New Evidence Regarding Obama’s Alleged Father: Is It Malcolm X?
By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
September 29, 2011
See this new blog called, Terrible Truth. The owners of the new blog are writers and researchers, Martha Trowbridge and Erik Rush. They have just written an article entitled, Saps, Stool Pigeons And Stanley Ann’s Hair, accessed at http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/.
The authors maintain, based on evidence of tampering with photographs of Obama’s mother, that "Obama’s Mother And Son photo was falsified to deceive us."
They state: “Truth is, mama Stanley Ann didn’t have long hair when Barack was young. Until, of course, with photoshop-type tampering, The Obama Campaign made sure we’d think that she did.”
One might ask why would Obama care to alter photos of his mother. The authors say this: “Here’s why: Obama was worried you’d find her in places, at key strategic times, with people he couldn’t let you know about. People like Malcolm X. Times like the early and mid-1960′s. Places like New York City.” Based on photo and film footage analysis, they specifically place who they say is Stanley Ann Dunham at the funeral of Malcom X.
They continue: “So it just may be that Barack Obama’s father isn’t Barack Obama “Sr”, after all.” The authors conclude that Stanley Ann Dunham had Obama with Malcolm X, her secret lover. Hence, Obama’s father is Malcolm X.
The authors ask why would Obama have hidden the truth about his origins. The authors say: “Because having a biological father like Malcolm X – a radical black nationalist – would have impeded Obama’s chance for election.”
Please review the photos, film footage, and other materials presented by Ms. Trowbridge and Mr. Rush.
Let us know what you think.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
September 29, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####
Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
By: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
September 29, 2011
 |
| Obama with Stanley Ann Dunham-Was this Photo Altered? If so, Why? |
See this new blog called, Terrible Truth. The owners of the new blog are writers and researchers, Martha Trowbridge and Erik Rush. They have just written an article entitled, Saps, Stool Pigeons And Stanley Ann’s Hair, accessed at http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/.
The authors maintain, based on evidence of tampering with photographs of Obama’s mother, that "Obama’s Mother And Son photo was falsified to deceive us."
They state: “Truth is, mama Stanley Ann didn’t have long hair when Barack was young. Until, of course, with photoshop-type tampering, The Obama Campaign made sure we’d think that she did.”
One might ask why would Obama care to alter photos of his mother. The authors say this: “Here’s why: Obama was worried you’d find her in places, at key strategic times, with people he couldn’t let you know about. People like Malcolm X. Times like the early and mid-1960′s. Places like New York City.” Based on photo and film footage analysis, they specifically place who they say is Stanley Ann Dunham at the funeral of Malcom X.
They continue: “So it just may be that Barack Obama’s father isn’t Barack Obama “Sr”, after all.” The authors conclude that Stanley Ann Dunham had Obama with Malcolm X, her secret lover. Hence, Obama’s father is Malcolm X.
The authors ask why would Obama have hidden the truth about his origins. The authors say: “Because having a biological father like Malcolm X – a radical black nationalist – would have impeded Obama’s chance for election.”
Please review the photos, film footage, and other materials presented by Ms. Trowbridge and Mr. Rush.
Let us know what you think.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
September 29, 2011
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####
Copyright © 2011
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
The puppeteers are willing and able to create any history they want for Obama. Trading Malcom X for a father whose citizenship automatically disqualifies him doesn't make much sense.
ReplyDeletegood find
ReplyDeletethe BNA of 1948 makes the wife of a Brit Citizen a Brit Citizen....i ran into this today...so if BHO's mom...married to hide malcolm X's child...and by law...became a brit Citizen herself...barry is the child of not 1...but 2 british citizens...born on US Soil...either way...no matter who his father actually was...he was the child of 2 brit citizens and that makes him...barely american
aint dat sumptin?...
Robert,
ReplyDeleteWe do not yet know what the truth is.
