1 pg 197


Please use this discussion thread for the continuing discussion regarding "natural born citizenship" as per the Constitutional standards and the intent of the founders and framers who embarked up the creation of "a more perfect union" inspired by the writings of Vattel in his preeminent legal treatise of the time on government of a nation, "The Law of Nations - Tome 1". The work of Vattel was read by the founders and framers before the Rev. War, during the Rev. War, after the Rev. War, and at the Constitutional Convention where our Constitution was written. Minds like Madison, Hamilton, and Jay wove the inspiration of Vattel into a new national government. A government that would guarantee to the people that created it; life, liberty, and happiness. Vattel was the recipe and the 13 colonies loosely confederated were the laboratory for the creation of a new form of federal government, a more perfect union, that the world had not seen in reality before. It existed in the inspirational writings of Vattel. A Constitutional Republic with separation of powers and an independent Judiciary with a written Constitution as the ultimate and supreme law of the land for its new federal government, the United States of America. Our founding fathers created it. A Republic. Now can we keep it?

THE RULES: Please keep in mind this is a moderated blog. This is akin to a court setting and is not a wide open say anything you want, anytime you want, free speech zone like a soap box in a public square. If you want that type of forum you will have to go elsewhere. Keep your comments and questions in the case threads serious and focused on the subject and merits of this case. Unsubstantiated statements which I determine are false and misleading, or even potentially misleading to others (the jury of public opinion reading this blog) as to the true facts of this case, repetitive, argumentative, personal attacks, user IDs with embedded messages or URLs, inappropriate user IDs, and off topic comments will likely not be posted. I also will not discuss in public specifics of the case as to my planned tactics or strategies for pursuing this case. That will be only be revealed at the appropriate time in subsequent court filings and in the hearings or trial. I am the Judge in this blog and will rule on the merits, materiality, worthiness, etc., of all comments. My rulings on the acceptance or rejection of a comment are final. Please note that your comments will not appear immediately as I have to review them first. As I am busy working on this case, it may be several hours to 1/2 a day at times before your comment is reviewed and accepted and/or answered. If your post does not appear in 24 hours it has likely been rejected for violations of these rules.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
185 Gatzmer Avenue
Jamesburg NJ 08831
Email: appuzzo [AT] erols.com
Tel: 732-521-1900 ~ Fax: 732-521-3906
Blog: http://puzo1.blogspot.com

66 comments:

Puzo1 said...

To smrstrauss:

Your whole argument rests on the two related premises. First, you state that the Framers relied upon English common law in defining what a “natural born Citizen” is. Second, you go on to state that “natural born Citizen” as used by the Framers is a word which can be defined by “ordinary citizenship context” as found in English common law. Both of these statements are incorrect.

Pre- and post-Constitution evidence shows that both of your premises are invalid. When drafting the ‘natural born Citizen” clause, the Framers did not rely on English common law but rather on natural law, international law as expressed by Vattel in his treatise The Law of Nations,” and on other common law that developed in America apart from English common law. The Framers were strong adherents to the concept of “natural law” which provided that children follow the condition of their parents. Vattel codified the same principle in his treatise which was widely read and relied upon by the Framers and other legal and political intelligentsia in the colonies. The United States Supreme Court tells us in both the Minor (1874) and Kim Wong Ark (1898) decisions what common law the Framers looked to in defining a “natural born Citizen:”

"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” (emphasis supplied). Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their 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.” (emphasis supplied).

First, the Supreme Court did not say “English common law,” but rather just “common law.” Second, given your thorough explanation of what English common law provided to be the necessary and sufficient conditions to make one a “natural born subject (i.e. just born on English soil or born anywhere in the world to English natural born subjects),” the common law to which the Supreme Court was referring surely cannot be the same English common law that you expounded upon, for the common law to which the Supreme Court referred required both territorial and parental conditions to be satisfied and not just one or the other. Third, the English common law theory on allegiance was riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and ambiguities. One of the biggest problems that it presented was that in many references it made no qualification to the simple event of being born on English soil which oversight caused mixed allegiances in a subject born. On the other hand, Sir Edward Coke proclaimed in Calvin’s case: “Neither the climate nor the soil but ligeantia (allegiance) and obedientia (obedience) that makes the subject born.” The Framers would not have accepted a birthright citizenship for the President that did not provide him with full and absolute allegiance in the United States. Fourth, the Framers would not have used a citizenship standard for eligibility to be President that created within the legal community the doubt expressed by the Minor and Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court.

There is also no evidence for your statement that “natural born citizen” as used by the Framers is a word which can be defined by “ordinary citizenship context” as found in English common law. On the contrary, the evidence shows that “natural born Citizen” is a word of art and does not take its meaning from the English common law.

Regarding who belonged to the community of allegiance, the only word that inhabitants of America knew before the Constitution was “natural born subject,” which was the expression used in the English common law. The English no where in their common law or naturalization statutes used the word “citizen.” So how can we expect the ordinary person during the time of the signing of the Constitution to know what a “natural born Citizen” was? We cannot simply assume that they would substitute the word “citizen” for “subject” and give the term the same meaning. The English king, in so conveniently proclaiming individuals his subjects thereby expanded his power over his dominion. At no time did he have to consider that some day one of those subjects who may have been born to some unknown foreigner/alien (of unknown loyalty or allegiance or maybe even of opposing loyalty or allegiance to the King) who just happened to be “visiting” his dominion and then who would raise that child in keeping with that loyalty and allegiance would grow up to be the King of England. Simply stated, English kings came from royal blood, not from popular elections conducted by the people of a nation with the purpose of choosing one person among themselves to be King. Also, the English courts that ruled on what a “natural born subject” was did so with the motivation of expanding for people physically born in the King’s dominion and their heirs property and inheritance rights. They surely were not thinking about their rulings being used as a basis for defining the qualifications to be King of England. Indeed, English common law was no basis for creating future Kings but rather a basis for creating future subjects of the King whose coming into being only increased the King’s power throughout his empire and for defining and expanding property and inheritance rights for those born on English soil however defined and their heirs. Finally, the Framers could not look to English naturalization laws for their definition of “natural born Citizen, for as Coke and Blackstone tell us, the English Parliament through such laws retroactively made a person a “natural born subject” as if born in the King’s ligeance.

Article II’s Presidential standard was “citizen” at the time of the adoption of the Constitution (found in the grandfather clause and only applicable to the original citizens) and “natural born Citizen.” “Citizen” was the standard assigned to Senators and members of the House. Hence, the term “natural born Citizen” would have to have a very special meaning, one that evoked the Presidents absolute allegiance to the United States. That special meaning could not be found in the English common law but only in Vattel’s famous and highly-read treatise, The Law of Nations, which text was the basis for the Framers creating the new Constitutional Republic headed by a President popularly elected from among the people rather than one who descended down from the blood of royals. It was this very powerful position, open to anyone who met the simple age, residency, and citizenship requirements, rather than just those who descended from monarchial blood, that the Framers wanted to protect from foreign influence. They added the extra measure of protection to the qualification to be President because they wanted to assure the new nation that its President would have only one loyalty and allegiance and that would be to the new nation thereby protecting and promoting the values and traditions of the original colonists who fought and won the Revolutionary War. They did not want any foreigner to assume such a position of power, for such a foreigner could influence the nation in a way that would steer it away from its fundamental values. They knew that simply being born on U.S. soil without accounting for the parents’ allegiances would not provide the absolute allegiance that they sought. Allegiance would have to qualify the place of birth. Vattel’s definition of natural citizen (“Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui sont nes dans le pays, de parents citoyens”-The naturals or indigenous are citizens who are born in the country of parents who are citizens) provided them with that protection for the new nation.

There is also other evidence that shows that the Framers did not use English common law in defining a “natural born Citizen” but rather gave it a new technical meaning. I will not explain each piece of evidence but for the sake of brevity will only list it here. This list is not exhaustive:
1. Letter of July 25, 1787 from John Jay to George Washington, expressing his wanting to keep foreigners out of the Presidency and asking that the “natural born Citizen” standard be adopted in the Constitution.
2. The Constitutional debates.
3. United States Naturalization Law of March 26, 1790 (1Stat. 103)
4. United States Naturalization Act of January 29, 1795 (1 Stat. 414)
5. Act of 1866: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power . . . are declared to be citizens of the United States” (emphasis supplied). John Bingham on March 9, 1866 declared: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Session, 1291 (1866).
6. 14th Amendment-“What do we mean by ‘subject to the jurisdiction of the United States’? Not owing allegiance to anybody else. That is what it means.” Judiciary Committee Chair Senator Lyman Trumbull during the Citizenship Clause debate, Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866, p.2893, 1st col. Senator Jacob Howard, co-author of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, stated in 1866, "Every Person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons." Senator Howard continues: "[T]he word 'jurisdiction,' as here employed, ought to be construed so as to imply the full and complete jurisdiction on the part of the United States, coextensive in all respects with the constitutional power of the United States." (Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866, p.2895, 2nd col.) It is clear from what Senator Howard said that, apart from the cases of ambassadors and foreign ministers, one born in the United States to an alien or foreigner subject to the jurisdiction of their home country was ineligible for citizenship. Senator Howard in his sponsorship speech points specifically to additional "exceptions"—the children of "foreigners, aliens" (Id. at 2890, 2nd col.)—as distinguished from the common-law Jus Soli "exceptions" of only the children of diplomats and "alien enemies in hostile occupation." How can we deny that these exceptions are significant and that they significantly qualify birthright citizenship? Further the 14th Amendment makes no reference to a “natural born Citizen” but only a “citizen.”
7. Congress (except for the 1790 act which it later repealed as to “natural born,” status) has never legislated what a “natural born Citizen” is.
8. A famous Holmesian dictum provides that "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921) (Holmes, J.). There have been 42 Americans that have served as President (not including Mr. Obama). Ten were born before 1787. All “elected” Presidents born after 1787 (Chester Arthur was not elected President) met the “natural born Citizen” criteria, i.e., born on U.S. soil to a mother and father who were themselves U.S. citizens at the time of the President’s birth. There have been 46 Americans that have served as Vice-President (not including Mr. Biden). Ten were born before 1787. All Vice-Presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur, met the “natural born Citizen” criteria. Chester Arthur is no precedent to establish otherwise, for he hid from the public that fact that his father was not a United States citizen when Arthur was born.

Whatever meaning “citizen” took on after the adoption of the Constitution does not and cannot change what the Founders’ intent was when they wrote “natural born Citizen” in Article II. That our courts through the following years took a more liberal view of what a 14th Amendment “citizen” is cannot and must not change what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, for at no time were these courts faced with the specific question of who can or cannot be President of the United States. To properly answer this question, we must go back to the time that the Framers wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution and ask ourselves what did the Framers intend by the term. We have to consider the political and social environment in which they lived at the time. We have to consider that America had just fought and won a war with England, breaking the “natural” and “perpetual” bond to the English King. America was now a new nation with a new beginning, a constitutional republic. The new nation opened all its political power to ordinary people, including the power to be President which power did not have to descend from royal blood. But America was also a new nation that feared that foreign influence would somehow creep back into its government and undo the life and blood sacrifice of the American people and the liberty that they achieved for themselves in that struggle. It is in this context that we have to define what a “natural born Citizen” is.

The “natural born Citizen” clause is not unreasonably discriminatory. Today, anyone can be President of the United States, no matter what your race, sex, religion, ethnicity, physical disability, or sexual orientation is, provided the candidate meets the age and residency requirements and is born on United States soil to parents who are themselves United States citizens by birth or naturalization. This class of people provides the greatest number of citizens potentially eligible to be President. An individual who meets this eligibility requirement has only one allegiance and that is to the United States, for there is no way for any other foreign power to expect any allegiance from that person without his or her consent given that all avenues of transmitting allegiance (soil and parentage) lead to the United States and to no other nation. Under such birth circumstances, a “natural born Citizen” of the United States will not be compelled to deal throughout his or her life with any conflicting allegiances which he or she may have unwittingly acquired at birth. Our current President should come from this class.

We cannot allow the changing winds of political expediency to alter this standard for the sake of those who, without regard to the future of America, want to see this standard changed because it serves their selfish political ambitions. Congress has no Constitutional power to change this Constitutional standard. If some people of America today believe this standard is not consistent with an America now existing in a “global” international environment, then they have to resort to the Constitution which provides the way to change it. Let those who want to change this standard do so under the rule of law (i.e. Constitutional amendment), the same rule of law that has made our Constitutional republic a great and powerful nation that it is.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Puzo1 said...

Moved from prior thread.

Mtngoat61 posted on
March 9, 2009 11:18 AM
-----------------------------
Benjamin Franklin and other members of the Contintental Congress used Vattel extensively, as did other colonial leaders. It was the leading legal treatise of the times in the colonies in their revolutionary aspirations to achieve the goals of the Declaration of Independence ... life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And then later in the Constitution ... in order to establish a more "perfect" union, i.e., an improved and better federal system of government. This is the thinking and teachings of Vattel.

A quote about Vattel from Franklin and other colonial leaders:
"I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the Law of Nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting." by —Benjamin Franklin, letter to Charles W.F. Dumas, December 1775

"This [previous work on the law of nations], says a writer, is evidently rather an introduction than a system; and it served only to excite a desire to see it continued with equal perspicuity and elegance. The honor of this task was reserved for the great Vattel, whose work is entitled to the highest admiration!" by —James Duane, Mayor and Chief Judge of New York City, August 1784"

Read this book and you will see that George Washington was reading from Vattel in his first day in office as the new and first President of the USA.
This was New York, the Nation's Capital in 1789
By Frank Monaghan, Marvin Lowenthal

The post Revolution War generations of historians and also judges in later generations want to bury Vattel and his influence for their own purposes, i.e., rule by Judges, to build a new set of "common judge-made laws" layered over the supreme law Constituion in the USA to wittel away at our Consitution of the last two hundred years, but Vattel's writing were the preminent source of wisdom and inspiration for the formation of our Federal system of government. The judges have moved away from all power being in the hands of states and the people. The judges have continue to move power to the Federal system beyond what was intended by the framers. It is now time to put a stop to it. Vattel's vision is clearly what our framer's drew upon. Not for everything in our Constitution but a lot of it. All you have to do is read Vattel, Book 1, and then read our Declaration of Independence and our Constitution. Our federal system of government was heavily influenced by the writings of Vattel. Anyone who is intellectually honest and studies the framers and history knows that. And now with the seating of a Usurper in the Oval Office we see that "judge-made common law and snowing the people by an enabling media and ignorant or politically expedient members of Congress" type interpretations of the Constitution have in effect destroyed the Constitution as to the meaning of Article II by allowing three ineligble people on the ballot for President this year; Obama, McCain, and Calero, and for one to actually get sworn in as the Usurper in Chief.

It is time to right the wrong and restore the Constitution and its amendments to its rightful place, the supreme law of the land. It is time for a SCOTUS interpretation of what exactly is Article II natural born citizenship and why is it special and required for the office of President and Commander in Chief (and VP) and is not required for Senator or Member of the House, which only require simple citizen of any type.

Types of citizenship mentioned in the U.S. Constitution:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/


The Kerchner v Obama case is seeking an answer to the question once and for all as to what was the intended meaning of the Article II "Natural Born Citizen" clause and legal term of art (introduced by the writings of Vattel) which was placed into the Constitution by John Jay, a man of French Huguenot heritage and fluent in French and who was the 1st Chief Justice of our Supreme Court, when the case gets before SCOTUS eventually, for the sake of our Constitutional Republic system of government, with its independent Judiciary as the ultimate guardian of our Constitution, as described by Vattel, in Book 1 of Vattel's Law of Nations.

M Publius Goat

Mountain Goat's Ledge

------------------------------

smrstrauss said...

Re: “Benjamin Franklin and other members of the Contintental Congress used Vattel extensively, as did other colonial leaders.”

I believe you were referring to the Constitutional Convention. If not, please let me know.

As you say, Benj Franklin wrote a nice letter to the fellow who sent the book saying how great it is and how much it was being read. It is normal for elected officials to write these kinds of nice notes, and it would be rude for anyone not to send such a note. However, the wit who wrote: "Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." – was certainly no slave to theory.

Moreover, I have shown earlier that the Convention did not follow Vattel’s recommendation on the establishment of a religion, and in subsequent years, under the Bill of Rights, we specifically barred an establishment of religion—indicating that in at least one thing, we did not think that Vattel was relative to the USA.

Vattel is largely a discussion of the situation in Europe. It has some good sensible recommendations on a strong currency and on the obligation of governments to serve their people, but it is not very good on specifics. For example, Vattel says that the sovereign should appoint judges. He does not say that they should be appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate.

And, it is easy to see that the idea that the president should be a Natural Born Citizen did not stem from Vattel.

You will see in Vattel’s discussion of the sovereign (which in the bulk of Vattel refers to kings and emperors, with only a brief comment on elected sovereigns, and not even a suggestion that an elected sovereign might be a good thing), that there is no recommendation that the sovereign be a citizen at all. Indeed, it was normal in Europe when sovereigns died without a clear heir to call on the nearest royal relative even if that was from some other country. England did that several times, with William and Mary (Dutch) and then with George I (German).

And, Vattel does not say that there is anything wrong with doing this. And, maybe there isn’t. The point is that we thought differently.

When Vattel discussed Natural Born Citizen, he was not referring to a sovereign (much less a president). He was referring to the requirements to be a citizen at birth. He allows for naturalization, so he (like the 14th amendment) have only two kinds of citizen, native-born and naturalized. However, his qualifications for native-born are higher than that of the common law, which in most cases merely required birth in the British realm.

Vattel clearly requires birth in the country and at least one parent to be a citizen before the child was born. But he is ambiguous about whether his criteria requires two parents or only one parent.

He says parents at one point and then later “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a father who is a citizen…”

The key is the number of parents required, not which parent. Vattel may not require two parents. He mentions only one of the two parents as being the source of the nationality (the Father). We can presume that Obama’s father was not a citizen, but that is irrelevant to the legal situation. If only one parent is required to make a Natural Born Citizen, then the 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, also gave them the right to pass on citizenship. Thus if either of the parents was a US citizen and he was born on US territory, a candidate is a Natural Born Citizen.

And, since Obama’s mother was a citizen and he was born in Hawaii, he is a Natural Born Citizen under the one-parent citizen rule. To believe that the Father must be a citizen while the mother need not, would be going back to before the 19th amendment. So, to win, you have to show that the Framers, following Vattel, required two parents, which even Vattel was ambiguous on, and so far as I can see, no colonial laws held.

I have written earlier that the requirement that a person have two parents who were citizens plus be born in the country was the equivalent of wearing suspenders and a belt. There is no evidence that the writers of Article II were that extreme. There is certainly no evidence that the writers of the 14th Amendment, who had only two categories of citizen—citizen at birth, and naturalized citizen--were so extreme as to require two parents who were citizens AND birth in the USA.

Site Information said...

wouldn't you also say by the framers insertion of this term, NBC, and not others (i.e. native born, US citizen, naturalized citizen, etc.) gives further proof to the actual term, and inherent definition of NBC? Are these same folks the ones who wish to change the traditional definition of other terms too (e.g. marriage)? If so, then our times are surely insane and we must be on futher guard against the nonsense abounding.

kaydee said...