Regarding the Malcolm X connection, we cannot assume that the "puppeteers" knew what an Article II "natural born" Citizen is.
Obama's mother may have had to apply for brit citizenship - please supply specific citation - good digging - phil stone
ReplyDeleteOne of the images they say was altered (the one immediately below the video) is from the Mercer Island School yearbook. So when did the altering occur 1960 or 2007? And if in 2007, did they go out and find all the copies of the yearbook and replace them?
ReplyDeletejs,
ReplyDeleteA child born into a marriage is presumed to be the legitimate child of that marriage.
By jus sanguinis, allegiance and citizenship attach at the moment of birth and not at the moment of conception.
We have been told that Obama Sr., a British citizen, and Stanley Ann Dunham, a U.S. citizen, first conceived baby Obama and then later married in February 1961. We have also been told that Obama Jr. was born to them in August 1961.
Let us assume as you have pointed out that the British Nationality Act of 1948 made the wife of a British citizen a British citizen herself. Let us further assume that U.S. law would recognize and accept that under British law an American citizen marrying a British citizen also became a British citizen and that when Stanley Ann Dunham, a U.S. citizen, married Barack H. Obama, a British citizen, in February 1961, she herself became under U.S. law a dual U.S. and British citizen.
Since Obama was born to the marriage of Barack Obama and Stanley Ann Dunham, he is the legitimate child of that marriage and of those parents.
So, if Obama Sr. is Obama’s natural father, Obama was conceived by a British citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother and legitimately born to a British citizen father and a dual U.S. and British citizen mother.
If Malcolm X is Obama’s father, Obama was conceived by a U.S. citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother, but legitimately born to a British citizen father and a dual U.S. and British citizen mother.
Consequently, regardless of whether Obama or Malcolm X is Obama’s father, he was legitimately born to a British citizen father and a dual U.S. and British citizen mother.
4zoltan said:
ReplyDeleteOne of the images they say was altered (the one immediately below the video) is from the Mercer Island School yearbook.
Ah. And the 'family' images? Where are they from?
Mario Apuzzo said:
ReplyDeleteIf Malcolm X is Obama’s father, Obama was conceived by a U.S. citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother, but legitimately born to a British citizen father and a dual U.S. and British citizen mother.
Brilliant! So no matter which way they twist the truth, they hang themselves with their twisted narrative.
If Stanley Ann had NOT 'married' Obama, and, as Michelle Obama stated, delivered the baby as a single parent, with Malcolm as the biological father, Barack would be fully qualified as a natural born citizen, correct?
As an aside, Malcolm would be devastated that his son publicly disavowed him. He had guts.
Annie
ReplyDeleteYou don't get it.
The authors of the article took an image that isn't a fake unless it was faked in every yearbook in the1960 yearbook. They then proceed to prove it was altered. What does that say about their skills as image analyst?
It cast doubt on the rest of their work.
There only three possibilities - they either screwed up, the conspiracy started in 1960 or the authors are punking you.
SaipanAnnie,
ReplyDeleteI of II
You asked: “If Stanley Ann had NOT 'married' Obama, and, as Michelle Obama stated, delivered the baby as a single parent, with Malcolm as the biological father, Barack would be fully qualified as a natural born citizen, correct?” (emphasis in the original).
If the facts stated in you question are correct, the answer to your question would be “yes.” But the judicially established facts are not as you state them in your question.