To Puzo1: If a constitutional amendment were brought to "enlarge the POTUS population", i.e., change the "natural born" requirement, is there any way conceivable it could be retroactive, say, at the hands of a Democrat-controlled congress?

Zapem said...

Here's another case that contested an elected, sitting Governor due to ineligibility to hold that office. The thing about this case was, the guy held offices before this contest ever took place, and he was STILL thrown out after someone complained!

That's all it takes. Someone has to complain and some court has to hear it, and then all your evidence comes out.

What also struck me about this case is how we see similarities in the defendant trying to dismiss it right off the bat - much the same way that Obama's lawyers have been doing. However, back then, plaintiffs didn't get squashed so easily. Here was the court's response to the motion to dismiss:

"The respondent, on the 16th of February, 1891, filed his motion to dismiss the cause for that the relator had no right, title, or authority in law to institute or maintain the action; that the petition did not state grounds sufficient to constitute a cause of action; that the petition showed on its face that respondent was the duly elected, qualified, and acting de jure governor of the state, and entitled in law to hold that office, and bound to discharge the duties thereof, for and during the term of two years from and after January 8, 1891. This motion was overruled, and the respondent was ruled to answer, which he did as follows:"

To sum that up, the sitting Governor tried to squash the complaint for standing, complained there was no cause or merit to the claims and pointed to his election as proof that he deserved it. Court said, not so fast, and refused his motion to dismiss AND his claims to the office just because he was voted in.

The quo warranto in this case makes it doubly interesting:

" In State v. Stein, 13 Neb. 529, it was held that where the state at large was interested in a proceeding in quo warranto, the Attorney General was, as at common law, the proper person to institute it, but when the information was filed by an individual to oust the incumbent from an office and install the relator therein, it was a personal remedy on behalf of the individual claiming to be aggrieved, and the state was but a nominal party.

In the case at bar, the Attorney General refused to file the information, and the relator obtained leave to prosecute it in the name of the state, but on his own behalf, as, under the statute, he was authorized to do."


What we see here is law that says when the state has the interest in bringing the suit, the AG is the proper vehicle to use. But when the interest is by an individual, the state is only a nominal party.

Therefore, as we see here, the AG refused to file, so the relator sought leave to prosecute it in the name of the state, but on his own behalf, and he was allowed to do it.

We see the same recourse given today in the federal statute if they fail to act. Just as in this case, if they refuse, any attorney can file for quo warranto.

Case: Boyd v. Nebraska ex Rel. Thayer, 143 U.S. 135 (1892)

Source: http://supreme.justia.com/us/143/135/case.html

Zapem said...

wouldn't you also say by the framers insertion of this term, NBC, and not others (i.e. native born, US citizen, naturalized citizen, etc.) gives further proof to the actual term, and inherent definition of NBC?

Here's the problem, SI. The terms are relative to the times. Citizen does mean the same as subject, I'll give them that. Native born could be construed the same as natural born - being born on certain soil. But it's just not that cut and dry.

Part of the problem lies in the LAWS that have since changed. The framers weren't aware of the changes to the law that we know today. We're the ones who have to go back in time.

Doing just that, we look first at what they were reading in order to plan out their own government. We know they had Vattel, Locke, Viner's Abridgement of the Law, Matthew Bacon's Abridgement of the Law, Blackstone Commentaries and many others. Reading those, we see many differences in citizenship law so we can't definitely say they meant one book rather than another on that proof alone.

And we also know that English Law was changed many times. For instance, at the time of the Constitution, an oath was required by all persons under the king in addition to the implied allegiance, natural born or not, starting at age 12.

The United States only required an oath upon naturalization and that had to be applied for.

We also know that England was a monarchy and a British subject could never ascend to the status of king. It didn't matter if he was natural-born or not.

The question then becomes, why would the framer's make an alien, apply for citizenship, then take an oath of allegiance to this country and STILL not allow him to ever seek the presidency? -- and then turn around say, if you're born here, no oath required, and doesn't matter if your parents are both citizens or not, you can be president, it's ok.

It doesn't seem likely, does it?

It's seems rather hypocritical to put an alien through so much trouble, still not allow him to be president but then require nothing of someone who just happened to be born here with no further requirements, doesn't it?

Even the Senators had to be citizens for at least 9 years before they could be appointed. Would the framers have us believe that it only required being born here to be president?

It would mean that the framers would have thought it was ok for foreigners to come here, drop a kid, take take that kid back to their native land, raise him there, and when he was of the age of majority, come back to the U.S. and say, "Hi guys, I'm back and I'm running for president." Because after all, he was born here and therefore, a "natural-born citizen", right? Wrong.

When we already have the proof that the framers were dead-set against foreign influence, especially with reference to the presidency, it's an impossibility that's what they meant.

The Supreme Court needs to weigh all this evidence and all those factors and decide what the framers intended.

I just want to see them do that because if they don't, these cut-and-dry definitions that mob rule is ignorantly deciding, is going to be the death of this country. And the sad part about that is, they don't care -- so long as their political party won.

mtngoat61 said...

Citizenship Terms Used in the U.S. Constitution - The 5 Citizenship Terms Used in the Constitution - Defined & Some Legal Reference to Same.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11737124/

Repeat: That is 5 types of citizenship of the U.S. are mentioned in our Constitution, not 2 types as some less informed or the obfuscators proclaim.

M Publius Goat
Mountain Goat's Ledge

P.S. To those who read the quote of Benjamin Franklin being very pleased to get another set of Vattel's books since his prior set was being heavily borrowed and used by other members of Congress, please take the time to note the date of Franklin's quote which I clearly wrote and cited. It was made in 1775 and the Congress he was referring to was the Continental Congress, not the Contitutional Convention of 1787. Thus it is clear that Vattel was used by the founding fathers of our nation for over 20 years prior to the Constitutional Convention. And they used it at the Contitutional Convention too since it is mentioned as being read from during said convention. The O-Bot posters here can spin away about Vattel, but the facts of history prove that Vattel was the most influential legal treastise of the day in the American colonies in regards to the founding of the nation and the Declaration of Independence of 1776 to assert their unalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" (Vattel inspired words, especially the happiness word) and then when they met again in 1787 its "in order to form a more perfect union" by writing a new Constitution, a new contract between the people and the states and the new federal government created by that Constitution. And the goal to perfect the union is also Vattel inspired, i.e., to seek the perfection of government to better serve its people should always be the goal of government, unlike King George who thought he was perfect already, and now Obama the Usurper who thinks he is perfect too and answerable to no one. The Constitution sets the minium eligiblilty qualifications in Article II to serve as the President and Commander in Chief of our military. Natural born citizenship requires both parents to be citizens when the child is born in the USA. Obama cannot meet it since his father was not a U.S. Citizen, nor was his father even an immigrant, nor even a permanent resident of the U.S. Obama's father was a foreigner is the truest sense of that word and that of which John Jay warned General Washington in his 1787 letter. The Constitution requires with its Natural Born Citzenship clause a person who has 100% allegiance to the USA and that no foreign claim to his allegiance exists at the time of his birth. Obama was born a British Subject. He is not an Article II Natural Born Citizen of the USA.

Puzo1 said...

When the Framers wrote the Constitution, they provided for four kinds of citizens, the original citizens (found in the grandfather clause of Article II), "natural born Citizens" found in the other part of Article II, "Citizens" found in other parts of the Constitution, and naturalized citizens that would come into being as a result of the naturalization powers given to Congress. The original citizens were anyone who inhabited the colonies, attached to the revolutionary cause, and who were alive prior to the adoption of the Constitution.
A naturalized citizen was one who became a citizen of the U.S. after his/her birth as a result of a law.

A "Citizen" could be either a "natural born Citizen" or a naturalized citizen. Hence, we are left with defining a "natural born Citizen."

A “natural born Citizen” was a child that was born on U.S. soil to a mother and father who were themselves U.S. citizens.

The 14th Amendment as written did not change any of these definitions. It still required place of birth (on U.S. soil) and complete and absolute jurisdiction (the child's complete allegiance to the United States passed to the child from both of his/her parents) for born citizens and "naturalization" for naturalized citizens.

What changed after the Constitution was ratified is that the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision said that a child born on U.S. soil to Chinese parents who were legal U.S. residents and domiciliaries, carrying on a business in the U.S., and prevented from naturalizing because of the 1882 Chinese Exclusion Act was a U.S. "citizen." The Chinese parents were not U.S. citizens, not illegal aliens, not students, and not here temporarily. The Court felt compelled to allow these facts to be sufficient to establish the necessary attachment by Wong's parents to the U.S. so that freed blacks whose parents were not citizens and could not naturalize, and the children of other recently arrived European citizens then residing in America, could become citizens under the 14th Amendment. There also was no compelling need to make U.S. citizens of the U.S. born children of recently arrived Chinese and Europeans citizens. Actually, with the Constitutional power in Congress to naturalize persons there was no need for the Court to go so far and render a court decision that actually acted to naturalize so many children of aliens residing in the United States. If a social wrong was perceived and needed to be corrected, Congress could have done it with its natuaralization power. Neverthless, the Wong facts do not help Obama because his father was in the U.S. as a temporary student and went back to Kenya after completing his studies and hence never became nor ever intended to become a legal U.S. resident let alone a U.S. citizen. His father was not inhabiting the U.S. as were the slave parents of freed blacks born in the United States, as were the U.S. legal resident and domiciled Chinese parents of Wong, or as were the then recently arrived Europeans who came to America to make a new home for themselves and their present and future families. Hence, under the limited facts of Wong Kim Ark, Obama is not a "citizen" let alone a "natural born Citizen."

As we have seen, the Wong Kim Ark decision itself does not make Obama a "citizen" or a "natural born Citizen." Even if the decision were to be given an expanded reading to make him a U.S. citizen, should the Wong Kim Ark decision change the definition of what the Framers wrote in Article II? Article II deals with the qualifications to be President. The Wong Kim Ark decision dealt with whether a Chinese couples' U.S. born son should be a citizen (and by logical extension whether the American born children of former black slaves and recently arrived Europeans should be citizens).

The Framers were also faced with having to be fair to the inhabitants of the colonies and they provided for them by drafting the grandfather clause in Article II and by allowing “Citizens” to occupy every other political and public postion available in America. But that is as far as they went and they did not see the need to make anybody else an immediate citizen of the United States. They gave Congress the Constitutional power to take care of those situations as they may arise in the future. Hence, we cannot change what the Framers intentions were with respect to their meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” simply because the Wong Kim Ark Court, which came along 111 years after the Constiution was drafted, perceived that it had to right a social wrong (rather than Congress and which perceived wrong did not exist in the minds of the Framers) and made citizens out of a given number of children of non U.S. citizens.

The social problems which the Wong Kim Ark Court perceived do not exist today and its motivations for social change are no longer relevant. As we have seen, Obama does not even qualify as a citizen under the limited facts of that decision. How can we reasonably conclude today that we should use the Wong Kim Ark decision, that declared a foreign couple's U.S. born son (and by implication U.S. born children of former black slaves and of recently arrived Europeans) a U.S. citizen, as our guide in determining who is eligible under Article II to be President of the United States. Simply stated, the court was not deciding who should be President but rather rectifying what it correctly or incorrectly perceived to be a social wrong involving the children of Chinese immigrants, freed black slaves, and recently arrived European immigrants. The Court also did not declare the Wong child a "natural born Citizen" but rather a "citizen."

The more rational approach is to ask ourselves what did the Framers intend when they wrote "natural born Citizen" in 1787. Evidence shows (and has already been provided by me in other wrtings) that they meant a child born in the U.S. to a mother and father who were also U.S. citizens by birth or by naturalization. Article II eligibility to be President has never been the subject of any Constitutional amendment or U.S. Supreme Court decision. Congress has no power to change the meaning of the clause. We cannot let later events (e.g. Wong Kim Ark which did not even deal with Article II and which sought to correct perceived social wrongs) to change what the Framers meant in 1787 when they wrote in their hand on behalf of the American people the “natural born Citizen” clause in the new Constitution.

Since nothing has changed the meaning of what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is, it still means a child born on U.S. soil to a mother and father who are U.S. citizens. Natural law, international law, civil law, English and American common law, and U.S. Congressional acts all show that a child inherits allegiance by either the soil on which the child is born or from both of the child's parents. Hence, the reason we need the child to be born on U.S. soil to two U.S. parents is so that the child has only one allegiance at the time of birth and that allegiance is to the United States. If any one of those factors (U.S. territory or U.S. parents) is missing, the child will inherit the allegiance of the missing element and thereby give the child conflicting allegiances. It is this absolute and complete allegiance that the Framers expected a future President to have. Even the 14th Amendment, which was drafted 79 years after the Constitution, as written demands absolute and complete allegiance (which is expressed as being subject to the jurisdiction of the United States) from a child in order to be a born citizen and from a person in order to be naturalized.

Lastly, even our naturalization laws demand that the new U.S. citizen swear sole and absolute allegiance to his/her new nation, the United States, and renounce any and all former allegiances that he/she may have had. If under our laws a naturalized citizen cannot have more than one allegiance in order to be a U.S. citizen, then how can we reasonably allow a "natural born Citizen" who can be President and Commander in Chief of our military to have more than one allegiance? It is clear that it would make no sense to require non "natural born citizens" (naturalized citizens) to have just one allegiance and to allow "natural born Citizens" to have more than one allegiance. Hence, simple logic tells us what a "natural born Citizen" is.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

smrstrauss said...

P.S. To those who read the quote of Benjamin Franklin being very pleased to get another set of Vattel's books since his prior set was being heavily borrowed and used by other members of Congress, please take the time to note the date of Franklin's quote which I clearly wrote and cited. It was made in 1775.

Thank you. I was in error. However, I still do not think that Franklin, or any of the others were swayed by Vattel. If you read Vattel's discussion of the sovereign, you will find that Vattel does not recommend a republic. He just lists it as one form of government.

Vattel does not recommend that the sovereign be a natural born citizen. He gives several examples of kinds who were imported from other countries. His discussion of what a natural born citizen is falls under the discussion of what citizens are.

Finally, Vattel is not clear on whether a natural born citizen requires two parents plus birth in the country or only the father be born in the country. If the latter, then he only requires one parent to be born in the country. And, while Vattel thought that must be the father, the 19th Amendment now says that men and women are equal relevant to being voters--so they most likely are with regard to passing on citizenship too.

Zapem said...

Lastly, even our naturalization laws demand that the new U.S. citizen swear sole and absolute allegiance to his/her new nation, the United States, and renounce any and all former allegiances that he/she may have had. If under our laws a naturalized citizen cannot have more than one allegiance in order to be a U.S. citizen, then how can we reasonably allow a "natural born Citizen" who can be President and Commander in Chief of our military to have more than one allegiance? It is clear that it would make no sense to require non "natural born citizens" (naturalized citizens) to have just one allegiance and to allow "natural born Citizens" to have more than one allegiance. Hence, simple logic tells us what a "natural born Citizen" is.

Exactly my point and better stated than I could.

People continue to convolute the issue by dragging in subsequent citizenship cases that have nothing to do with presidential requirements.

It seems completely unlikely when read from a historical viewpoint, and not picking out lines of text, which these people are always prone to do, that it's not as cut and dry as some would like to believe.

And what I can't understand, is why they would even want the requirement to be interpreted so sloppily and carelessly? You have to wonder if they are for or against this country's survival.

When I read statements from UNITED STATES SENATORS that are in direct conflict with the Constitution and open this country to catastrophic interpretations and pushes to open the presidency to everyone and anyone, I have to wonder why they're not thrown out of office, let alone why they aren't brought up on charges, especially when they use the Senate to do what belongs to the United States Supreme Court, usurping that authority. Yes, I'm talking to YOU, Claire McCaskill. If you THOUGHT we didn't understand the motive, you were seriously mistaken.

We used to hang people for writing treasonous concepts, now we elect them to offices in the three major branches of government. Unbelievable!

BTW, Mr. Apuzzo, Mr. Kerchner probably told you about the little mishap in the Roseland office with a certain person who had problems with the Pitney Bowes machine and I had to go down and retrieve a certain something you were waiting for. Another attorney ordered you a book, so I waited on that so that everything could be sent together. Sorry about the delay.

smrstrauss said...

Re: ‘A “natural born Citizen” was a child that was born on U.S. soil to a mother and father who were themselves U.S. citizens.”

This is the key argument. But what is the support for this extreme position?

I would think that you would need several quotes saying specifically that the criteria are (1) birth on US soil AND (2) two US parents. Not just (1) or (2), or birth on US soil with one US parent. As I have said, this is an extreme position and does not seem to be substantiated by Common Law or the 14th Amendment. These refer to ordinary citizenship to be sure, but what refers specifically to Article II? Are there letters or transcripts of the Convention debates that include the two-parents plus born in the USA definition?

If not, what proves that the framers were not referring to Common Law?

Re: ‘If under our laws a naturalized citizen cannot have more than one allegiance in order to be a U.S. citizen, then how can we reasonably allow a "natural born Citizen" who can be President and Commander in Chief of our military to have more than one allegiance?”

To be naturalized, a person must swear an oath saying that they renounce foreign allegiances. But we do not require US-born citizens to swear that oath, and Obama is US-born.

Moreover, you are conflating the category of people who actually have allegiances to foreign counties (which they renounce when naturalized) with an infant born in the USA to one US parent. Leaving aside the question of whether an infant has an allegiance to anything, in this case the allegiance lapsed, and the child was also a US citizen at birth due to the location of birth and one US parent (at the very least, probably a natural born one too).

At this point I’d like to insert a jest of mine which refers to the issue of “allegiance.” I suggest that the idea that an infant owes “allegiance” to his father’s country at birth is like saying that because his father was a Baptist at the time of birth, the child must stay a Baptist all his life. Or, if his father was a Democrat at birth, the child must stay a Democrat all his life. Allegiance does not work like that. And, I do not think the Franklin or the other founders thought that the allegiance of the child at the time of birth (much less half an allegiance) would stick with her or him for life.

It seems fairly clear that a nationalized US citizen cannot have dual nationality, according to the oath. But citizens who are born in the USA can have dual nationality, and they are not required to take an oath. Still, if an oath is important, does the Pledge of Allegiance count?

I see according to a history of naturalization in America (Naturalization in the United States) (http://www.archive.org/stream/legislativehisto00fran/legislativehisto00fran_djvu.txt) that:

“Even before the adoption of the Declaration of Independence the Continental Congress defined the citizenship of the colonies. It resolved, June 6, 1776, while considering a report of its Committee on Spies, "that all persons abiding within any of the United Colonies and deriving protection from the laws of the same owe allegiance to the said laws, and are members of such colony." Persons only temporarily in a colony were declared to owe allegiance to it during their temporary stay, and it was made treason for such to levy war.”

So according to this, someone who was born in Germany and had two parents born in Germany still owed allegiance to the laws of the colony AND ARE MEMBERS OF SUCH COLONY. Are “members” citizens? Maybe not, but here is a clear case where the Continental Congress could have used Vattel, and didn’t. Moreover, it shows how loose the Continental Congress and the States were about citizenship at the time. So, maybe the states had tighter laws on citizenship than the Continental Congress?

NO. As I have shown earlier, New York and Massachusetts allowed mere residents to vote (so long as they had enough money).

In any case, your definition of allegiance is not the same as the framers. They had a loose definition, anyone in the USA owes allegiance to its laws. You would hold that an infant with ONE parent a foreigner even if born in the USA owes some kind of allegiance to the flag of his father’s foreign country (What kind? Like maybe he has the obligation to stand when God Save the Queen is played???). Don’t you think that Franklin would have laughed?

That in Article II they tightened the definition of citizenship from the very loose criteria in the early states is very clear. But it is not clear that they tightened it all the way to birth in the country AND two parents being citizens. This, as I have said before, is an extreme position.

A minor point on Tories. You say: “The original citizens were anyone who inhabited the colonies, attached to the revolutionary cause, and who were alive prior to the adoption of the Constitution.”

But Hamilton argued that Tories should not be disenfranchised, so long as they did not leave the USA and go to England with the British troops.

From the previously quoted work:

Hamilton accepted this position, and developed its application to those who had been within the British lines during the war, and to Tories generally, in his Letters from Phocion, written in 1784. In opposition to proposed New York legislation hostile to Tories, he pleaded both their legal status and their treaty rights. The treaty, he held, forbade attainting individuals for war crimes, and for the state to disfranchise or punish whole classes of its citizens by general descriptions and without a trial was tyranny. To say, on the other hand, that by espousing the cause of Great Britain the Tories became aliens, and that it would satisfy the treaty to confine them to the privileges of aliens, was to admit that subjects might at pleasure renounce their allegiance to the state of which they were members and devote themselves to a foreign jurisdiction. That was a principle contrary to law, and subversive of government; also it would lead to forfeiture of property by a fraudulent subterfuge that was more odious than an open violation of the treaty. The state could not deprive a citizen of his right without an offense ascertained by a trial, and the treaty forbade prosecution and trial.

The idea of suflfering the Tories to live among us under disqualifications is equally mischievous and absurd. It is necessitating a large body of citizens in the State to continue enemies to the government.

By the Declaration of Independence, acceded to by the New York convention, July 9, 1776,
the late colony of New York became an independent state. All the inhabitants who were subjects under the former government, and who did not withdraw themselves upon the change which took place, were to be considered as citizens owing allegiance to the new government. This, at least, is the legal presumption; and this was the principle in fact, upon which all the measures of our public councils have been grounded.'

Thus, according to Hamilton, residents of New York, formerly British citizens, had the opportunity of making choice of American or British citizenship immediately after July 9, 1776. By choosing the latter they chose to become alien enemies in the place of their residence, and were under the necessity of withdrawing from the state. Persons who remained were, and continued to be, American citizens, although the fortunes of war later left them within the enemy's lines, where they owed a temporary and qualified obedience, and although they took voluntary part with the enemy and became traitors thereby.

He held that the idea of citizens transforming themselves into aliens by taking part against their state was altogether unknown and inadmissible.

• Lodge, Works of Alexander Hamilton, III, 449-70.

Notice that Hamilton in 1784 is making very little distinction between subjects and citizens. Hamilton himself was born outside of the United States, and it was only because he was under the grandfather clause of the Article II that he was eligible to be president. Would the framers, who allowed people who were born outside of the USA to two parents who were not US citizens BEFORE the Constitution to become president under the grandfather clause go all the way to "you gotta be born in the USA and have two parents who are citizens” AFTER? It seems quite a leap.

As I said, they tightened the definition. There is no question of that, but can you show a specific quotation that says “two parents who are citizens and be born in the country?” Even Vattel does not say that. Jay was not clear on what he meant and he certainly did not say “two parents and be born in the country.” So, where does it come from?

mtngoat61 said...

To the spin doctor Mr. Strauss:

Since you wish to quote Vattel out of context and make it ambiguous as to what he said, Vattel did not say "one parent" either. He said, "parents". If Vattel meant to mean born of just one parent he would have said that. The man was a brillian legal scholar. He meant parents in the plural for that is what the "natural law" he was writing about says, i.e., to get 100% allegiance from and over the child and no ambiguity about it, the child must be born in the country to two parents who were citizens of that country when the child was born. So you prove to me that Vattel was not using the word in plural and that he meant the word "parents" in the plural. I suggest you read Vattel in the French as Jay did since he was of French Huguenot heritage and was a diplomat to France. Are you a trained pyschologist or agent in spreading "disinformation". Because to me you are very good at it. And persistent too. You keep coming around in circles back to the very same arguments you started with. Either that or you work for the Obama groups and you need to be out here confusing people in the hopes of keeping the Usurper in office a bit longer and are just trying to wear down the opposition in their blogs. Come on over to my hometown blog and give us some of your arguments too and we'll see who can wear who out over at Country First.

http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=1169

http://countryfirst.bravehost.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=105&t=1467

Tell you what Mr. Strauss, let's let Justice Scalia and the others decide it when they take one of the new cases coming up and hear the merits of the argument and decide once and for all what "natural born citizen" means in the context of Article II of our Constitution. You can spin here all you want, but SCOTUS will be the one that decides what Vattel meant. And believe me, SCOTUS members have read Vattel, just like our founders and framers did. We'll leave it up to them and/or a new Constitutional Convention of the several States to decide whether just anyone simply physically born in the USA, even an "anchor baby" can be argued by slick spinners and lawyers like you that they can be the President and Commander in Chief of our military, or was the "natural born citizen" clause put in their in Article II as to who can command our military for a reason, i.e., allegiance and loyalty to the nation concerns as stated by Jay, and to convey 100% allegiance and prevent no "divided loyalties" issue with the child via his birth citizenship status. Thus the need to have a "natural born citizen" (NBC) born in the USA to two citizens of the USA as one of the minimum qualifications in Article II. And the NBC group of citizens is the overwhelmingly largest group of citizenship type in the USA. It is not hard to find one. NBC the Largest Group of Citizen Types in the USA

Are you not concerned about national security? Look who Obama just appointed to a high technology position. Look at the arrests in DC today! Do you like many in DC put political party over country. I do not. I am concerned that the President and Commander in Chief must have 100% allegiance and loyalty to this country by soil and by both parents. I do not want a President with divided loyalties, and dreams from his foreign, non-immigrant, father's Marxist goals, and claims on him from foreign powers or immediate family in foreign nations. That is what the framers wanted too. And that is what we do not have with Mr. Obama, the Usurper in Chief.

So spin this Mr. Strauss again, the Spin Doctor in our midst. By the way, Have you met Dr. Conspiracy? No doubt you will.

M Publius Goat
Mountain Goat's Ledge

Zapem said...

“two parents and be born in the country.” So, where does it come from?

This is the key argument. But what is the support for this extreme position?


It comes from Matthew Bacon and others who wrote Abridgements to the Law during the time of the signing of the Constitution that we know the framers had and were reading. Verbatim, it comes from Bacon but not of Bacon, as he was only writing the way things were at the time.

"All those are natural-born subjects whose parents, at the time of their birth, were under the actual obedience of our king, and whose place of birth was within his dominions."

It's not an extreme position. It's extremely consistent with the position of the framers in light of their paranoid fear of foreign intrusion.

smrstrauss said...

Re: “If Vattel meant to mean born of just one parent he would have said that.”

He did. “Parents” is only plural because “Citizens” is plural. When referring to a single citizen, Vattel says only Father.

This is What Vattel said in BOOK 1, CHAPTER 19
Of Our Native Country, and Several Things That Relate to It


§ 212. Citizens and natives.

“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.”

That is the complete quote. He says “parents who are citizens” and then he says “in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen.” He could in the second reference easily had said “. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of parents who are citizens,” but he did not. He did not mean parents plural. When he spoke of citizen singular, he said only “father who is a citizen.”

Let’s go back to the first use of citizens and parents. NOTICE the plural. When he says “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” The plural of parents relates to the plural of citizens! When referring to many citizens there must be many parents. But he does not say parents who are mothers and fathers. This is not a singular reference. He does not say “a native or natural born citizen is born in the country of parent(s).” So there is no indication that he means two parents for each of the citizens plural, he means only parents plural for citizens plural.

So, it is the singular that counts. “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…” That’s what he meant. Maybe that is not what he should have meant. I think that he should have said “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of either a mother or a father who is a citizen.” But he did not say that. And you think that he should have said: “I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father and a mother, both of whom are citizens.” But he did not say that. He just said father.

As confirmation, note “those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.” Note only Fathers.

Now Vattel may have been brilliant, but the 19th amendment says that if the rule were ever “only fathers” it is now either fathers or mothers.

And what makes you think that the delegates, after declaring independence from Britain and fighting Britain in a bitter war, thought that Vattel was so brilliant after reading this:

§ 24. Examples. (Book 1, Chapter 2)
On this subject, the English furnish us an example highly worthy of attention. That illustrious nation distinguishes itself in a glorious manner by its application to every thing that can render the state more flourishing. An admirable constitution there places every citizen in a situation that enables him to contribute to this great end, and everywhere diffuses that spirit of genuine patriotism which zealously exerts itself for the public welfare. We there see private citizens form considerable enterprises, in order to promote the glory and welfare of the nation. And while a bad prince would find his hands tied up, a wise and moderate king finds the most powerful aids to give success to his glorious designs. The nobles and the representatives of the people form a link of confidence between the monarch and the nation, and, concurring with him in every thing that tends to promote the public welfare, partly case him of the burden of government, give stability to his power, and procure him an obedience the more perfect, as it is voluntary. Every good citizen sees that the strength of the state is really the advantage of all, and not that of a single person. Happy constitution! which they did not suddenly obtain: it has cost rivers of blood; but they have not purchased it too dear. May luxury, that pest so fatal to the manly and patriotic virtues, that minister of corruption so dangerous to liberty, never overthrow a monument that does so much honor to human nature — a monument capable of teaching kings how glorious it is to rule over a free people!

What do you suppose Franklin would have said, or Adams, or Jefferson!?

smrstrauss said...

Re Matthew Bacon:

"All those are natural-born subjects whose parents, at the time of their birth, were under the actual obedience of our king, and whose place of birth was within his dominions."

Notice again subjects plural and parents plural. That could be one parent per subject and still have plural parents.

Does he say "a subject" must have two parents who were citizens?

mtngoat61 said...

Dear Spin Doctor Strauss:

Spin, spin, spin. You sound more and more like a washing machine in spin cycle mode.

Jay knew what the natural born citizen (NBC) "term or art" meant when (out of concern about allegiance and loyalities to the new nation and the influence of foreigners) he had that term of art put into the Constitution for future Presidents and Commander of our Army. Vattel knew what it meant from the "natural law" which is its origin. Bacon new what he meant he wrote wrote his statement in the legal treatise on "common law" used in the colonies and cited by Zapem. The framers knew what it meant when they unanimously agreed to include the NBC term in the Constitution for the office or the President but did not require it for Senators or Reps. John Bingham knew what NBC meant in Article II and in common sense when he quoted its meaning in the various discussions about the 14th amendment, of which he was a framer. The 14th Amendment did not change the minimum qualifications for President clearly stated in Article II. Bingham knew that and if you were intellectually honest here, you would admit it too. But that not you mission here, is it? The Justices who prevailed in the case knew what NBC meant when they decided Minor v. Happersett. The prevailing Justices knew what the NBC term meant when they decided the Perkins v Elg case in 1939.

Five Types of Citizens Terms Mentioned in the Constitution

And neither Obama nor McCain nor Calero are NBCs. This last election was a disgrace to our Constitution and the political parties who put up those candidates trampling on the Constituion. They put party over country, something George Washington worried about as political parties started to grow and assert power.

Enjoy your spinning and obfuscating to amuse yourself. I doubt you will change Atty Apuzzo's or the plaintiffs minds on this. So who are you here to convince?

We will let SCOTUS once and for all decide what the term NBC means in the context of the merits of case bring historic ineligibily charges before the Supreme Court against a sitting usurper President. It is their understanding of what NBC means in Article II that will count for this usurper President's longevity in office and the future of our Constitution and our nation.

M Publius Goat
Mountain Goat's Ledge

Zapem said...

Re Matthew Bacon:

"All those are natural-born subjects whose parents, at the time of their birth, were under the actual obedience of our king, and whose place of birth was within his dominions."

Notice again subjects plural and parents plural. That could be one parent per subject and still have plural parents.

Does he say "a subject" must have two parents who were citizens?


Yes, in the next paragraph it does:

"If the king of England enter with his army in a hostile manner the territories of another prince, and any be born within the places possessed by the king's army, and consequently within his protection, such person is a subject born to the king of England, if from parents subjects, and not hostile."

So we see the singular there and the plural above, so your argument on that account wouldn't hold any weight, sorry. Plus, you really have to take the history in with the law or it wouldn't matter to a judge hearing a case on it.

Read Matthew Bacon. He wrote it at the time of the Constitution. We have historian who can prove the framers read from his work. Bacon was taught to students in early America as a form of educational law, including Justice John Marshall. It's an authorized source sanctioned by the king of England. Quite the eye-opener that removes many doubts about what English Law was in effect at the time. People assume there was only one form of English Law but as we see with the compilation of William Blackstone, it's seen many transformations over the ages.

But the abridgement (summary) which Bacon wrote specific to England at the time of the Constitution, we see something totally different. You have to remember, too; English Law spans over 600 years at the time Blackstone wrote his compilation. They really needed Bacon and other authors to target their specific time period as it applied during the 1700's and we find that in Bacon.

Prior to those authors, they had scraps, scrolls and pages all over the place in one huge library. Quite the mess, I'm sure.

Puzo1 said...

To smrstrauss:

All this talk by you about Vattel's non-influence on the Framers and one or two-parent requirement, soil (belt) and two U.S. citizen parents (suspenders) being an "extreme position," the all-knowing English common law, women's right to vote, and other sundry points, I have a more concrete question for you. The English believed in both jus soli (one becomes the King's subject when one was born on the King's soil) and jus sanguinis (one becomes the King's subject when one was born to his subjects regardless of where one was born.) The U.S., along with many other countries, also grant citizenship by either ground.

Since this double basis of granting citizenship exists in the U.S. and many other countries, it cannot be denied that when a child is born on U.S. soil, he/she can still inherit the citizenship of his/her mother or father through the jus sanguinis rule, if either of his/her parents is not a U.S. citizen. Hence, you also cannot deny that in such cases, that child could be born with double or triple allegiances (U.S., mother's, or father's allegiance).

Hence, how do you maintain that being absolutley subject to the jurisdictiohn of the U.S. only requires that the child be born on U.S. soil when I have just shown you that just being born on U.S. soil can still create double or triple allegiances in the child by inheritance of allegiances from his alien parents?

Hence, you cannot deny that a child born on U.S. soil to one or two alien parent(s) will also acquire one or two additional allegiances from that/those parent(s). Or can you?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

P.S. No Pledge of Allegiance jokes. He does not know it anyway.

Mick said...

To smrstrauss,

Your arguments about the supposed BCL origins of Natural Born Citizen are the transparently Politically Correct thinking that makes the simplest of concepts and definitions (like the word "is") that are Black and White seem all shades of gray. Your assertion that a person born of alien parents could possibly have been considered by the Framers to be qualified for POTUS is perposterous in light of their desire to limit foreign influence on the top 2 offices. Sometimes the simplest argument is Common sense! There is NO WAY they would have thought anchor babies could be POTUS. You then quote cases that are less than SCOTUS that have no constitutional precedent. BCL is all about Precedent and the whims of judges, our National Law is based on a Constitution, and SCOTUS cases that interpret the Constitution serve as precedent.
Kings are not members of the subjectry, they are born of Royal Blood, thus there is No way that natural born SUBJECT and natural born CITIZEN could mean the same thing. Royalty is derived from the smallest percentage of the population, while Natural Born Citizens, able to be POTUS, are the largest percentage. Subjects cannot be King. Citizens can be POTUS and CHOOSE to be members of our society, whereas NBSs are BOUND to it. The concept of this tyrannical subjection of those born WITHIN the jurisdiction of the KING are what the Framers were pointedly rebelling against, and fought 2 wars against, so it is ridiculous to think that they would adopt BCL as their own.
The Bill of Rights is all about Natural Law and rights of individuals, and the constitution is ALL ABOUT limiting the power of the government over the citizens. Citizens CHOOSE to Subject themselves to the law of the Constitution. Subjects are Subjected to the rule of the King.
Your ascertion of unfairness in the reference to the father in Vattel is silly because in those days, as you well know, the husband's nationality determined that of his wife. Even today, for the most part, children's names decend from their father. Constitutional terms should be read in light of the time and the frame of reference of those that wrote it, remember? To insinuate that the 19A amended the meaning of NBC is only constitutional relativism that seeks to undermine the document. There is also PLENTY of evidence that the 14A did NOT CHANGE the constitution, or change the meaning of NBC, but only reaffirmed the Bill of Rights while giving Negroes the citizenship to enjoy those rights. NUMEROUS writers of the Amendment are on record as saying so.
I notice that you stay away from Perkins v. Elg. It is probably because it is difficult for you to argue with a case 50 years after Ark that clarified the meaning of NBC, and also aligned the Ark decision with the constitution. It defined a NBC in Miss Elg as a person born in the US of 2 citizen parents. Stienkauler, born of Citizen Parents, Native born, with the ability to become POTUS, and Bohn, born in the US of aliens, as "American Citizen".
Do you really believe that Franklin believed that Blood and Heredity had no affect on the outcome of offspring? I don't read that thought into your quote at all. I see it as angst for the loss of the "child", somewhat controled and nurtured by the parent.
Constitutional Relativism will only undermine the Constitution to the point that it is unrecognizable.

smrstrauss said...

To my distinguished opponents: Please do not get emotional. I represent the other side, and it is useful for you to know about the other side. In fact, it can help to make your case stronger.

You need to know your opponent’s arguments in order to counter them. That is why the Catholic Church had what they call “Devil’s Advocates” (advocatus diaboli) to argue that a possible saint is not really a saint. That, I see, has been abolished, but the analogy still holds.

It is possible that your case is really a saint, or saintly, but you do not know until you have met the opposition, and I do try to show that. One of my objects is to take some of the emotion out of the case, so if you lose, you can understand why you have lost and not go into rants about the Supreme Court being corrupt, or whatever. I have already seen some postings from the Right that if they fail before the Supreme Court, they will call a new Constitutional Convention. That idea is, of course, absurd without a solid majority of citizens behind it. If the Supreme Court takes the case and knocks it down, or if there aren’t even four votes to call the case, the majority against this side would only increase.

To: Mario Apuzzo. Once again counselor you are very good at this, an excellent writer and a fine advocate for your side.

I just point out that if you get to argue this case before the Supreme Court you will be asked some of these questions, the questions that I raised already and will continue to.

And you are likely to be asked them quite abruptly and nastily. And some of the justices you think you can count on for your side might be among the nasty ones, particularly the two whose fathers were born overseas. (I’m not saying that they might not vote for you in the end, but they are likely to ask the nasty questions because they have been on their minds for a long time. And among those questions are: “am I any more loyal to the USA because my father was naturalized before I was born than I would be if he were naturalized after I was born?") This, I think, relates to your allegiance question.

The before/after question is a natural question, and your safe reply is that it does not matter what we think now. The matter rests on what the writers of Article II thought. However, the justice who asked is likely to follow up the first question with “And what evidence is there that the writers thought any differently on this before/after question than we do today?” At this point you will have to come up with a lot of evidence, and being forewarned of this likely question, you will, if there is any.