Obama and the media have informed the public that Stanley Ann Dunham married Barack Hussein Obama February 2, 1961. We have even seen a divorce judgment filed in a Hawaiian court of competent jurisdiction which terminated that marriage. We are also in possession of those divorce documents which were filed in that Court. These documents show that Stanley Ann Dunham, through her attorney, George L.T. Kerr, Esq., filed a verified divorce complaint (sworn to under oath) on January 25, 1961, in the Circuit Court of the First Judicial Circuit Court of the State of Hawaii, bearing docket number 57972. The complaint alleged, among other things, that Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Hussein Obama were “lawfully married in Wailuku, Maui, State of Hawaii, on February 2, 1961, by a person duly authorized to perform marriage ceremonies and ever since that date have been and are now husband and wife.” The complaint further stated “[t]hat one child has been born to . . . said marriage, to wit: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, a son born August 4, 1961” (emphasis in the original). Pursuant to court order entered on January 23, 1961, Obama Sr. was duly served with the summons and complaint by certified mail return receipt requested for which he personally signed which residing at 170 Magazine Street, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Hence, the court properly acquired personal jurisdiction over him.
On March 20, 1964, the Hon. Samuel P. King filed and entered a Decree of Divorce. The same decree judicially confirmed, among other things, the following facts: Judge King on March 5, 1964, held a hearing in open court on Stanley Ann Dunham’s petition for divorce. Both Stanley Ann Dunham and her attorney, George L.T. Kerr, were present. Judge King further confirmed that “due proof was made to this Court that the said parties are intermarried.” The decree further stated that Stanley Ann Dunham was granted custody the care, custody, and control of “BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, II, the minor child of the parties hereto.”
These judicially established facts are not so easily erased, not even by some unconfirmed ambiguous remark of Michelle Obama, made almost 50 years later, that Stanley Ann Dunham “delivered the baby as a single parent” (single in fact or single in law?). On the contrary, someone would be judicially estopped from attempting to establish that these facts are not correct. Under these circumstances, the marriage is presumed valid until another court of competent jurisdiction were to declare it void at the request of someone with standing and adequate grounds to make such an application almost 50 years later.
Continued. . .
Continued. . .
ReplyDeleteII of II
Consequently, Obama is not an Article II "natural born" Citizen. As I have shown on this blog, http://puzo1.blogspot.com, our U.S. Supreme Court and others have always defined the clause to mean a child born in the country to citizen parents. This is the American common law definition of an Article II "natural born" Citizen which to this day has never been changed by the Fourteenth Amendment, Acts of Congress (not implying that they could), or any U.S. Supreme Court case.
Given that his reported father, Barack Obama Sr., was a British citizen, and his mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, by birth a U.S. citizen, but by marriage a dual U.S. and British citizen, he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents.
Also, we have seen on this blog and on so many other blogs and in numerous on-line news reports that there exist great doubts regarding the authenticity of the alleged birth certificate that Obama released on the internet in April 2011. Hence, he has yet to conclusively prove where he was born. So we cannot even with any assurance say that he was born in the United States. Related to the place of birth issue are the unanswered questions regarding Obama’s social security number and selective service registration. All these unanswered questions raise a significant issue as to the true identity of the person we have come to call “Barack Hussein Obama, II.”
Therefore, Obama fails to be a "natural born" Citizen on two fronts: (1) he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents; and (2) he has not conclusively proven not only that he was born in the United States, but also who he really is.
Sure, why not. This is as plausible as any other theory.
ReplyDeleteThis notion has been around for years and had been roundly "poo pooed" by everybody, perhaps even here. I never understood that. We know that Obama and all his Flying Monkeys are totally non-credible. So there is no reason whatsoever to believe the official narrative.
I am glad to see that some people are running with this ball and seeing where it leads.
Bottom line: We don't know "squat" about Zero's birth circumstances. So pursuing any and every credible angle seems like a worth effort.
ALSO -
ReplyDeleteOne of the burning questions surrounding Zero is "why him?". He is clearly no more than a random and common street thug. So why was anybody interested in him in the first place?
There is not a single bit of any kind of answer except for the ever popular "some puppetmaster/cabal/masterrace picked him and groomed him more or less at random". I have always rejected that as overly conspiratorial (in the bad sense of the term). There was SOME REASON why he was specifically selected.
The only theory I have seen so far that even begins to explain that is the MalcomX theory. So, if for no other reason, this theory should not be lightly dismissed.