But evidence to answer one question will not be enough. You are likely to get questions that challenge your main assumption, that the framers were so worried about foreign influences that they really meant two US parents in Article II. You will be asked questions along the lines of: “If Hamilton was so worried about foreign influences, why did he write that long thing about the Tories should be treated like all other citizens of New York (which I already quoted)?”

And some justice may pipe up and say. “The framers were very familiar with treason, having lived through the treason of Alexander Hamilton. Why didn’t they write in: ‘No one who is a traitor shall be eligible to be president’”?

My answer is that while they naturally did not want traitors to be elected president, they figured that we the voters did not want that either, and so they did not have to say it. But you cannot give that answer because that exposes you to questions along the lines of: “If they really worried about divided loyalties, then why didn’t they write it in? Because if they didn’t write it in, the situation could be just like the previous example with “no traitors” because if they trusted us not to pick someone who was a traitor they also could trust us to pick someone who does not have divided loyalties, and we have picked, and that is that.”

You will need a good answer for this question, and I haven’t seen it yet.

That seems to be along the lines of what you are asking me, so I’ll take it up.

Re: “Hence, how do you maintain that being absolutley subject to the jurisdictiohn of the U.S. only requires that the child be born on U.S. soil when I have just shown you that just being born on U.S. soil can still create double or triple allegiances in the child by inheritance of allegiances from his alien parents?”

Counselor. You are arguing from the consequences. Having dual allegiances may be a bad thing. That is not the law. Your responsibility is to prove that the framers of article II and the writers of the 14th Amendment had the evil of dual allegiances in mind when they wrote the Constitution, and if they did, why didn’t they say so.

You have to prove that they were concerned based on their actual writings, not philosophical theorists of whom there were several and who had different views. And in this case you have to prove that allegiance at the time of the birth is still relevant even though the dual nationality has lapsed.

And, you have to prove that the allegiance of the child was on the minds of the framers. Yet, I have already shown that in the Continental Congress, writing about the foreign nationals who were in the USA at the time of the revolution, that they simply passed a law saying that the foreign nationals had to have allegiance to the laws of the Colonies/States and that was that. Presumably they knew that Germans citizens who were in the USA at the time were somehow still German, but they passed a law saying that they had to give allegiance to our laws and that was that.

And among the men who were grandfathered, Hamilton became a citizen of the USA (though New York I think) before the Constitution was ratified. But he was not born in US territory and neither of his parents were citizens. To be sure, grandfathering is an exception. The framers specifically wrote that the people born after the Constitution must face a higher standard than those who were born before. But how much higher? All the way to two citizens and birth in the country? Surely they would have given some guidance if they really meant that, or if they mean no one with “dual allegiances.”

I suppose you will hope to change the minds of at least some of the justices who think that “Natural Born” merely requires birth in the USA. How will you do that? Certainly not on the theory that British common law added the “two British parents” to birth in the realm when the child was born overseas. The adding of two British parents did not take away the original definition, which was birth in the Realm.

And the Minor citation does not help very much. The actual ruling in Wong, which was after Minor, merely required birth on US soil. The fact that Minor had doubts did not affect the majority in that ruling. Yes, that was for ordinary citizenship law. But have you shown convincingly that “Natural Born” does NOT mean the same thing as a native-born citizen under citizenship law? There was a dissent to the Wong ruling, but I do not believe that this really changes minds.

As for myself and “allegiances” at birth. I may have made the jest before that the idea that a child’s allegiance at birth must affect her or him for a lifetime is like saying that if my father was a Baptist, I had to stay a Baptist for my lifetime. Very few of us believe that now, the question is how many believed it among the Convention’s writers.

Vattel thought that allegiance came from the Father. One parent. There is nothing in Vattel that held that if the mother were French and the Father Swiss and the child was born in Switzerland that the child had a divided allegiance between France and Switzerland. To be sure Obama’s FATHER, we believe, is the one without US citizenship, but why should we think that it must be the father after the 19th Amendment?

Re: “Constitutional terms should be read in light of the time and the frame of reference of those that wrote it, remember? To insinuate that the 19A amended the meaning of NBC is only constitutional relativism that seeks to undermine the document.”

We agree that constitutional terms should be read in the light of the time and the frame of reference. But the Constitution allows and encourages amendments. This is not constitutional relativism, it is the Constitution itself. The 19th is an amendment. It changes what was written before.

The 19th, which gives the national vote to women, made them citizens in a different way from before the 19th was passed. It changes any laws or practices before it was written that exclude women from being voting citizens in the same way that men are. If the child of a US-born man can be president, so can the child of a US-born woman. Besides, if we normally award custody of a child to the mother, we can award the citizenship of the child to the mother. It doesn’t have to be the mother, it can be either—but it certainly is not only that father.

Besides, I do not think you want to argue that only men can pass on citizenship. Women are in the majority and tend to resent the concept of remaining second class. And, if the court held that they could not pass on citizenship, which it would not because justices have women in their families, there would be a push for a constitutional amendment reversing the court. I don’t think you seriously want to go this way. Don’t anger this huge group of voters, who would remember. It would be better to stick with two parents plus being born in the country (even if Vattel did not say that) than to say “only fathers” and by doing so enrage the women.

Re: ‘Constitutional Relativism will only undermine the Constitution to the point that it is unrecognizable.”

I do not think that I, who have quoted from the New York Constitution of 1777, and the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780, have engaged in Constitutional Relativism. It is I who keep on saying that a strict construction justice would say to you: “If the writers of the Constitution had wanted to bar people with dual nationalities, why didn’t they say so?” And, with respect, when someone argues from the consequences, that is constitutional relativism. So, you may believe that it is a bad thing for a president to have had a foreign father, but you must show that the writers of the Constitution did too—or you are simply saying that it is a bad thing.


Re: “I notice that you stay away from Perkins v. Elg.”

Sorry. I simply have not had a chance to. It will take me a while. I will look at it.

Zapem: Re “If the king of England enter with his army in a hostile manner the territories of another prince, and any be born within the places possessed by the king's army, and consequently within his protection, such person is a subject born to the king of England, if from parents subjects, and not hostile."

Well done. But I think you need to find a quote or two that refers to birth in Britain. This quote refers to birth OUTSIDE of Britian, and it seems for that reason it allowed Natural Birth to two parents. Thus it could have been merely an extension of the law, which was that if you were born in the British Realm, you were a British Subject (except for the children of foreign diplomats, of course.) This looks like an extension to me. And, I cannot see that it takes away the right of Natural Born Subject to anyone born in the realm. Can you quote anything that says specifically that to be a subject you have to be born in Britain and have two British parents?

Remember that 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.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/

(And generally speaking refers to the children of foreign diplomats.)

At this point I suspect you will say: “But that was for ordinary citizenship, not for the presidency.” I agree, of course, but you have to show that in Article II the Framers were talking about something other than the criteria establishing ordinary citizenship.

It has been argued that Natural Born Citizen is not common language. Instead, it is said that it is a term of art. Okay, but a term of art has to be well understood by the professionals in the field. IF there is ambiguity, you cannot be sure that “natural born” is a term of art different from the Common Law unless there is very obvious proof that it is different.

Re: “You then quote cases that are less than SCOTUS that have no constitutional precedent.”

If so, I regret it. But I can only recall quoting Wong.

Re: “thus there is No way that natural born SUBJECT and natural born CITIZEN could mean the same thing.”

But you have to show it The phrases are similar in the “Natural Born,” and citizens and subject are the same in the sense of both being people. IF there is a difference, to what were the writers referring?

Re: “The concept of this tyrannical subjection of those born WITHIN the jurisdiction of the KING are what the Framers were pointedly rebelling against.”

I agree with you. But I think that this indicates the reverse of what you say.

During the Revolution, our great leaders argued in the Declaration that people have the RIGHT to change their allegiances: To change from a King to a new form of government. This surely indicates that they believed that ADULTS made the decision on allegiances. They did not believe that allegiances are something imposed on a child at birth that has to say with her or him for a lifetime. So, how do we get from this great idea, this Natural Rights idea, of the freedom to change allegiances---to the idea that unless a candidate had two parents who were citizens at her or his birth and be born in the country that they do not have allegiance in adult life?

Re: “Citizens CHOOSE to Subject themselves to the law of the Constitution.”

As I said, I agree with you. But I think that this proves that the writers of the Declaration and the Constitution did not believe that the allegiance of an adult was determined by birth.

Re: “They knew that simply being born on U.S. soil without accounting for the parents’ allegiances would not provide the absolute allegiance that they sought.”

But, did they require absolute allegiance? The Marquis de Lafayette had been made a citizen by at least one state before the Constitution was passed and he did NOT renounce his citizenship in France. Was he eligible? When Hamilton argued that Tories should be treated like ordinary citizens, was that absolute allegiance? Then, what make us think that the parents determine allegiance, if the principle on which the Declaration is based holds that adults can change their allegiances? Finally, what makes it two parents?

Vattel merely required one parent to be a citizen. (I think I showed that.) The mother did not have to be.

And Locke has given indication, based on the quote I cited, that allegiance at birth should not be considered allegiance for a lifetime. And least that is what the quotation with regard to children being subject to their parents, which fades, as Locke says. (And this fits with the adult theory of allegiance, which is what is held in the Declaration.) And Franklin said that the life of the child is not determined by her blood but by nurture. So I do not think he would have held with the two-parent theory. (I think that he agreed with Locke. I doubt that he believed that blood had no effect on offspring. I just do not think that he thought it had an effect on their allegiance when they became adults.)

So, why insert the Natural Born criteria in Article II at all if the writers did not think that birth could affect allegiance for a lifetime? Clearly, there was SOME concern about foreign influence on the presidency. On the other hand, it does not indicate that the framers required two parents AND birth in the USA.

I think I said before that the justices on the Supreme Court would be divided into those who hold that common law applies, those who hold with a mid-way position (ONE parent and birth in the USA can determine eligibility), the strict constructionists who say “if the framers did not say dual allegiances, we cannot assume that they meant it” and the justices who do not want to call the case at all, either because there is no proof that his real DNA father was from Kenya or because they believe the issue was settled either by the voters or by the Electoral College (though I grant you this category would probably fall into the common law group already).

On review, I think the strict common law vote (born in the USA is enough) may be only four.

The mid-point (one parent and born in the USA) probably gets two votes.

The one parent and it has to be the father and born in the USA gets NO votes.

The strict constructionists (who are the conservatives whom you normally would count on) will be one or two votes—and at least one of these is AGAINST you.

Why? Because the strict constructionists are the ones who insist on some words being there to backup theory, and your discussion of dual allegiances and Natural Law is so far mainly theory.

And the ones who do not want to call the case at all, one or two votes.

Puzo1 said...

One Pro-Obama blog wrote the following:

"Mario Apuzzo wonders:

Hence, how do you maintain that being absolutley subject to the jurisdictiohn of the U.S. only requires that the child be born on U.S. soil when I have just shown you that just being born on U.S. soil can still create double or triple allegiances in the child by inheritance of allegiances from his alien parents?

Hence, you cannot deny that a child born on U.S. soil to one or two alien parent(s) will also acquire one or two additional allegiances from that/those parent(s). Or can you?

Sure, the concept of dual or more citizenships was not foreign to the Framers and legislators and justices since then. Therefore, children are not deemed to choose any citizenship as their birth right until their reach the age of adulthood when they choose which citizenship to maintain. If this includes the birth right citizenship of the United States then the child, when reaching adulthood can indicate, if necessary, that he wants to continue his US citizenship and he remains a natural born citizen.

Common Law

Under Common Law principles, a child born abroad to a foreign parent, becomes a natural born citizen of the country to which the parent owes allegiance.

14th Amendment

Federal citizenship may be acquired by inheritance by virtue of the place of birth, notwithstanding the ineligibility of the parents to citizenship. The Chinese are ineligible to citizenship of the United States by a prohibitory act of Congress (2), but “a person born within the United States of Chinese parents residing therein and not engaged in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, is a citizen of the United States (3),” notwithstanding the parental disability.

Opinion of the Attorney General in Steinkauler

Nationality by birth in some countries depends upon the place of birth, in other upon the nationality of the parents.

We have no such statute, and we must therefore seek some other mode of solving this somewhat difficult question. Young Steiukauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person ran deprive him of his birthright.

He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States;

Lynch v Clarke 3 N.Y.Leg.Obs. 236, 1 Sand. Ch. 583 (1844)

The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since. Suppose a person should be elected President who was native born, but of alien parents, could there be any reasonable doubt that he was eligible under the constitution? I think not. The position would be decisive in his favor that by the [247] rule of the common law, in force when the constitution was adopted, he is a citizen.”

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939)

It has long been a recognized principle in this country that, if a child born here is taken during minority to the country of his parents’ origin, where his parents resume their former allegiance, he does not thereby lose his citizenship in the United States provided that, on attaining majority, he elects to retain that citizenship and to return to the United States to assume its duties.

Act of Congress 1907

This “dual allegiance” is now usually accommodated diplomatically by requiring the individual at majority to elect which nationality he will conserve. The Act of March 2, 1907, is for this purpose.

The 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act reads

(1) obtaining naturalization in a foreign state upon his own application, upon an application filed in his behalf by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, or through the naturalization of a parent having legal custody of such person : Provided, That nationality shall not be lost by any person under this section as the result of the naturalization of a parent or parents while such person is under the age of twenty-one years, or as the result of a naturalization obtained on behalf of a person under twenty-one years of age by a parent, guardian, or duly authorized agent, unless such person shall fail to enter the United States to establish a permanent residence prior to his twenty-fifth birthday

An Exposition of the Constitution of the United States By Albert Orville Wright

Any person born of an American father in a place to the jurisdiction of a foreign nation may be natural born American citizen if he claims that privilege when he arrives at the proper age So also any born of a foreign father in any place subject to jurisdiction of the United States may be a natural American citizen if he choose In these doubtful the person may choose the country of his father the country of his birth So that a person may be a born citizen of the United States without being native of the United States

And the list goes on and on…"

Here is my response:

"You are mistaken that I am still wondering about dual citizenship. I have stated my position quiet clearly and that position is that a child that is born with dual citizenship cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen."

You are the one who tries to confuse the issue with all your citations and quotes that are not relevant. The simple point that you miss is that the status of "natural born Citizen" is determined at the time of birth. Do you really believe that the Framers would have written a citizenship requirement to be President that depends on what a person does in later years? Such a citizenship rule simply cannot be properly enforced, for we can not wait around to see what a child is going to do in his/her later years. The rule has to be much simpler-either you are in or you are out. That is an objective, bright-line rule which usually characterize office eligibility requirements.

Those dual nationality cases and examples you cite concerning what a child does in later years simply go to retaining U.S. citizenship and not to determining whether a child is a "natural born Citizen" at the time of birth. If a child is a "natural born Citizen" at the time of birth, there is no need to wait for later years to see what the child is going to do with his dual citizenship status. Also, if the child is a "natural born Citizen," there is no need for that child to have some statute declare what his citizenship status is. All your citations are therefore misplaced and not relevant. Your attempt to use contradictory English common law and a myriad of statutes only sets a trap for you to fall into. There is no escaping from the correct definition of what a "natural born Citizen" is.

That is right, the President of the United States at the time of his/her birth can only have one allegiance and that is to the United States. He/she cannot be born with any condition that can in later years create divided allegiance and split political loyalty. The child must be born with a condition that will give him/her by nature absolute and sole attachment to the United States. During the Washington Adminstration, the First Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1795 in which it provided that new citizens take a solemn oath to support the Constitution and “renounce” all “allegiance” to their former political regimes. Surely, if a naturalized citizen needs to have only one allegiance and he/she still cannot be President we cannot expect any less from a “natural born Citizen” who can be President of the United States. Alexander Hamilton proclaimed, "safety" of the Republic "depends" upon "love of country" and "the exemption of citizens from foreign bias and prejudice." Woodrow Wilson stated in 1915 that "the man who goes among you to trade upon your nationality is no worthy son to live under the Stars and Stripes." Hence, "world citizens" need not apply for the Office of the President."

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Zapem said...

But I think you need to find a quote or two that refers to birth in Britain. This quote refers to birth OUTSIDE of Britian, and it seems for that reason it allowed Natural Birth to two parents. Thus it could have been merely an extension of the law, which was that if you were born in the British Realm, you were a British Subject (except for the children of foreign diplomats, of course.) This looks like an extension to me.

That would be incorrect, since the history of that quote shows that they're talking about British invasions and conquering of land, which in turn, made it British land, subject to English law.

You're also forgetting that in this country, we rebelled against being consigned to a king. The difference with us is, we pledge allegiance to a country and still, some that do just that who weren't born here, aren't eligible for the presidency.

If you want that changed, you need an amendment that's not only fair to that line of thought, but the security of the country. You can't just amend the Constitution to let in anyone, it's stupidity.

I realize that liberals think that isn't nice, but I don't think it's nice when I see foreign influence in this country threatening that we're going to see the flag of Islam flying over our White House and beheading people who don't believe in Allah. That's not prejudice. That's a fact. You do realize there's wackos out in the world, right? And that everyone isn't nice. And that when you take that sort of chance, you put a lot of innocent people at risk. It was due to us being so "nice", that foreigners were allowed to come into this country and fly our own planes into our World Trade Center, killing thousands of innocent people and costing billions in damage, a cost that isn't even known yet.

It's this history and similar history of attacks made upon our ancestors, that made the need for such laws.

You're also forgetting that the 14th Amendment was the first national law in this country and had nothing to do with the presidency. It had to do with giving slaves their rights. Foreigners were the ones to use and abuse that to their advantage and that needs correcting, not amnesty bills for votes, which is political, see-through, nonsense.

Prior to the 14th Amendment it was the STATES who dictated eligibility for citizenship. Go study those constitutions and see what you get. If you think the Constitution is vague, you won't find any ambiguity in the state constitutions. They were strict.

Considering the slave issue needed to be dealt with, we have a national law on citizenship now, but that's not what was going on at the time of the signing of the Constitution. Only what was going on then is relevant to what the framers meant when they wrote it. Wong Kim Ark, Perkins v. Elg, all that is irrelevant to what the framers intended. That's the only thing the SCOTUS need concern themselves with: What history is there to prove the meaning behind those words. Nothing else matters whatsoever.

As for finding you more quotes, what good would that do? I have a mountain of them. You're not even willing to go read the history of the debates which answers most of the questions you asked already and I've answered.

You quote Blackstone, when he's "generally speaking", but you don't quote what he wrote in the same paragraph, which says that, "Natural born subjects are such as those born within the dominions of the crown, within the legiance, or allegiance of the queen: and aliens, such as are born out of it." So here you see the stipulation that you had to have the allegiance present, not just the birth.

Even U.S. laws didn't consider Indians, "natural born citizens of the U.S." because they weren't, by choice, in allegiance to the U.S. people, even if they were BORN on U.S. soil. Aren't they "natural born citizens"? The law said no. So to say that merely being born here, gives blanket citizenship to everyone is wrong by that analogy alone and that's U.S. law, not English.

I don't see myself getting emotional here. I'm concerned with the security of this country and I don't like people out on the internet spreading lies about what the Constitution says and what the framers meant when I took the time to go read it to find out for myself. Sure, if you only read the 1800-1900 take on things, you will be misinformed and misled. I was at one point. But then I went and learned the truth. If you take the time to study it, you will see, hey yeah, that IS what they meant!

Do I think they'll remove a sitting president at this point? No, I don't. Because they're chicken. But I think it's time for the people who caused this to happen, to be called out on the carpet for it. What they did was wrong. Current Senators spreading lies about the law is wrong. Current Senators manipulating the Constitution on purpose is fraud! And they did this in February and March of 2008! They don't have the authority to change the Constitution! And they tried through a non-binding resolution for God's sake AFTER they failed to change it with a bill! Come on here! You don't see anything wrong with that?

If you think Mario Apuzzo is "emotional", ha!. I can point you to downright hysterical attorneys who have taken on these cases who are a COMPLETE embarrassment to the issue and equally hysterical news reports spreading misinformation such as MSNBC did. Mario Apuzzo is a day at the beach by comparison, are you kidding me? Why do you think no one bugs him here? Because he's not crazy and they can't point and laugh like they do the others.

And look what they say about him? Oh he's going to lose. He might, so did THEY, but he shouldn't. Not if you guys want this issue out of the way once and for all instead of slamming him all over the internet for asking a question no one seems to have answers to.

I'm starting to believe we're in two camps of people. Those who want a secure America and those who, under the guise of being "nice", are just out to destroy it.

We obviously need laws, which are rules that govern everyone, and I'm sorry, but foreigners and their children aren't governed 100% by us. I'm sorry if Obama's mother married a Kenyan, but she did and he never wanted to be part of America - he just wanted the education and then he went home. Then she turned around and according to the school records, took him out of this country and gave him her new alien husband's name. Now you have a kid who is so confused, he calls himself a "citizen of the world", because he doesn't even know who he is or what he is.

Do you even realize the potential for destruction of this country you're inviting with your 1960's attitude?

And don't think I'm partisan here. According to Bush, Sr., he will be successful at his "New World Order". Well I have news for him. There hasn't been a civilization on earth yet that hasn't fought with another and if he thinks he's going to bring them all under one umbrella like Lord of the Rings, "one ring to rule them all", he's got a prayer. It's all about POWER. You just don't get it.

All we're asking is to secure what we've got and leave other people alone. We shouldn't even BE in Afghanistan. That's not a war, or is it now? When they come here again and bother us, drop a nuke on their heads and forget about it. It's cheaper. See how fast they try it again. They won't. Sometimes you have to get off the "New World Order" kick and live and let live, separately. That's why neighbors put up property fences and "Beware of Dog" signs.

Puzo1 said...

This was posted in another thread in my blog but since it is relevant to the Natural Born Citizenship discussion I have moved a copy of it here.


John said on 15 Mar 2009:
---------------------------
Some of the possible thinking behind the natural born citizen requirement was the topic during hearings on a proposed Constitutional amendment in 2000, introduced by Congressman Barney Frank, with information linked here:

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju67306.000/hju67306_0f.htm

========================
STATEMENT OF BALINT VAZSONYI, DIRECTOR, CENTER FOR THE AMERICAN FOUNDING

Mr. VAZSONYI. Good afternoon. Thank you, distinguished members of the committee. Thank you for giving me this opportunity.

Perhaps I will be forgiven if I start with a musical analogy, since I am a musician by profession. The Constitution of the United States, indeed the entire founding of the United States of America, is one of those solitary miracles of human history, not unlike the operas of Mozart or the symphonies of Beethoven. Thousands of volumes have been written trying to understand how such a thing can happen. Nobody has even come close. There is no way to explain how a group of men can sit down and do something no human beings had ever done before them, and certainly none have since.

The Constitution, which created a country unlike any other, also brought forth a Nation populated by people who are unlike any other. It is as if an umbrella had been erected over this country inviting all the people of the world to come here and become something else than they were in the moment of arrival.

Indeed, Americans are different. I noticed this soon after I had arrived in this country 41 years ago. I daresay, I have spent a great deal of my life trying to understand, first of all, in what way Americans are different and why, but the fact remains that they are.

So when the framers of the Constitution made this provision, perhaps they were already aware of the fact, as indeed perhaps instinctively or through inspiration they were aware of so many other things, that already then Americans were different because they did something nobody else had done before them.

If we look at their reasoning, which we can only guess at, because, as you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, there is insufficient evidence, we really do not know what was on their minds, but I think the reading of the Constitution certainly offers us some very good reasons.

Our Government consists of three independent branches. In the legislative branch with its two Chambers, one of them has hundreds of Members, so a few foreigners among them really do not make that much difference. The Senate only consists of 100 Members, so 1 or 2 out of 100 again is something else. Even the Supreme Court has nine members.

Alone, the executive branch of this Government is vested in a single person. I don't think that it is an excessive requirement of the office for that person to have grown from the American soil.

I come back to my statement, which is not particularly palatable in today's political climate, that Americans are different. We like to believe that all people are the same. In my experience, they are not.

One of the best examples of that is precisely Congressman Frank's resolution. It is unthinkable, ladies and gentlemen, that a legislator in another land would actually spend time proposing that some foreigner could become the first citizen of that land. So, Congressman Frank, you are as good an example as I have met to show that Americans pour their hearts out and want to share everything, even the Presidency.

I would say respectfully that describing this provision of the Constitution, as I said, and I will say once again, one of the solitary miracles of human history, as victimizing immigrants or being unjust—to be able to run for President is not a right. It is very important not to confuse the system of government with rights. Where would such a right come from? It is a well-thought-out provision of our Constitution.

I am here to tell you, after 41 years of making the most strenuous efforts of becoming American, not just legally but in every sense of the word, and having spent 40 of those 41 years living with a native-born American, that I still have not been able to even approach the temperament, the natural tolerance, the unfailing good will toward the world that Americans are famous for.

Foreigners come here and have to learn it. It is a miracle that within one generation they can do so. I think it would be expecting something even more than the impossible that they can do it within the same lifetime, and that they can forget everything they had grown up with.

I would like to spend just a moment on the proposition that I believe will be brought before you of adopted children having the same right. The question is, at what age? How do you write a law that is going to be applicable and fair, to use that term?

The question of foreign influence has already been discussed. I would just like to add that having grown up in Hungary, I would find it very difficult to make decisions—not so much affecting Hungarians, but those toward whom Hungarians hold an animus. What if somebody of a certain birth would have to just express an opinion about immigration quotas from a country with which the native land had been at odds? This is just a tiny example. Of course, the matter of being Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces is much more important.

To say that the world is a more peaceful place today is a very temporary condition. It can turn into something else tomorrow or the day after. The constitutional provisions are not there to serve this week or next week. They have served this country for over 200 years, and I hope and we all hope that they will continue to do so.

So I would like to conclude with a general comment on constitutional amendments. I believe they are rarely necessary, hardly ever justified, and perhaps entirely untimely right now, when Americans seem to be considering even the very nature of this country, whether it is a Republic or a democracy. Therefore, with due respect to the proposal, I would like to cast a vote for rejecting it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. CANADY. Thank you, Dr. Vazsonyi.
===================

The formal written statement of Dr. Vazsonyi is at the link, and then there was an interesting Q&A after all the witnesses had offered up both oral and prepared statements.

March 15, 2009 11:20 AM
----------------------------

libertyforusa said...

smrstrauss said:
I suppose you will hope to change the minds of at least some of the justices who think that “Natural Born” merely requires birth in the USA.

Playing the devils advocate has contributed to the knowledge base, but I frequently see little statements like this one sprinkled in with your posts.

Please defend how you would presume to know this?

I would tend to believe none of the Justices would interpret the eligibility clause in this manner, but you dropped the "citizen" portion so I suppose that covers your statement.

Joe said...

Ok, I am going to settle this thing,

Read in Spainish:

If you would like to hear Le Constitution in espaniol, push uno

If you would like to hear the Constitution in gringo push Dos.

There now does that make everyone happy? Don't worry I am sure our tax forms will be printed in english for us.

Maybe that guy was right. Maybe the allegiance of a child doesn't matter after they grow up. OK

Let's see Obama's
passportS
school papers
who paid for school
selective service record
campaign contributors
client list
and the real Dreams of my Father

that oughta help us decide who his allegiance is to, right?

smrstrauss said...

Distinguished opponents:

My contribution is again to remind you that you have to prove it. You may think that the founders would not allow dual citizenship at the moment of birth, but you have to prove it. If there was considerable discussion of “divided allegiances” or “two parents who are citizens plus birth in the USA” then you have obvious evidence.

My suggestion is to really do lots of historical research. The Natural Born clause emerged, I think, from a committee that was called the Committee of Eleven. The members of that committee are known. Perhaps they wrote something in their letters or in articles that would show that they meant “two parents plus birth in the country.” Or perhaps there is something from Hamilton or Franklin. Jay (who was not a member but was influential) did indeed write about his concern about foreign influence, but we do not know that this was all the way to “two parents plus born in the country.”

Vattel was satisfied that one parent, the father, born in the country and birth in the country was sufficient for citizenship. How come the writers of Article II went all the way to two parents and born in the country?

When I say that I hope we will not be emotional I am referring to things like:

“I realize that liberals think that isn't nice, but I don't think it's nice when I see foreign influence in this country threatening that we're going to see the flag of Islam flying over our White House and beheading people who don't believe in Allah.”

In order to prove your case you cannot argue from consequences or from emotion. You must show that the writers of Article II clearly required a president who was born in the USA and had two parents who were citizens at the time of the birth.

Re: “Prior to the 14th Amendment it was the STATES who dictated eligibility for citizenship. Go study those constitutions and see what you get. If you think the Constitution is vague, you won't find any ambiguity in the state constitutions. They were strict.”

This would be useful to your case. Please cite what you are referring to. I have already quoted from the Constitutions of New York and Massachusetts in the 1770s showing that at the time they were not strict at all. Both allowed even non-citizens to vote so long as they had enough money. To what are you referring?

I see that the citizenship act of 1855 (just an act to be sure, but it argues that the citizenship laws of the states were not particularly tough) said: “All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.” In other words, it adds to children who were born in the USA, the right of children born outside of the USA so long as their fathers were citizens of the USA. It was not being tough, it was easing the law.

Re: “As for finding you more quotes, what good would that do? I have a mountain of them. You're not even willing to go read the history of the debates which answers most of the questions you asked already and I've answered.:"

Please show a quotation from the history of the debates that refers to the definition of the Natural Born Citizen clause as two parents and being born in the USA. I’ve tried to find it. I cannot. If you can show this, then you have gone a ways towards proving your case. However, so far as I can see, “Natural Born Citizen” could mean just birth in the USA (common law), or it could mean one parent a citizen and be born in the USA. Some even hold that it could mean birth outside of the USA so long as TWO US parents were involved. I do not hold to the latter, but I’d need to see real evidence that the framers required two US parents and birth in the USA.

Re: “within the legiance, or allegiance of the queen: and aliens, such as are born out of it."

Within the legiance means within the area in which all who are born are the liege subjects of the king or queen. He is not saying that someone (other than the children of diplomats) can be born in England without being the liege or subject of the queen or king. This is not merely my interpretation. This is the interpretation of the Wong case.

Re: “Even U.S. laws didn't consider Indians, "natural born citizens of the U.S." because they weren't, by choice, in allegiance to the U.S. people, even if they were BORN on U.S. soil.”

Sadly, Negroes were not considered citizens either for a long time, and the reason was not their lack of allegiance. However, I DO think that your point about the allegiance of Indians is a good one. BUT, is this really what you want to argue?

If you argue that the definition of Natural Born Citizen cannot be changed by ordinary legislation, then the fact is that in 1927 the US DID change the status of all Indians to citizen by ordinary legislation. If your argument about allegiance of Indians is true, then we considered that they did NOT have allegiance before 1927 and we decided that they DID have allegiance after 1927, and all because of a law passed by Congress and signed by the president, not a Constitutional Amendment.

According to this logic then, the allegiance necessary for Natural Born Citizenship was changed by ordinary legislation. So, it could be changed in other cases too. If this holds, then ordinary citizenship laws also could and have changed the allegiance necessary for the Natural Born Citizen test. Yet you hold that the definition of Natural Born Citizen cannot be changed.

Re: “I don't see myself getting emotional here. I'm concerned with the security of this country.”

Me too. But your goal is to show that the framers were concerned that voters would elect someone who was a security threat. If they worried, why didn’t they say so? Yes, they did pass the Natural Born Citizen” requirement, but is this worry about both parents, or one parent? Is it that they simply thought that birth in the USA was sufficient? Worry, yes—but how much worry? Did they want us to wear suspenders and a belt?

The framers could have said: “no traitors,” but they didn’t. They could have said: “No one with dual allegiances” or “No one with divided loyalty,” but they didn’t, Or, they could have said: “Natural born citizen does not mean the same thing as Natural Born Subject,” but they didn’t.

If the framers were really so concerned with security, why did some states allow even foreigners to vote so long as they had enough money?

Re: ‘No, I don't. Because they're chicken.”

Sadly, this is what I am arguing against, the feeling that if the Supreme Court rules against you, or does not take the case, the court is corrupt, or cowardly, or disloyal. It is important to realize that if they vote against you it is not because they are “chicken.” It is because they disagree with you. Some justices disagree with you because they believe the Common Law applies. Some disagree with you because they hold that only one parent need be a US citizen if the child is born in the USA (and that the parent can be either parent), and some disagree with you because “if the framers had meant two parents and born in the USA, they would have said ‘two parents and born in the USA.’”

You can win, or at least significantly reduce the number of justices who vote against you, by showing solid quotations from the framers that they meant two parents who were citizens as well as birth in the USA. Or, if their were colonial or early state laws that defined citizenship that way.

Re: “Current Senators spreading lies about the law is wrong.”

Please realize they are not spreading lies. They are saying what they believe.

Re: “I'm starting to believe we're in two camps of people. Those who want a secure America and those who, under the guise of being "nice", are just out to destroy it.”

I do not think that Senators Shelby and Hatch, who I quoted, and many others, are “out to destroy” America. Nor am I. If we disagree, it is part of our Constitutional rights to disagree, and I will fight for your rights.

If one of the Framers actually voted against the Natural Born clause, and I don’t think any of them did, would he be out to destroy the country? If he did, he may have simply thought that allegiance is not something you are born with that affects you for the rest of your life. I think that some of the Framers really did believe this, but they were willing to allow the Natural Born clause to be passed because they thought it simply excluded people who were born outside of the country. There is no evidence that they were out to destroy the country if they believed that the Constitution should not excluded people whose parents were not citizens.

It is not even “out to destroy” America to propose a Constitutional amendment that would allow naturalized citizens to become president. It is simply a different way of considering loyalty. If we allow a vote for a naturalized citizen, that merely allows the electorate to decide whether that naturalized citizen is loyal or not. If not, we will not and should not vote for her or him. If we think that person is loyal, then why not vote for her or him. Although I do not believe that such a Constitutional amendment could pass, I am not against it in principle. Of course, it would not even affect the situation we discuss, because it would not apply in retrospect to Obama—who was not naturalized because he was born in the USA.

What is similar with the Obama situation is that some people would deny the right to vote for a person that the (these voters) consider loyal who was born in the USA and had one parent who also was born in the USA.

I cannot believe that the framers would have meant any such thing when they said: “Natural Born.” I admit that they must have meant “born in the USA,” but I see no evidence that they meant more than that.

Zapem: “That would be incorrect, since the history of that quote shows that they're talking about British invasions and conquering of land, which in turn, made it British land, subject to English law.”

Still, I do not think it proves the case. I believe that at the time the text was written land that was conquered by the British was not automatically British land. It only became British land when some kind of treaty was signed. So, I still think that this quote refers to adding people who were born outside of Britain to the Natural Born Subject category.

One thing that it does NOT do is to take away the old Natural Born Subject definition of birth in the British realm. Nothing so far as I know has ever said that to be a Natural Born British Subject, you had to be born in the realm AND have two parents who were subjects at the time of birth.

Re: “I don't think that it is an excessive requirement of the office for that person to have grown from the American soil.”

Okay. That is what he said. Did he say: “American soil and two parents?”

Re: Counselor Apuzzo

You say: “That is right, the President of the United States at the time of his/her birth can only have one allegiance and that is to the United States. He/she cannot be born with any condition that can in later years create divided allegiance and split political loyalty. The child must be born with a condition that will give him/her by nature absolute and sole attachment to the United States.’

And yet you say later: “Alexander Hamilton proclaimed, "safety" of the Republic "depends" upon "love of country" and "the exemption of citizens from foreign bias and prejudice."

Is love of country something that we are born with, or does it grow? Is foreign bias and prejudice something that an infant has innately that is inherited from a parent? Do you think that Hamilton thought that?

If the President has to be free from divided allegiance, who says that merely birth in the USA does not create the situation of total allegiance for the purposes of Article II? Alternately, if the writers of the Declaration held that it was possible for adults to change their allegiance and to rebel against the King who at one time held their allegiance, why do you believe that they thought that the allegiance of one parent could affect a child when it becomes an adult?

Do I have more allegiance to the USA if I was born in the USA and my father was naturalized before my birth than if all things were the same and he was naturalized after my birth?

Zapem said...

My contribution is again to remind you that you have to prove it.

I stopped right there. You may sound like a lawyer, but if you were, you would know that under the Writ of Quo Warranto, the people force HIM to prove it. I don't have to prove anything under quo warranto. The person the writ is directed at has to.

Constitutional law scholar, Nick Szabo wrote: "The writ is not an order from the court to produce... [the proof]. The petition itself is the order to do that, much like a citation in a civil case, to respond to the filed petition. The writ is the finding by the court of whether the official has the authority..."

He also says, "It should come as no surprise that officials don't like the right and have done almost everything they can to deny or deprecate it or make people forget about it."

He also demonstrates how quo warranto, as are the other writs, are embedded into our Constitution. The people's right to petition is not unequal to any authority, so I don't know where you come up with this oligarchy pretense. When did you change the interpretation of law or side with those that try? Seems rather monarch-ish to me.

He has to prove his qualifications under the Constitution, not us; hence the remedy under the writs.

It goes on to note:

"The question may arise, what happens if the court fails or refuses to hold a hearing, or accepts the authority of the official without the proof? This question is critical to an understanding of the role of courts in the Anglo-American legal tradition. The answer, by original standards of due process, is that the writ issues by default if the respondant fails to respond, or even if the court fails to hold a hearing. If the judge accepts the official's claim of authority without proof, then by those ancient standards, the judge himself may be removed from his position by a writ of quo warranto."

Chew on that for awhile. You purport to be on his level, so have at it with a constitutional expert.

You conception of even how the intent of writs were issued, is lacking. No amount of side-tracking with nonsensical arguments over definitions is going to impress the scholars who seem to know much more than you. I think I'll take their word for it since they did the historical research and you have proved to not have done any of it.

And don't worry, I didn't just quote the man, I wrote him and asked him to take a look at the issue. Maybe you could like... seek out people in the know and do the same?

Joe said...

I have a question.

I read your second amended filed complaint up to the counts and then skimmed through the rest.

You stated several times that the Justices will be deciding the definition of NBC.

I would hope and is it proper, to give the Justices ahead start on their research by providing them the mounds of quotes, letters, books and so forth that you and Leo have amassed to argue what the framers meant by NBC?

I mean is it safe to let them go on their own and hope they find the same stuff you guys did (if they really do look for guidance in the history)?

Zapem said...

"Sadly, this is what I am arguing against, the feeling that if the Supreme Court rules against you, or does not take the case, the court is corrupt, or cowardly, or disloyal. It is important to realize that if they vote against you it is not because they are “chicken.” It is because they disagree with you.