The possibility that Malcolm X was Obama's biological father was explored way back in Nov. 2008 by Israel Insider. The morphing photo at the link is quite striking!
ReplyDeleteI also recall a Muslim cleric appearing in a video where he discusses certain traits that are only passed down genetically (something about the upper lip of both Malcolm X and Obama). I need to search for that video and when I find the link I will share it here.
Found the video clip:
ReplyDeleteYou Tube: Is Barack Obama related to Malcolm X?
4zoltan said:
ReplyDeleteThe authors of the article took an image that isn't a fake unless it was faked in every yearbook in the1960 yearbook. They then proceed to prove it was altered. What does that say about their skills as image analyst?
It cast doubt on the rest of their work.
How is it you speak with such authority re: Obama's mother?
And how would you know what the physical yearbook- if indeed there was one - featured?
Digital smoke and mirrors - that's Obama's m.o.
Digital images. So easily altered.
Why don't you ask him to produce the originals - including the family images?
As for 'getting it', what I don't get is what you're doing here. I've yet to see anyone agree with you or your other synthetic identities [including Atticus Finch and Frank Davis].
Do you really think we are all fools who don't notice?
How you wish doubt were cast! Is this the best you can offer, to wish away the truth about Stanley Ann's fake hair in the mother-and-son photo?
WOW! Small wonder all the secrecy. Taken together with his book and several adoptions this man is far more dangerous than Americans will ever know. It makes sense now that Hawaii is still refusing to corroborate the "birth". Stanley was an unwed mother right up until BO Sr took the fall. He was in need of cash and she a father for the record. It's plausible. A DNA test would reveal the truth but more importantly, the public has a right to know who this man really is that has been slipped into public office amid lies and deceptions, fraud and conspiracy.
ReplyDelete4zoltan said:
ReplyDeleteThe authors of the article took an image that isn't a fake unless it was faked in every yearbook in the 1960 yearbook. They then proceed to prove it was altered.
Has it even been established that are other yearbooks, or even the one the photo supposedly came from, available for examination? For all we know, the "yearbook photo" was seeded, like many other images, by the Obama camp itself.
4zoltan said:
ReplyDeleteThe authors of the article took an image that isn't a fake unless it was faked in every yearbook in the 1960 yearbook. They then proceed to prove it was altered.
Has it even been established that are other yearbooks, or even the one the photo supposedly came from, available for examination? For all we know, the "yearbook photo" was seeded, like many other images, by the Obama camp itself.
These pictures blow this whole theory out of the water.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2785212/posts?page=68#68
At long last, a look at the altered photographic history of that unknown guy sleeping in the White House. I have been on this bandwagon since the get go. The picture on the park bench with dear grandpa's hand levitating got me started. The WHY is as staggering a question as to the altered photos.
ReplyDeleteAt long last, a look at the manufactured photographic history of the guy sleeping in the White House. I got on this bandwagon at the beginning, the park bench photo of grandpa's hand levitating is hilarious. The WHY is as staggering to ponder as to the altered pictures.
ReplyDeleteGreg Goss said...
ReplyDelete"These pictures blow this whole theory out of the water."
And where do you think the other photo came from? This thread has pretty much established that 90% of the stuff released by BHO's camp is bogus, and you're pointing to yet another unverified photo to discredit the research? BTW - you would do well to look at that photo in Photoshop as well. A third grader could do it. Her hair is just as fake in that one too! If her face has been altered in other photos (and it has), how can you claim a standard reference for what she looks like!
Apuzzo,
ReplyDeleteThe Court could not have decided whether Virginia Minor had the constitutional right to vote without first deciding whether she was a “citizen,” which in her case could only be a “natural-born citizen.”