Again, you assume they denied a petition because they "disagreed". I said they were "chicken", meaning they didn't want another Bush v. Gore before Congress convened.

The cases weren't denied for disagreeing with anyone as you just wrongly concluded. They were put in abeyance for not following the Rules of Court. They went in on a petition for Writ of Certiorari ("ordering the lower courts records") and then didn't provide the Writ of Certiorari! Look at their petitions and then look at a real writ and you'll see what was wrong with the filing.

The court could have set aside the rules, but these people EXPECTED them to do that and didn't ASK them for permission TO do that. The petitioners ASSUMED the court would give them leave and they assumed wrong. In Bush v. Gore, they approached the clerk and were given leave BY THE COURT to file in lieu of a petition for writ of certiorari due to the emergent nature and it was granted. I didn't read that in these cases. I did read that in the former.

If you go back and look at the record, you will see an admittance that the stay clerk said that the papers were inappropriate. That doesn't mean he personally didn't like them. It technically means that the filing is out of order.

So when you make this "denial because they didn't agree with you" claim that the court never said, you ASSUME yourself. The only factual evidence here is that the petitions did not follow the court protocol.

I actually think the truth lies somewhere more in the middle -- that the court didn't receive the anticipated filing and that the Congress had not yet convened to do their part.

As for why these procedures are so complex - they never used to be. Over the years the courts and government have purposely made them that way so as to discourage citizens from claiming their rights. The courts are supposed to be accessible to the people because they are supposed to exist FOR the people. Yet, they are not and that needs to be addressed and changed back to the way it was.

When Senators Gallatin and Shields were hit with a petition to the Congress to prove they were qualified to sit in that office, AFTER they were voted and sworn in, it came out that one of them wasn't even a naturalized citizen. And it didn't cost the U.S. the time we see taking now, nor the money. Back then, people asked a question and got an answer. There was none of this nonsense going on. It needs to stop. Obama is NOT the first person being questioned and he sure won't be the last. It's nothing new in the list on the history books. I have a page with about 50 names on it in one season in history. If Obama thinks he's being picked on, by comparison, that's laughable.

Mick said...

To smrstrauss,


The landmark decision Marbury v. Madison, 95 years before Wong Kim Ark, has in it some precepts that give you all that you need to know to determine that NBC is not just a 14th A Citizen.

From Marbury v. Madison:

“Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed; and in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them, or they have no operation at all.
It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.”

What this means is that the presence of the qualification for Natural Born Citizen for the office of POTUS would have no operation (or effect) if they could just be a "citizen".

Also, the Constitution DEFINITELY cannot be changed by legislative acts. Justice Marshall warned against Constitutional Relativism way back in 1803.

More from M v. M:

"Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and, like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it."

As far as Vattel, he mentions "parents" first, and then the "father". Of course the citizaenship of the mother was the same as the father. I know, I know, how chauvinistic! That's the way it was then.

Puzo1 said...

I have been arguing that "natural born Citizen" is a term of art for quite some time. On March 9, 2009, I even focused the title of this very thread on "Natural Born Citizen-a Term of Art' . . ." I have also continuously argued in this blog that the 14th Amendment did not change the meaning of an Article II "natural born Citizen" and that the Amendment had nothing to do with an Article II "natural born Citizen." I have also argued and shown that the Framers did not rely on English common law in defining "natural born Citizen." Finally, I have long argued that the meaning of "natural born Citizen" must be established as the Framers originally intended as may be explained by subsequent historical developments. I have also explained that Congress, only having the Constitutional power to make uniform naturalization laws, does not have the Constitutional authority to change the meaning of a "natural born Citizen." I have also made these statements during my radio interviews.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Puzo1 said...

I just read the following in the Norwich Bulletin written by RICHARD C. MONTFORD of Taftville. He offers his comment in defense of Mr. Obama, arguing that it cannot be that Mr. Obama is not a U.S. citizen:

"Trust me, as a worker in the defense industry, it’s impossible to deceive Department of Defense investigations. I underwent a security clearance investigation that not only checked my citizenship, birth certificate and interviewed me over months, but went as far as paying a surprise visit to my mother, interviewing former high school teachers and all my co-workers.


What the so-called “Birthers” behind this imply is that I, a lowly shipyard pipefitter, underwent more scrutiny than a U.S. senator and now president — a man whose finger is on the trigger of the U.S. nuclear arsenal. You better believe every corner of his life has been examined inside and out. The whole premise is absurd, suggesting the Defense Security Service, FBI, CIA and National Security Agency are imbeciles or involved in some gigantic conspiracy."
http://www.norwichbulletin.com/opinions/letters/x792894628/Obama-is-U-S-citizen-make-no-mistake

In response to Mr. Montford, I offer the following:

Hawaiian statute Section 338-5 provides as follows:

§338-5 Compulsory registration of births. Within the time prescribed by the department of health, a certificate of every birth shall be substantially completed and filed with the local agent of the department in the district in which the birth occurred, by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth; or if not so attended, by one of the parents.

The birth facility shall make available to the department appropriate medical records for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the provisions of this chapter. [L 1949, c 327, §9; RL 1955, §57- 8; am L Sp 1959 2d, c 1, §19; HRS §338-5; am L 1988, c 149, §1]

We can see from this law that a birth certificate needs to be filed by the administrator or designated representative of the birthing facility, or physician, or midwife, or other legally authorized person in attendance at the birth or if not so attended by one of the parents.

When Obama was questioned as to where he was born, he presumably authorized the posting not of his original long-form Certificate of Live Birth (BC) but rather a Certification of Live Birth (COLB) on the web sites dailykos.com, fightthesmears.com, and factcheck.org. Forensic experts (although having examined only the digital image on the computer and not having actually examined the original document) have questioned the authenticity of the actual COLB image that appeared on these web sites. Additionally, by relying only on a questionable computer image of the COLB, government officials do not have the benefit of examining the actual paper document and the underlying factual and corroborating information which is critical in confirming whether or not an individual (could be one parent alone) has accurately and truthfully reported a birth event to Hawaiian officials. Moreover, Obama's step grandmother (and reportedly other family members) in Kenya and at least one top Kenyan government official made statements that he was born in Kenya.

On the Obama eligibility dispute, we are talking about the Office of President of the United States and Commander in Chief of our military forces, probably the most powerful position in the world. As I have previously written, the sole purpose of government is to protect an individual’s safety and pursuit of happiness. Needless to say, the President has a great amount of power which can make life and death decisions over the lives of Americans. Despite the pleas and petitions of countless concerned Americans, our Government, which normally thoroughly examines the backgrounds of incoming aliens and applicants for permanent residency and U.S. naturalization, persons who want a national security clearance, and applicants for police and government positions, not to mention the other countless ordinary citizens who may apply for some type of government benefit (e.g. a social security card and driver's license), investigated and confirmed McCain's "natural born Citizen" status but has refused to investigate and confirm that of Obama's. Indeed, they have refused to investigate and confirm whether Obama was born in Hawaii and whether under the Constitution he is an Article II "natural born Citizen" given that his father was neither a U.S. legal resident nor citizen when Obama was born. In examining many of the responses from members of Congress to Americans who wrote to them for such action, on the issue of place of birth, not one of them said that the issue was investigated by a competent government agency such as the FBI, CIA, Secret Service, ICE, or other police or security agency. Rather, they merely rely on court dismissals (none of which have yet to reach the merits of the dispute), the computer digital image of the COLB (the authenticity of which has been questioned and which in light of existing contradictory evidence is itself insufficient to remove the existing doubts regarding Obama's place of birth), statements allegedly made by Hawaiian officials (which officials to this day have yet to confirm that Obama was indeed born in Hawaii), and the fact that the voting public has allegedly already vetted Obama (which it could not have given that Obama has refused to release to the media and public his original birth certificate (BC) and other important travel, school, and government service documents). Many of these same Congressman have also avoided addressing the question of what is an Article II "natural born citizen."

Florida's Congressman, Bill Posey's H.R. 1503, which basically provides that we should have a mechanism to confirm that a person running for President is an Article II "natural born Citizen" which is already a Constitutional requirement, has not yet found any Congressional co-sponsors. We Americans along with future generations who will also be impacted upon deserve much better protection from our current Government. To put it mildly, our Government's conduct is shocking! Let us hope that the American judiciary, based on currently pending or future law suits, will craft a remedy that will provide the American people with that vital protection.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

John Greschak said...

I have completed a major update to my essay What is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States?.

In this update, primarily I have addressed whether or not one's place of domicile is a factor in determining one's status as a natural born Citizen of the United States. (Also, I have addressed whether or not one had to have been a Citizen throughout their life, to be a natural born Citizen, presently.)

The bottom line of my essay is now as follows:

Definition. A native born Citizen of the United States is a person who satisfies the following conditions: (1) the person was born in the United States; (2) the person has been a Citizen of the United States, since birth; and (3) at no time was the person's domicile, domicile of origin, domicile of dependency, or domicile of choice outside all States of the United States. A natural born Citizen of the United States is a native born Citizen of the United States born of Citizens of the United States.

There is much in this version of the essay that is new. For those who were familiar with the previous version (which was published on January 29, 2009), here is some information that will help you locate the sections that have changed:

1. The paragraph that begins "The phrase natural born Citizen may be viewed as being the last phrase..." is new.

2. The interpretation has been changed to have the phrase "(with respect to the degree to which they are considered by the United States as belonging to, or having allegiance to, the United States)". (Previously, it was the degree to which one belonged to a foreign country.)

3. From the paragraph that begins with the following phrase, through to the end of the essay, most of the material is new: "Next, let us apply the interpretation given here to establish some necessary".

Also, a good place to get started would be the updated synopsis available at: Synopsis.

John Greschak

slcraig said...

March 18, 2009

Attorney General Eric Holder
U.S. Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20530-0001
AskDOJ@usdoj.gov. E-Mail
http://www.usdoj.gov/ Website

United States Attorney Jeffrey Taylor
United States Attorney’s Office
555 4th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20530
dc.outreach@usdoj.gov E-Mail
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/dc/ Website

Sirs,

During last year’s Presidential election, many Citizens, voters and interested persons have questioned the eligibility of several candidates placed on the ballots of various states for the Office of President of the United States. The Congress took the time to ‘Vet’ Senator McCain and produced a Non-Binding Resolution attesting to his eligibility for the office of Potus, specifically as required by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. However, the same deliberative action was not taken up in the case of Senator Obama. This has become quit troubling in that Barack Obama placed the following statement on his own website; http://fightthesmears.com: ………Verified still up and available as of this date.

“When Barack Obama Jr. was born on Aug. 4, 1961, in Honolulu, Kenya was a British colony, still part of the United Kingdom’s dwindling empire. As a Kenyan native, Barack Obama Sr. was a British subject whose citizenship status was governed by The British Nationality Act of 1948. That same act governed the status of Obama Sr.’s children.

Since Sen. Obama has neither renounced his U.S. citizenship nor sworn an oath of allegiance to Kenya, his Kenyan citizenship automatically expired on Aug. 4, 1982.”

This statement, being factual, proves Mr. Obama is in fact not a ‘natural born citizen’.

Most scholars and legal minds, who offer unbiased opinions, believe that to be a natural born citizen of this country and therefore eligible under Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution that both parents must be U.S. Citizens and the child must be born on U.S. soil.

Although citizenship issues have been adjudicated in the courts, and have been referenced in the U.S. Constitution and its amendments, the distinction of natural born citizen has stood uncontested as if self evident as to meaning and intent in the U.S. Constitution, and in its amendments and in the courts. In fact, it seems that with respect to the U.S. Constitution, its amendments and court cases that one would, with unbiased opinions, cling to this definition above any other unknown construction.

One can not but acknowledge the original understanding of “natural born citizen”. The term comes straight out of VATTEL’s LAW OF NATIONS, published in 1758. This was the standard legal reference work for the Framers of The Constitution. There are numerous references to it at the time of the writing of The Constitution. The term “natural born citizen” was common currency, most everyone knew what it meant; “born in the Country of the parents who were therein citizens”. There was no alternative definition of “natural born citizen” offered or considered once put forth by John Jay, by letter, to George Washington. Multiple Votes by the Constitutional Convention were made in the various Committees and upon Adoption Vote occasion’s without once questioning its meaning and/or intent and with no debate at any time as to it’s purpose for making such a distinction.

Subsequently, no Amendment to The Constitution, nor any other legal device, Bill or Act has changed the original meaning of “natural born citizen”.

SCOTUS has spoken on this issue, and it said the ‘natural born citizen’ clause, being a clause directly written into the text of the Constitution, is presumed to have a unique and independent effect, expressed in;
U.S. Supreme Court
MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
5 U.S. 137 (Cranch)
WILLIAM MARBURY
V
JAMES MADISON, Secretary of State of the United States.

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it. [5 U.S. 137, 175].

As a result, there are many in the United States and abroad that fear that President Obama is not a natural born citizen and is therefore usurping the office of President of the United States.

This present situation does not mean that President Obama is aware that he may not be a “Natural Born Citizen” nor that he is aware that he may be usurping the office.

It simply means that his eligibility is in question and that this question in turn has important if not critical implications for our Constitution, our Republic and our Country.

Case in point, there are numerous lawsuits already in the courts regarding President Obama’s eligibility. In one, if not more of those suits, military personnel have been called upon to join at least one of the lawsuits as plaintiffs in order to meet standing requirements. In one instance, it was misreported via the Internet that an Officer Easterling was defying Presidential orders leaving him open to potential prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Our military is made up of honorable men and women whom may believe they have a special duty to pursue litigation to determine President Obama’s eligibility thereby opening themselves to potential prosecution.

Research has determined that members of the U.S. Military hold no special duty or standing to bring about litigation regarding President Obama’s eligibility.

What has been determined and held as motivating opinion, is that once President Obama was elected, (not by popular vote or by state popular vote but), by the electoral college system provided for in the U.S. Constitution, (and subsequently took the oath of office), the means by which to remove a usurper of the Office of the President of the United States is the District of Columbia’s Quo Warranto statute 16-3502.

Furthermore the statute states in part that:

“only the United States attorney and/or the US Attorney General have the authority, without requesting leave of the court, to institute this action.”

Furthermore, the following summarizes the research done with respect to Quo Warranto and citizenship issues:

1. Due to the separation of powers that is our government as put forth in the U.S. Constitution, the United States Congress held the power to deal with a usurper including but not limited to the President of the United States. The United States Congress exercised this power by establishing the Quo Warranto statute, [DC Code Sections 16-3501, 16-3502 and 16-3503.]

2. Only you Mr. Taylor and/or present Attorney General Mr. Eric Holder have the proper jurisdiction and Constitutional and judicial powers to adjudicate this matter in the best interests of this nation and her citizenry. You have a special duty to bring forth this action.

3. No case can be brought directly by the U.S. Supreme Court on this matter as the U.S. Supreme Court does not possess original jurisdiction to issue a writ of Quo Warranto and would be violating separation of powers of the three branches of government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches). The Congress has exercised their legislative powers and you, Mr. Taylor and Attorney General Holder now hold the judicial means under Quo Warranto to proceed with the matter.

4. Finally, many have argued in accordance with the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that President Obama is a natural born citizen; however, it seems that this line of thinking cannot be argued because according to the 14th amendment it is inadmissible to assume no effect of the wording “Natural Born Citizen” in Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution as articulated as well as precedent setting in Chief Justice John Marshall’s written opinion in the seminal case of Marbury V. Madison.
U.S. Supreme Court
MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
5 U.S. 137 (Cranch)
WILLIAM MARBURY
v.
JAMES MADISON, Secretary of State of the United States.

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it. [5 U.S. 137, 175].

And further admonishment to those serving Justice;

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each. [5 U.S. 137, 178] So if a law be in opposition to the constitution: if both the law and the constitution apply to a particular case, so that the court must either decide that case conformably to the law, disregarding the constitution; or conformably to the constitution, disregarding the law: the court must determine which of these conflicting rules governs the case. This is of the very essence of judicial duty.

If then the courts are to regard the constitution; and he constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.

Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions-a written constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.

The judicial power of the United States is extended to all cases arising under the constitution. [5 U.S. 137, 179] Could it be the intention of those who gave this power, to say that, in using it, the constitution should not be looked into? That a case arising under the constitution should be decided without examining the instrument under which it arises?

This is too extravagant to be maintained.

In some cases then, the constitution must be looked into by the judges. And if they can open it at all, what part of it are they forbidden to read, or to obey?

There are many other parts of the constitution which serve to illustrate this subject.
It is declared that 'no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.' Suppose a duty on the export of cotton, of tobacco, or of flour; and a suit instituted to recover it. Ought judgment to be rendered in such a case? ought the judges to close their eyes on the constitution, and only see the law.

The constitution declares that 'no bill of attainder or ex post facto law shall be passed.'

If, however, such a bill should be passed and a person should be prosecuted under it, must the court condemn to death those victims whom the constitution endeavours to preserve?

'No person,' says the constitution, 'shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.'

Here the language of the constitution is addressed especially to the courts. It prescribes, directly for them, a rule of evidence not to be departed from. If the legislature should change that rule, and declare one witness, or a confession out of court, sufficient for conviction, must the constitutional principle yield to the legislative act?

From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent, that the framers of the consti- [5 U.S. 137, 180] tution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the legislature.

Why otherwise does it direct the judges to take an oath to support it? This oath certainly applies, in an especial manner, to their conduct in their official character. How immoral to impose it on them, if they were to be used as the instruments, and the knowing instruments, for violating what they swear to support!

The oath of office, too, imposed by the legislature, is completely demonstrative of the legislative opinion on this subject. It is in these words:

'I do solemnly swear that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich; and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge all the duties incumbent on me as according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution and laws of the United States.'

Why does a judge swear to discharge his duties agreeably to the constitution of the United States, if that constitution forms no rule for his government? if it is closed upon him and cannot be inspected by him.

If such be the real state of things, this is worse than solemn mockery. To prescribe, or to take this oath, becomes equally a crime.

It is also not entirely unworthy of observation, that in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the constitution itself is first mentioned; and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the constitution, have that rank.

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

The rule must be discharged.

Sirs, I do not envy the burden placed on you by virtue of your present position as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. Mr. Taylor, or you, Attorney General Holder, having the duty to bring resolution to this matter via the judicial branch of our government through the Quo Warranto statute. Lacking such an action on the part of you, individually or jointly, will jeopardize upholding the supreme law of the land (our United States Constitution). It is an awesome burden placed upon the both of you, but I hope that you will act on this matter to secure our laws. If the U.S. Constitution is not upheld, then what laws will be left in our land that must be adhered to?

A nation without laws is no longer a nation.

I appreciate any consideration you give to this matter.

Sincerely,
Slcraigre@aol.com


Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5

[Volume 3, Page 563]
Document 2
Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§§ 1472--73
1833
§ 1472. Considering the nature of the duties, the extent of the information, and the solid wisdom and experience required in the executive department, no one can reasonably doubt the propriety of some qualification of age. That, which has been selected, is the middle age of life, by which period the character and talents of individuals are generally known, and fully developed; and opportunities have usually been afforded for public service, and for experience in the public councils. The faculties of the mind, if they have not then attained to their highest maturity, are in full vigour, and hastening towards their ripest state. The judgment, acting upon large materials, has, by that time, attained a solid cast; and the principles, which form the character, and the integrity, which gives lustre to the virtues of life, must then, if ever, have acquired public confidence and approbation.