That is not really the case, however. The Fourteenth Amendment does not require either "natural born citizenship" or "naturalized citizenship." In fact, if the Court did indeed intend to require that, it would have run contrary to the intent of the Fourteenth Amendment as the original focus was to ensure that newly freed black men and women would be considered citizens based on their birth in the U.S. If there was a requirement for NBC then it is likely that many of the freed blacks would not be born citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment because their parents died prior to being recognized as citizens by it. They would not have citizen parents - and therefore, would not be NBCs under your definition.
The Court did not decide whether Minor would have had rights as any other kind of citizen because she WAS NOT any other kind of citizen.
In fact, your argument falls flat because the Court also discusses, quite fully, naturalized citizens and their rights when it discusses suffrage. This has no application for Minor - so why is it there?
It is not necessary to discuss whe...
There are a few problems with your statement:
(1) The term "common law" has some strong and specific implications especially in the Constitution. Primarily, it separates out our system, inherited from England, from the civil law system that was common in mainland Europe. Further it was necessary to consider what the difference between law and equity, which still meant going to the English common law. Joseph Story is a good source on this one:
http://www.belcherfoundation.org/joseph_story_on_common_law_origins_of_constitution.htm
(2) Given that we are discussing something that is not about "natural rights" (no one has the right to be a citizen, and we do deny that right to minors, for instance) there's no reason to think that the "law of nations" as Vattel described it could "override" our common law history, which we base our entire legal system on.
(3) Please show how we adopted the law of nations and not common law, with clear sources.
(4) At least six English editions of Law of Nations were published between 1759 and 1797… and not one of them translated “Les Naturels, ou Indigènes” to include the phrase “natural born citizens.” The first time the phrase “natural born citizens” was ever associated with de Vattel was in the 1797 London edition. This was ten years after the Constitution was adopted, and 30 years after de Vattel’s death.
(5) de Vattel's oft-quoted passage is not about NBCs...it is about all citizens. One could not be a citizen unless one was born in the country (jus soli) AND had a FATHER who was a citizen (jus sanguis).
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2009/05/de-vattel-revisited/
It does not overrule Lynch.
Lynch dealt with U.S. citizenship. The law you quote covers NY STATE citizenship, and states children of "transient aliens" are not citizens of NY STATE. "Transient aliens" are defined as citizens OF OTHER STATES (therefore, U.S. citizens).
Continued...
...Continued
ReplyDeleteThe state code cannot, in fact, limit U.S. citizenship because the U.S. Congress is the body with the power to legislate U.S. citizenship. It is an enumerated power and state law cannot regulate it.
Therefore:
(1) The NY State legislature CANNOT overrule even its own state court on this issue because it is outside its power to legislate U.S. citizenship.
(2) It DOES NOT under the law cited because (a) it speaks only to NY State citizenship and (b) denies it to children born of citizens of OTHER STATES (so it does not cover the Lynch case, where the parents were not citizens of another state, but another nations).
I would like you to point to a single case that has followed Minor's definition as controlling. The most recent court to address the issue firmly stated:
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/11120903.ebb.pdf
The Supreme Court denied cert without comment - which indicates that what you claim is settled Court precedent is 100% non-precedential as the holding of the Indiana Court of Appeals was based on Minor being NON-PRECEDENTIAL.
Greg Goss,
ReplyDeleteI recommend that you should take a look at this new post at Terrible Truth which addresses your post of that phony photograph of Stanley Ann Dunham with "long hair."
http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/same-day-same-girl-same-fake-hair-though-now-its-green/
ReplyDeletePuzo1 said...
Robert,
We do not yet know what the truth is.
Regarding the Malcolm X connection, we cannot assume that the "puppeteers" knew what an Article II "natural born" Citizen is.
September 29, 2011 3:48 PM
Mr. Apuzzo,
I am a little late to the show.
Why didn´t the "puppeteers" not know what an Article II "natural born" Citizen is ? Can it be that no one "knew" this before President Obama´s election ?