§ 1473. It is indispensable, too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States; or a citizen at the adoption of the constitution, and for fourteen years before his election. This permission of a naturalized citizen to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country. A positive exclusion of them from the office would have been unjust to their merits, and painful to their sensibilities. But the general propriety of the exclusion of foreigners, in common cases, will scarcely be doubted by any sound statesman. It cuts off all chances for ambitious foreigners, who might otherwise be intriguing for the office; and interposes a barrier against those corrupt interferences of foreign governments in executive elections, which have inflicted the most serious evils upon the elective monarchies of Europe. Germany, Poland, and even the pontificate of Rome, are sad, but instructive examples of the enduring mischiefs arising from this source. A residence of fourteen years in the United States is also made an indispensable requisite for every candidate; so, that the people may have a full opportunity to know his character and merits, and that he may have mingled in the duties, and felt the interests, and understood the principles, and nourished the attachments, belonging to every citizen in a republican government. By "residence," in the constitution, is to be understood, not an absolute inhabitancy within the United States during the whole period; but such an inhabitancy, as includes a permanent domicil in the United States. No one has supposed, that a temporary absence abroad on public business, and especially on an embassy to a foreign nation, would interrupt the residence of a citizen, so as to disqualify him for office. If the word were to be construed with such strictness, then a mere journey through any foreign adjacent territory for health, or for pleasure, or a commorancy there for a single day, would amount to a disqualification. Under such a construction a military or civil officer, who should have been in Canada during the late war on public business, would have lost his eligibility. The true sense of residence in the constitution is fixed domicil, or being out of the United States, and settled abroad for the purpose of general inhabitancy, animo manendi, and not for a mere temporary and fugitive purpose, in transitu.

The Founders' Constitution
Volume 3, Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, Document 2
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a2_1_5s2.html
The University of Chicago Press
Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 vols. Boston, 1833.

© 1987 by The University of Chicago
All rights reserved. Published 2000
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/

slcraig said...

For those that may not have fully read or missed the import of some of the information within the previous point, let me highlight here;

SCOTUS has spoken on this issue, and it said the ‘natural born citizen’ clause, being a clause directly written into the text of the Constitution, is presumed to have a unique and independent effect, expressed in;
U.S. Supreme Court
MARBURY v. MADISON, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
5 U.S. 137 (Cranch)
WILLIAM MARBURY
V
JAMES MADISON, Secretary of State of the United States.

It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it. [5 U.S. 137, 175].

This means that any construction that attempts to challenge the term 'Natural Born Citizen' as being anything other than what the Founders intended MUST fail and ARE inadmissible.

There is adequate reference in the writings of the Founders and their contemporaries to support the definition of 'Natural Born Citizen as 'a person born both jus soli, (of the soil) and jus sanguinis, (of the blood) of 'parents, (plural) who are them selves citizens of that soil.

Any obfuscation of these facts are irrelevant inasmuch as they are 'Inadmissible in litigation' of Constitutional inquiry.

John Greschak said...

Some feel that the phrase natural born Citizen indicates only birth-related characteristics of an individual (e.g. born on soil of parents who were Citizens), and that it could not possibly indicate something about where a person has been domiciled.

Remember, there is the following example from an Act of June 27, 1782, by which the Commonwealth of Massachusetts naturalized Micheal Cunningham and John Prescott with the following language:

"they...shall...be deemed, adjudged and taken to be natural Subjects of this Commonwealth, to all Intents, Constructions and Purposes, as if they, the said Micheal Cunningham and John Prescott had been respectively born within this Commonwealth, and had continued and dwelt therein from the Time of their respective Births, and been here abiding on the Fourth Day of July, in the Year of our Lord Seventeen Hundred and Seventy-six, and had each of them at that Time and ever since, taken a Part with and been aiding the Inhabitants of this Commonwealth in Defence of their Liberties."

One must ask, in this case, which of the following items are indicated by the phrase natural Subject?: "born within", "continued and dwelt therein", "been here abiding" and "aiding". And, which of these items might be indicated by the phrase natural born Citizen, as well?

John Greschak

slcraig said...

Well, that was very gracious to bestow the 'Keys to the State' by the Act of June 27, 1782, by which the Commonwealth of Massachusetts naturalized Micheal Cunningham and John Prescott, but they would have had no Constitutional Authority to say that they were then 'Eligible' to become President, they ceremoniously 'Naturalized' them with any and all rights in Massachusetts, nothing more.

All the machinations, contortions and clever constructions can not change what a 'Natural Born Citizen' is, and I would think, given proper and unbiased assessment, it would become as clear as the unblemished night with its untold number of stars and as clear as a summers morn before the dew drops fade, NATURAL.

libertyforusa said...

...at no time was the person's domicile, domicile of origin, domicile of dependency, or domicile of choice outside all States of the United States."

This is wrong-
residency is discussed separately,
the circumstances of birth are forever and cannot change.

The framers restricted who can be president by age, residency, and circumstances of birth as three separate qualification minimums.

They relied primarily on Vattel in my opinion for that definition.
A citizen or a subject are legal terms of status.
A natural born citizen is a native of his country with parents legal citizens from same country at time of birth.
This combines a natural status and legal status.
The natural status cannot change but the legal status of the child might, thus residency requirement.

If Obama was born here fine, but both his parents did not have the necessary legal status to qualify him as a natural born citizen.

John Greschak said...

Many different definitions of the phrase natural born Citizen of the United States have been put forward. One thing that I have found to be common to all such definitions (that I have seen) is that they would all be in agreement with the following statement:

If a given person is a natural born Citizen of the United States now, then that person necessarily must have been a natural born Citizen of the United States, since birth.

John Greschak

slcraig said...

There are NO other definitions under the LAW of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA for Natural Born Citizen.Period.

NBC is a person born jus soli and jus sanguinis of two citizen parents.

And is means is, not was or maybe.

slcraig said...

I'm going to give you a puzzle; List all of the combinations of jus soli (of the soil. Location at birth and jus sanguinis with all the combinations of parents status of citizenship, EXCEPT what I have been calling 'Natural Born Citizen' and then match the combinations you come up with all of the Citizens Made by the Naturalization Laws and tell me what you see?

ERGO:

John Greschak said...

For a long time, societies have divided the individuals that live within their country into two categories: (1) those whose stay is intended to be temporary, and (2) those whose stay is intended to be permanent. Our language, American English, reflects this distinction.

For example, to refer to the place that one lives, there are the words residence and domicile. Residence is a generic term for the place that one is living (or dwelling) currently; alone (i.e. unadorned with the modifiers temporary or permanent), it does not indicate whether one's stay is intended to be temporary or permanent. In contrast, the word domicile means the place one intends to stay permanently, and when one is away temporarily, it is the place to which one intends to return.

Analogously, to refer to a particular individual that is living in a given country, there are the words resident and inhabitant. Like the word residence, the word resident is a generic term; alone, it does not indicate whether one's stay is intended to be temporary or permanent. In contrast, generally speaking, the word inhabitant is used to refer to one who intends to stay permanently in a particular place.

The domicile of an inhabitant is the place of which they are said to be an inhabitant; the domicile of a resident need not be the place within which they are said to be a resident.

One may find evidence of this distinction between the words resident and inhabitant in actual usage. In discussing residents, it is common to speak of "permanent residents" versus "temporary residents", but one rarely speaks of "permanent inhabitants", or, even less frequently, "temporary inhabitants".

This distinction between the meanings of the words resident and inhabitant has existed in American English for some time. For example, in Noah Webster's An American Dictionary of the English Language (from 1828), it is written that a resident is "one who resides or dwells in a place for some time" and an inhabitant is "one who dwells or resides permanently in a place, or who has a fixed residence, as distinguished from an occasional lodger or visitor" and "one who has a legal settlement in a town, city or parish."

John Greschak

John Greschak said...

What is a Citizen?

Merriam-Webster's (Online) Dictionary defines the word Citizen as follows:

MW1: an inhabitant of a city or town; especially: one entitled to the rights and privileges of a freeman

MW2a: a member of a state

MW2b: a native or naturalized person who owes allegiance to a government and is entitled to protection from it

MW3: a civilian as distinguished from a specialized servant of the state

Compare this with the following definition of the word Citizen given in Noah Webster's An American Dictionary of the English Language (from 1828):

N1. The native of a city, or an inhabitant who enjoys the freedom and privileges of the city in which he resides; the freeman of a city, as distinguished from a foreigner, or one not entitled to its franchises.

N2. A townsman; a man of trade; not a gentleman.

N3. An inhabitant; a dweller in any city, town or place.

N4. In a general sense, a native or permanent resident in a city or country; as the citizens of London or Philadelphia; the citizens of the United States.

N5. In the U. States, a person, native or naturalized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, or the qualifications which enable him to vote for rulers, and to purchase and hold real estate.

Clearly, the definition of the word Citizen has changed, over time. The sense MW3 is new, but it does not apply to the case at hand (i.e. to our discussion of the meaning of the phrase natural born Citizen). Sense N2 has been eliminated, but it, too, does not apply to the case at hand. Senses N1 and N3 have been combined to yield Sense MW1. Sense N4 has become Sense MW2a, and Sense N5 has become Sense MW2b. Separately, the definition of the word inhabitant has gone from being (in Noah Webster's dictionary) "one who dwells or resides permanently in a place, or who has a fixed residence, as distinguished from an occasional lodger or visitor" or "one who has a legal settlement in a town, city or parish", to (in Merriam-Webster's Dictionary) "one that occupies a particular place regularly, routinely, or for a period of time <inhabitants of large cities> <the tapeworm is an inhabitant of the intestine>".

Most importantly to the case at hand, the notion that a Citizen is a permanent resident, which was explicitly stated in Noah Webster's Dictionary, has been, over time, removed from the definition of the word Citizen. This is significant for the following reason: when we interpret the United States Constitution, we must be careful to do so using the definitions that were in force when that document was written.

In a general sense (from N4), by Citizens of the United States, one could mean the permanent residents of the United States. In a more specific sense (from N5), one could mean those particular permanent residents who have relatively many privileges (e.g. including the right to vote). This is analogous to our use of the word men, which in a general sense can mean all humans, but in a specific sense, can mean all male humans. In both cases (Citizens and men), the specific category is a subset of the general category, and therefore, the members of the specific category have all the characteristics of the more general category. In particular, the specific category specified by Sense N5 (which I believe is the sense of the word Citizen that was used in the United States Constitution) is a subset of the more general category specified by Sense N4, and therefore, all members of this more specific category are permanent residents, as well. Thus, all the Citizens to which the United States Constitution refers were, in the minds of the Framers, permanent residents.

Note: The notion that Citizens are permanent residents is also discussed in Vattel's The Law of Nations. From the English translation published in 1760, there are the following statements: (1) From Section 215 (Of the children of citizens born in a foreign country), "But I fuppofe that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to fettle elfewhere."; (2) From Section 216 (Of children born at sea), "I suppose that fhe and her hufband have not quitted the country to fettle elfewhere."; and (3) From Section 219 (Of vagabonds), "...to fettle for ever in a nation, is to become a member of it..."

John Greschak

John Greschak said...

All natural born Citizens of the United States are Citizens of the United States.

All Citizens of the United States are permanent residents of the United States (in the minds of the Framers of the United States Constitution).

Therefore, all natural born Citizens of the United States are permanent residents of the United States (in the minds of the Framers of the United States Constitution).

If a given person is a natural born Citizen of the United States now, then that person necessarily must have been a natural born Citizen of the United States, since birth.

Therefore, if a given person is a natural born Citizen of the United States now, then that person necessarily must have been a permanent resident of the United States, since birth (in the minds of the Framers of the United States Constitution).

John Greschak

John Greschak said...

Consider the following three sentences from the United States Constitution (labeled R, S, and P, respectively):

R: No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

S: No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

P: No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

From Sentences R and S alone, one might conclude that the Framers of the Constitution thought that being a Citizen of the United States and being an inhabitant of the United States were independent matters. However, that conclusion would be unfounded; one may only conclude that the Framers thought that being a Citizen of the United States and being a Citizen of the particular State that one is to represent were independent matters.

By Sentences R and S, Representatives and Senators are required to be inhabitants of the State they are to represent, and consequently, inhabitants of the United States. Since the position that the President holds is more powerful than that of a Representative or Senator, I believe it would be reasonable to conclude that, in Sentence P, the Framers intended to, and did, specify that a President must be an inhabitant of the United States, as well. Here, I take the word inhabitant to mean permanent resident (i.e. one who is domiciled in the United States).

Some would claim that this was done with the last phrase of Sentence P: "[have] been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." Those with this opinion must explain the fact that, in Sentences R and S, the Framers used the phrase "Inhabitant of", while in Sentence P, they used the phrase "Resident within". One might argue that this is only a meaningless inconsistency, because one feels that the phrases "Inhabitant of" and "Resident within" are equivalent. I would disagree.

I believe that, at the time when the Constitution was written, the word inhabitant meant a permanent dweller, while the word resident meant a dweller whose stay was not necessary intended to be permanent. Thus, I interpret this last phrase of Sentence P as "[have] lived in the United States for a total of at least fourteen years". (I have not found sufficient evidence to conclude that this needs to have been the most recent fourteen years, or a continuous period of fourteen years. The writers of the Constitution of Massachusetts (1780) included such a requirement for their Governor with the phrase "next preceding" in the following: "have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding". In the Constitution of New Jersey (1777), it was written that members of Assembly were to "have been, for one whole year next before the election, an inhabitant of the county he is to represent". By the Constitution of Pennsylvania (1776), Representatives were to have "resided in the city or county for which he shall be chosen two years immediately before the said election." The Framers of the United States Constitution could have written something similar, if that had been their intent.)

I believe the Framers of the United States Constitution understood the word Citizen to mean, among other things, permanent resident. Thus, I believe the Framers specified that the President must be a permanent resident of the United States by using the word Citizen in the two categories of Citizens described in the first section of Sentence P; said another way, by saying the President must be a Citizen, the Framers were saying the President must be, among other things, a permanent resident.

(Note: The justification for my interpretations of the words inhabitant, resident and Citizen was given in messages that I posted to this thread in the past week.)

John Greschak

slcraig said...

I can see why those who want America to join the "Citizen of the World Club" are tring so hard to be the "god's of Words and Nature". But it ain't going to work.

nascuntur et jus soli et jus sanguinis et civitas parentis.

Born of the Soil by the Blood of parents both citizens.

Puzo1 said...

To slcraig:

I must commend you on your:
"nascuntur et jus soli et jus sanguinis et civitas parentis."

Where did you find that? Can you send me a link or reference?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

slcraig said...

No, it’s my own construction and I imagine it is grammatically incorrect in true Latin. But word for word is correct.

But please, please, visit my Blog and read my letter to Judge Lamberth of DC District Court, Petition for Leave to Submit Writ of Quo Warrant, Writ of Quo Warranto and Execution of Writ of Quo Warranto.

You may see what you need.


http://foundersowndreams.blogspot.com/

slcraig said...

Congress has taken most of the Authorities provided to it by the Constitution and worked with them in Great Zeal, the Governence of ‘Naturalization’ no less than any other.

But it would be well to consider that at no time in ANY Court of the Land has any child’s citizenship status, when born in the Jurisdiction of the USA and in a State thereof,(jus Soli) by ParentS, (Father and Mother), who are Both Citizens themselves(Jus Sanguinis); ERGO, “Natural Born Citizen’, and further, it therefore follows, if a Law of Congress is required to gain one’s Citizenship, it can not then be said to be the Citizenship of a “Natural Born Citizen”; but the Citizenship of one 'Naturalized'.

The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution [Elliot's Debates, Volume 4]
Seamen's Bill.--For the Regulation of Seamen on Board the Public Vessels, and in the Merchant Service of the United States.
House of Representatives, February, 1813

Mr. SEYBERT. The Constitution of the United States declares, Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies, throughout the United States." Sir, the rule only relates to the mode; it is only operative during the nascent state of the political conversion, and it ceases to have effect the moment after the process has been completed. Your Constitution only recognizes the highest grade of citizenship that can be conferred. The alien is thus made a native, as it were, and is fully vested with every eight and privilege attached to the native, with the exception impressed on the Constitution Your statutes cannot deprive any particular species of citizens of the right of personal liberty, or the locomotive faculty, because the Constitution does not characterize the citizens of the United states as native and naturalized. Our great family is composed of a class of men forming a single genus, who, to all intents and purposes, are equal, except in the instance specified--that of not being eligible to the presidency of the United States. The only exception to the rule is expressed in the Constitution.

If other exceptions had been contemplated by the framers of that instrument, they would also have been expressed. None other having been expressed, he said, it followed that your legislative acts could not make individual exceptions touching the occupation of a citizen. All freemen,citizens of the United States, may pursue their happiness in any manner and in any situation they please, provided they do not violate the rights of others. You cannot deny to any portion of your citizens, who desire to plough the deep, the right to do so, whilst you permit another portion of them the enjoyment of that right.*

Conclusion;
*{i.e.,You can not Naturalize one person and confer Citizenship and then deny another His birth right as a "Natural Born Citizen"}

Mr. ARCHER. The framers of our Constitution did not intend to confine Congress to the technical meaning of the word naturalization, in the exercise of that power--the more especially when the comprehensive word rule was made use of. The principle upon which the power was to be exercised was left to the judicious exercise of Congress; all that was required was, that the rule should be uniform throughout the states. In the grant there is no other specification, as to the exercise of it, than that of its uniformity. The term naturalization was borrowed from England. It must be understood here in the sense and meaning which was, there attached to it. Whether it was absolute or qualified, it was still a naturalization. But the grant of a power in general terms necessarily implied the right to exercise that power in all its gradations. It Was in the political as it was in the natural world: the genus included the species. Besides, the power to naturalize was an attribute to sovereignty. It was either absolute or qualified; and if the grant to Congress only implied a power of unlimited naturalization, the power to qualify existed in the states or in the people, for what was not specifically granted was reserved.
In treating of the executive power, the Constitution defines the qualifications of the President. It declares that he should be a natural-born citizen, or a citizen at the adoption of the Constitution. This article is unquestionably no limitation of the power of Congress upon the subject of naturalization. It was impossible to abridge a specific grant of power without a specific limitation, and the article alluded to could not be tortured, by the most ingenious mind, to diminish, even by implication, the authority of Congress upon a subject to which it was totally irrelevant.*

*Conclusion
("Natural Born Citizens" are OUTSIDE the Mandate of the Congress to'make uniform Laws of Naturalization', therefore, Congress can not make a person what that person is not already except to 'Naturalize' that person as a 'Citizen', and no more.)

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lled&fileName=004/lled004.db&recNum=472&itemLink=D?hlaw:2:./temp/~ammem_HtIz::%230040473&linkText=1

Puzo1 said...

Moved this post to the NBC thread.

------------------------------
jayjay said on March 29 2009...
What do you suppose would be the repercussions (legal and/or political) if the Obama BC is eventually outed and shows NO father listed or the black poet/pornographer/Communits Frank Marshall Davis (who O admits greatly influenced him)???

Any thoughts??? If the latter, it would Perhaps mean he is a NBC.
March 29, 2009 7:36 PM
----------------------------

slcraig said...

To JayJay;

1st; I would say that the '0' waited to see how far he could get without disclosing any thing and how far the debate evolved to come to a consensus on one definition or another.

2nd; I would say that if the BHO Sr. was not his BC listed Father he will have committed 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' in that he published his own bio and made recorded statements against the facts.

3rd; He then may argue that his true poppa is BHO Sr. but was unavailable at his birth so his mommy told a little white lie, in which case a 'Paternity Test' would be needed to settle the facts.

4th to Umpteenth; The obvious truth is that until "THE Truth" is 'outed' the scenarios are as diverse as the worlds 6.5 billion population.


To Puzo1;

Please contact me via e-mail so I may relate to you what's new to the courts.

slcraig said...

To JayJay;

1st; I would say that the '0' waited to see how far he could get without disclosing any thing and how far the debate evolved to come to a consensus on one definition or another.

2nd; I would say that if the BHO Sr. was not his BC listed Father he will have committed 'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' in that he published his own bio and made recorded statements against the facts.

3rd; He then may argue that his true poppa is BHO Sr. but was unavailable at his birth so his mommy told a little white lie, in which case a 'Paternity Test' would be needed to settle the facts.

4th to Umpteenth; The obvious truth is that until "THE Truth" is 'outed' the scenarios are as diverse as the worlds 6.5 billion population.


To Puzo1;
Please contact me via email so I may relate to you what is new in the courts.
slcraigre@aol.com

Puzo1 said...

One of the problems with Obama not releasing his original birth certificate and other character documents is that he creates an environment wherein so many people speculate as to the "facts" of the matter. Then the Obama supporters and even one court labels the speculators as conspiracy theorists. The speculation is caused by Obama himself and then he takes advantage of it when people surmise what the truth is. This is our "transparent" and "kindlier and gentler government" leader.

What is also shameful and puts more fuel on the conspiracy fire is how a court can enter the political arena and critize a litigant for in good faith attempting to discover the truth about a would-be and now sitting President. While a court can have so much political advice for the concerned Americans bringing the cases, that same court does not even suggest in some miniscule way to Obama that maybe if he just provided more information to the public there would not be so much litigation over his birth place issue.

Additionally, the way the mainsteam media reports on eligibility decisions by our courts (e.g. "the case" had no merit or was found to be frivolous or the lawyer was sanctioned for even bringing the case), the public and political leaders are also mislead by court "decisions" when the court declares the actions "frivolous" or otherwise denies the litigants even a hearing, for such reporting leads people to believe that the courts are reaching the merits of the eligibility issue when that is absolutely not the case.

This is all just a sad commentary on American justice. No wonder so many Americans are losing respect for and becoming contemptous toward our courts.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

slcraig said...

It's Official, I have a case. Gone to file Subpoena’s and will publish details when I return!

"Steady, Aim small, Miss small"

Bartlesville1943 said...

How can we find a list of the attorneys who are working against all of the birth certificate cases?



I believe the list would show a pattern of who is protecting Obama and we should be "following the money".


I understand the attorneys defending Obama's position in one California case stated they would seek sanctions and attorney fees if the case was not withdrawn.


Who is paying the attorneys who are demanding the case be withdrawn? Or, if Obama's attorneys are doing their work as volunteers, why should anyone have to pay for their services. They chose to take the case on themselves.


We need to publish the names and addresses of all opposing attorneys!

Mike McMillon
Atlanta

United Natural Born Citizens said...

Puzo1,


I have filed at the USDC Western Dist. OKla, file civ-09-343-f

Civil Rights Claim w/Application for Class Action w/ Application to Challenge Constitutional Statute w/Writ of Mandamus.

Claims Civil Rights Violation due to the Congress' Failure to 'make Uniform the Laws of Naturalization in that they failed to respect the Two (2) forms of Citizenship enunciated in the Constitution; therefore, by 'Exclusion of Distinctions and Omissions of Acknowledgement' my rights, and the Class, have been Violated.

You can read the initial filing at http://foundersowndreams.blogspot.com/

Your thoughts and comments would be much appreciated.

smrstrauss said...

Re: “One of the problems with Obama not releasing his original birth certificate and other character documents is that he creates an environment wherein so many people speculate as to the "facts" of the matter.”

The facts of the matter are that the State of Hawaii does not send out copies of the original birth certificate anymore. It only sends the Certification of Live Birth, which was what Obama has already posted and was checked by FactCheck and Polifact. So, unless we KNOW that Obama has a copy of his original birth certificate saved from the time of his birth, then we cannot be sure that it is Obama’s decision not to post the original.

But we cannot know that. If his family lost the original or he mislaid it, all that he can post is what the Department of Health of Hawaii will send him. It has said to me repeatedly in e-mails that it will send out only the Certification of Live Birth to anyone, that the COLB is the only birth certificate it sends out to people asking for copies of their birth certificate.

However, I am so convinced that Obama WAS born in Hawaii that I am delighted to show your side how you can find out Obama’s place of birth fairly easily and very legally.

But first, how do I know for certain that Obama was born in Hawaii?

Because his birth was recorded in Hawaii in 1961, which was before the time when Hawaii allowed the registration of births outside of Hawaii. Moreover, I have evidence that Hawaii required proof of birth in Hawaii when a child was born outside of a hospital (signed statements from doctor or midwife). So the original birth certificate in Obama’s file must be from Hawaii.

And that is what the officials in Hawaii confirmed when they looked into the file and said that they saw an original birth certificate.

Their written statement said only that they saw an original birth certificate (which “birthers” say could have been from Kenya). But the spokeswoman for the department told the Chicago Tribune ON The RECORD that what they meant was that Obama was born in Hawaii:

Quotes:

“Does this mean Obama was born in Hawaii?

"Yes," said Hawaii Health Department spokeswoman Janice Okubo, in both email and telephone interviews with the Tribune. "That's what Dr. Fukino is saying."

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/11/obama_hawaaianborn_citizen_for.html

So I am convinced that Obama was born in Hawaii.

I am so convinced that I will show you how to get a copy of his original birth certificate.

You cannot get it from him because he apparently does not have it, and he cannot get it from the Department of Health in Hawaii, which says that it will not send out a copy of the original birth certificate to anyone. And you cannot get the original from the Department of Health under the current law because it, and even the COLB, are private documents.

So what to do? Simply change the law. Make a new law in Hawaii that applies ONLY to the President of the United States (that should preserve the privacy of everyone else). Make the law say that in the case of the President, his birth records are public documents and that the records can be viewed by any member of the public.

You may ask “why should this be fairly easy to do?" Because (1) there is a Republican governor of Hawaii. And, because (2) it would be embarrassing for Obama to oppose such a law. And, (3) I am convinced that he would not oppose it anyway because I am sure he WAS born in Hawaii. He could not be born anywhere else if his birth was recorded in 1961. So he would not oppose it. And, (4) I don’t think that any reasonable Democrat would oppose such a law. It could be argued that such a law would help to find out which of the two hospitals he was born at.

I can’t help because I don’t know any legislators in Hawaii or the governor of Hawaii, but surely if this movement has hundreds of thousands of members, there will be someone who does.

But, the release of the original birth certificate will, I am convinced, prove that he was born in Hawaii.

United Natural Born Citizens said...

to smrstrauss;

You say the ')' doesn’t have a copy of his original BC?

Well, that makes him a published liar then.

In his book, 'Dreams of my drunken deadbeat father' he said he found his original BC between the pages of a book.

Was he lying then or lying now.

And your obviously not a bureaucrat, or a dishonest one, because the Hawaiian Dept of Vital Stats or Health Dept already said they have and original but won't produce it because the '0' say's no.

Besides, the BC is only a sideshow.
The '0' CAN NOT be a 'Natural Born Citizen' as is understood by any rational thinking person with half a grasp of language, logic and reason.

His mommy joined with a Foreign National who had no intention of pursuing Citizenship for him self.

That coupling is the antithesis to being Natural Born.

But, at least you believe in something.

Gavin said...

An illegitimate child has one parent for "Natural Born Citizen" purposes--the mother who bore that child, and therefore gave life to that child. The status of the biological father of such a child is of no legal consequence. That is, because there is no legal or legitimate marriage between the biological father and the life-giving mother, there is no real mechanism by which the relationship (such as there may be) between the biological father and the illegitimate child can (or should) be recognized by a court of law. For what it's worth, this is the reason the term 'illegitimate' is used to describe such a child.

If the mother of an illegitimate child is a U.S. citizen, then the child is a Natural Born Citizen. In the eyes of the law, there is no reason to continue the analysis.

In the case of a married mother, the law has reason to look further. A legitimate child has two parents for "Natural Born Citizen" purposes--the life-giving mother, and the man to whom she is married. It matters not in the eyes of the law whether the man to whom the life-giving mother is married is the actual biological father of the legitimate child, or some other fellow is the actual biological father. It will suffice that the life-giving mother is married, and that the man to whom she is married can be and has been identified to the satisfaction of a court of competent jurisdiction.

In the case of Barack Obama, we start from the presumption that he was born in Hawaii. We also know that Hawaii was a U.S. state by the time Barack Obama was born. Barack Obama's mother was a U.S. citizen at the time he was born. The question then becomes, was Barack Obama's life giving mother legitimately married at the moment Barack Obama was born to her, or was she not legitimately married at the moment Barack Obama was born to her. If not, Barack Obama is a Natural Born Citizen, no more questions asked, as discussed above. If so, the citizenship of the man to whom Barack Obama's life-giving mother was married at the moment Barack Obama was born in Hawaii becomes relevant.

I believe the Supreme Court will eventually construe the constitutional term Natural Born Citizen to mean born in the U.S. to a life-giving unmarried U.S. citizen mother, or to a life-giving U.S. citizen mother who is married to a man who, at the time of such birth, is also a U.S. citizen.

Barack Obama's purported biological father was a Kenyan national (and therefore a British subject) present in the U.S. on a temporary visa for purposes of pursuing an academic degree. Under no circumstances is it possible for Barack Obama's purported biological father to claim that he was he a U.S. citizen at the moment Barack Obama was born.

If a court of competent jurisdiction concludes that Barack Obama's purported biological father was legitimately married to Barack Obama's life-giving mother at the moment Barack Obama was born on U.S. soil in Hawaii, Barack Obama's goose is cooked. He is not a constitutionally-valid Natural Born Citizen of the U.S., and will be removed from office forthwith. Hello President Biden.

If Barack Obama's purported biological father was not legitimately married to Barack Obama's life-giving mother at the moment Barack Obama was born on U.S. soil in Hawaii, Barack Obama is a constitutionally-valid Natural Born Citizen of the U.S. No harm, no foul, and no President Biden.

Barack Obama has thrown his preacher (still alive) of 20+ years under the bus. He threw his own maternal grandmother (alive at the time) under the bus. If push comes to shove, and Barack Obama finds that he must shove his purported biological father (long dead) under the bus to preserve his constitutional eligibility to the presidency, is there any doubt about what he will do, or at least attempt to do?

United Natural Born Citizens said...

Gavin,

Your analysis is intellectually dishonest and is contrary to the original intent to protect the sovereignty of the U.S.A.

Under your proposition, a foreign agent can come to the US, impregnate an American Citizen woman and immediately leave so as not to be a consideration as to the child’s citizenship.

Then that citizen mother can be lead by design to raise that child under foreign influence his entire life opposed to the country of his birth. (sound familiar?)

Two citizen parents, of good character and without foreign entanglements is to be found in the meaning and intent of the NBC requirement.

Gavin said...

On the contrary, 'United Natural Born Citizens.'

I have arrived at my conclusions based on a great deal of intellectual 'sweat equity.' Trust me--intellectual dishonesty is something I would never trade in. It's not in my nature, so I would never be any good at it anyway.

You, on the other hand, would do well to consider all of the possible scenarios before you commit yourself to a particular position. A majority of nine justices is needed, and if five justices can't agree on a palatable solution to this quandary, we will be in a world of hurt--trust me. If a otherwise acceptable definition for Natural Born Citizen can be proposed that does not exclude fatherless children, support from U.S. women (particularly U.S. women SCOTUS justices) might just be a possibility.

Take a look at von Bar before you reject my ideas out of hand. At a minimum, I would appreciate hearing whatever arguments you have to show precisely why the U.S. constitution must be read to exclude the possibility of an illegitimate child running for, assuming, and/or holding the position of U.S. president.

Hamilton, or the 'bastard brat of a scotch peddlar' (as Adams was fond of referring to him as), was an illegitimate child. The presidential eligibility clause included a grandfather provision that rendered him, together with most other prominent Americans at the time, POTUS eligible. While this doesn't necessarily have any bearing on what the term 'Natural Born Citizen' means, I have to think that Hamilton would be surprised to learn that his was the last cohort of illegitimately-born individuals to be POTUS-eligible.

To my mind, the most important issue of our time is preservation of the original meaning of the Constitution against corrosion by the enemies of civil society. Maybe it's just me, but I have to think that those who are determined to persuade SCOTUS that illegitimate children born to unmarried U.S. citizen mothers after the adoption of the U.S. constitution are POTUS-ineligible are bound for disappointment.

Think about it. Legally speaking, at the time such a child is born, he or she has no father, only a mother. The mother's U.S. citizenship is already in place. No man, whether he be of foreign extraction or not, has any legal status with respect to such a child. Accordingly, no man has the right to exercise custody over the child over the objections of the birth mother. Objectively speaking, or in other words, as a matter of law, such a child is no more susceptible to corruption by a foreign power or foreign intrigue than a legitimate child born to two U.S. citizen parents.

Under your own analysis, no child can be POTUS-eligible unless born to a U.S. citizen mother. Are you sure you are being impeccably true to Vattel's jurisprudence? That is--are you sure Vattel would have agreed with you?

Seriously--what do you make of Vattel's heavy focus on the the citizenship of the father in particular when determining whether a particular child is (as he put it in the original French) one of the 'naturels' or 'indigenes'? We know that at the time of the founding (both before and after the Constitution was adopted), there was no question but that a child born to a married U.S. citizen father was automatically considered to be a U.S. citizen. It did not matter whether the mother was foreign born or held foreign citizenship at some point. When she married a man who was a U.S. citizen, she automatically became a U.S. citizen. All children born in the context of such a union would clearly have been natural born citizens, no?

I think you are asking for trouble when you ask for more than you need to protect the U.S. Constitution. I don't care at this point if Obama gets to keep his job or not. What I care about is whether guys like John McCain or Bobby Jindal and the Republican Party in general get it in their collective head that the Constitution can be molded and shaped to suit modern preferences outside the predetermined and damnably (but justifiably) diffult procedures for enacting legitimate amendments.

United Natural Born Citizens said...

So your position is the ‘Single Parenthood’ should be legitimized and ‘natural’?

Doesn’t fly. A woman does NOT get pregnant ‘asexually’; there is a sperm donor involved. If that sperm donor is ‘Unidentifiable’ then that child IS NOT a natural born citizen.

What you fail to reconcile is the ‘natural world’ with the ‘political world’.


Re: Hamilton, who supported the cause, along with many others, pledging his life, fortune and sacred honour was amongst those excepted, but as Joseph Story commented,

This permission of a naturalized citizen (or a bastard son?) to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country.



But to continue on you theme of fatherless, or single parent, children. Until 14th Amendment and some could say the 19th woman could not confer citizenship on her own. A woman derived her citizenship from her husband.

But let’s return first to the 18th century where these were simply ‘natural’ facts of life and this was the ‘natural world’ from which Vattel made his conclusions.
History to his time was replete with political intreges and ‘Sun Ztu, Clausewitz’ and ‘machiavellian’ style usurpatations that offered numerous examples that recommended for strong rules to protect a nations sovereignty.

Fast forward to the 19th Amendment. With two citizen parents, each 100% citizens in their own right, is the child therefore born as a 200% citizen?, Is this then a Natural Born Citizen? Poetically that has some grace, but in reality, and in the norm of nature, each parent lends 50% of the genes to form a child, and so it is not unreasonable for each parent to lend 50% of the child’s citizenship.

Perhaps, if society put a greater value on the two parent family we would not be put in a position to ‘Legitimize’ a single parents circumstances.

But that being the case, the fathers and mothers pedigree are legitimate concerns of an informed electorate, even if they are no longer together.

United Natural Born Citizens said...

So your position is the ‘Single Parenthood’ should be legitimized and ‘natural’?

Doesn’t fly. A woman does NOT get pregnant ‘asexually’; there is a sperm donor involved. If that sperm donor is ‘Unidentifiable’ then that child IS NOT a natural born citizen.

What you fail to reconcile is the ‘natural world’ with the ‘political world’.


Re: Hamilton, who supported the cause, along with many others, pledging his life, fortune and sacred honour was amongst those excepted, but as Joseph Story commented,

This permission of a naturalized citizen (or a bastard son?) to become president is an exception from the great fundamental policy of all governments, to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties. It was doubtless introduced (for it has now become by lapse of time merely nominal, and will soon become wholly extinct) out of respect to those distinguished revolutionary patriots, who were born in a foreign land, and yet had entitled themselves to high honours in their adopted country.



But to continue on you theme of fatherless, or single parent, children. Until 14th Amendment and some could say the 19th woman could not confer citizenship on her own. A woman derived her citizenship from her husband.

But let’s return first to the 18th century where these were simply ‘natural’ facts of life and this was the ‘natural world’ from which Vattel made his conclusions.
History to his time was replete with political intreges and ‘Sun Ztu, Clausewitz’ and ‘machiavellian’ style usurpatations that offered numerous examples that recommended for strong rules to protect a nations sovereignty.

Fast forward to the 19th Amendment. With two citizen parents, each 100% citizens in their own right, is the child therefore born as a 200% citizen?, Is this then a Natural Born Citizen? Poetically that has some grace, but in reality, and in the norm of nature, each parent lends 50% of the genes to form a child, and so it is not unreasonable for each parent to lend 50% of the child’s citizenship.

Perhaps, if society put a greater value on the two parent family we would not be put in a position to ‘Legitimize’ a single parents circumstances.

But that being the case, the fathers and mothers pedigree are legitimate concerns of an informed electorate, even if they are no longer together.

Gavin said...

If it were up to me, and the record supported such a construction, I would be inclined to conclude that the term Natural Born Citizen excludes illegitimate children, regardless of the citizenship of the life-giving mother.

As you say, at the present time, our society is bording on indifference when it comes to whether a child is born in or out of traditional wedlock.

I would think it would be a huge shot in the arm to responsible, married, dual-U.S. citizen couples to learn that their sacrifices for their children, fidelity toward each other, and allegiance to their country has resulted in POTUS eligibilty for their children.

On the other hand, all those who saw relatively little value in the bonds of matrimony will be in for a rude awakening when, all of a sudden, they find that their their 'lifestyle choice' has rendered each and every one of their cherished children POTUS-ineligible.

Who knows. Perhaps when all of this is said and done people will be brought around to a newly positive way of thinking about marriage, a relatively higher degree of alertness to the risks of pre-marital sex, a disinclination toward extended cohabitation, and a more jaundiced eye when considering proposed legislation seeking to elevate non-standard marital arrangements (man-man, woman-woman, etc.) to the status of the traditional man-woman marriage. This is all to the good, I suppose, at least when one considers what is in the best interests of the country.

United Natural Born Citizens said...

Your lips to God's ear...........