Zorbas,
ReplyDeleteThere are people who knew. If what actually occurred is ever brought to light, Obama will most assuredly not be the only one wearing orange.
Pardon my stepping in uninvited, but of course they knew what an Article II nbc was.
ReplyDeleteThey thought they'd get away with it.
As with all criminal minds, they greatly overestimated the power of their schemes.
As for "puppeteers", don't be misled. What we have suffered and until lately endured are the effects of a sociopathic symbiosis, born of three pathetic people, which over decades morphed into a cabal of highly damaged, vengeance-obsessed people. People who happened to have been blessed with intelligence and gifted with academic and professional achievement - who used their credentials to mask their intentions.
ZLG: you know exactly who I mean, don't you?
And by the way, don't think your stepping in to try to drive attention away from this topic will do you any good.
This is no show. It is a show-down.
In case your 'late' arrival is why you don't know it: We The People have already won.
if Rubio is a VP candidate the MSP will discover he is not an NBC. And since there has been no discussion of the subject in the MSP they won't even seem hypocritical. Most interesting it will be.
ReplyDeleteMario,
ReplyDeleteI have a question which I think I know the answer to, but wanted to get your opinion on.
The naturalization acts from 1790 and well into the 1800s considered the children, whether or not born in the US, of aliens in the US to be aliens, and that these children became naturalized when their alien father became naturalized.
Under the principle of derivative citizenship, the citizenship of the wife was that of her husband. Prior to the 1922 Cable Act, this means that an American citizen woman who married an alien immigrant man automatically became a citizen of that alien man’s home country. But what if she was a widow of a US citizen man and had children from that marriage? These children, if born in the US, would be natural born citizens. Would these children lose their US citizenship upon the marriage of their mother to the alien man, who adopts the children and is now their father? What would the citizenship status be of these children, who now have an alien mother and father, with all of them residing in the US?
We know from the 1939 US Supreme Court case of Perkins v. Elg that the US citizenship of children is not lost on account of the actions of their parents. Per this logic, the children above would not have lost their US citizenship. But the Elg case is from 1939 and I am not sure that a court prior to 1922 would have ruled that these US citizen children kept their US citizenship. I think a court prior to 1922 would rule as did the Elg court, but what do you think?
Texoma,
ReplyDeleteThe status of "natural born" Citizen is established at birth. I believe that those children would be "natural born" Citizens, even though their widowed mother later married an alien and in the pre-Cable Act of 1922 period thereby also became an alien. Those children were born in the country to two U.S. citizen parents. Under U.S. law, they could not possibly have been born into royalty or otherwise subject to a foreign power. They therefore met the definition of a "natural born" Citizen.
Elg told us that the acts of a parent done while the child is a minor cannot cause that child to lose his or her U.S. citizenship. Hence, the adoption would not have caused that child to lose his or her "natural born" Citizen status.
I am not aware at this point of anything which would have caused the Elg Court to rule in 1938 any differently if the Cable Act of 1922 had not yet been passed.
Frank Davis,
ReplyDeleteI of II
The drafter of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment were not concerned with making anyone an Article II “natural born” Citizen. In fact, you cannot point to anything in the debates on this Act and amendment which suggests that they were looking to make anyone a “natural born” Citizen or even looking to amend the definition of an Article II “natural born” Citizen. Rather, what they were concerned with was making sure that freed slaves were recognized as “citizens” of the United States. Hence, both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment provided for the status of “citizen” of the United States, not “natural born” Citizen. It is also noteworthy that Congress with the Civil Rights Act expected anyone born in the United States not to be born subject to any foreign power in order to acquire the status of a “citizen” of the United States. See The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36, 73 (1873) (“The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States. 16 Wall. 73.” Id. at 678) and Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884) (“subject to the jurisdiction” meant “not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction, and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.”). Free slaves had no problem meeting that status, for they and their ancestors had for ages been born in the United States with no allegiance to any foreign power.
(1)–(2) You continue to try to paint the issue of “natural born” Citizen as one which pits the English system against the European system and to imply that the English system is more “American” than the European one. In your effort you hide the fact that our republic is a product of having fought and won a war against England. You also would not want us to know that if it were not for France and other European allies, the Americans would probably not have won the war against England. You also do not want us to know that the Americans rejected the ways of the British monarchial society and sought to follow a model which they believed was most virtuous and best suited for their new republic. That model was based on natural law and the law of nations and the humanistic philosophies of the Enlightenment which produced many great civil law commentators from continental Europe, one of which was the great Emer de Vattel. The concepts that the Founders and Framers adopted for the new republic transcended any loyalty or attachment to monarchial England. The Founders and Framers gladly accepted natural law and the law of nations rather than the English common law as a system of law to which they looked not only to justify the revolution but also to draft the Constitution and establish the new republic.
(3) I have cited and discussed numerous historical sources and cases of the U.S. Supreme Court in my essays and comments on this blog which show that we adopted the natural law and law of nations definition of “natural born” Citizen and not the English common law definition of a “natural born subject.” I will not repeat myself here.
(4) Our U.S. Supreme Court does not agree with you. It, through individual Justices, has cited and quoted several times Emer de Vattel for his definition of a “natural born” Citizen. And when it did not cite him, it copied almost word for word that definition (see Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark). Hence, your argument that Vattel did not define a “natural born” Citizen is completely meritless.
(5) You must be reading a different treatise than I am if you believe that Vattel did not define a “natural-born citizen” and rather only defined a “citizen.” But I will give you credit for at least conceding that there are “citizens” and then there are “natural born” Citizens.
Continued . . .
II of II
ReplyDeleteI did not cite the New York Code statute to suggest that it provided a national standard for what a “natural born” Citizen is. Rather, I cited and quoted it to show you that the New York legislature did not agree with Lynch and therefore overruled it.
You argue that the New York Code cannot provide any national standard for citizenship. But then you argue that Lynch, a state court case, can do so. Can you explain why a state court’s decision is authoritative on the question of national citizenship but legislative acts of a state legislature are not.
Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” was acknowledged and confirmed by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which in declaring a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” of the United States recognized the distinction between a “natural born” Citizen under Article II and a “citizen” of the United States under that amendment.
The Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana decision was wrongly decided. I will address that decision in a separate comment.
ZorbasLeGreque,
ReplyDeleteThere are three types of ignorance which you plead, ignorance of the public, ignorance of Congress, and ignorance of the Courts. I will only address you contention that our Courts did not know in advance the definition of a "natural born" Citizen. I especially want to address the Kerchner case since the Obots are out and about with their sophomoric “score cards” attempting to mislead the public as to what the Kerchner case was about and how the courts ruled in that case.
As far as pleading ignorance of the Courts as a defense, law suits were filed against Obama both before and after his election. I even filed the Kerchner v. Obama/Congress legal action with the Federal District Court in New Jersey before Obama was sworn in on January 20, 2009, thereby establishing standing as of that moment in time. In that action, I argued that Obama could not be an Article II “natural born” Citizen because, with the clause meaning a child born in the country to two citizen parents (citing, among other sources, Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Sec. 212 (1758) and Minor v. Happersett, (1875) and Obama being born to a non-U.S. citizen father, he could not meet that constitutional standard for eligibility to the office of President and Commander in Chief. I also argued that given that Obama had refused to release to any controlling legal authority an original birth certificate and had hidden his birth, education, work, and travel documents from the American people, he had failed to conclusively show that he was a “natural born” Citizen. The defendants filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the action, arguing the plaintiffs did not have standing (did not suffer any injury). Both the District Court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals said that while all Americans would be injured by an illegitimate President, the plaintiffs had failed to show that their injury was unique to them. The courts therefore dismissed the action for lack of standing.
What is also most unusual is that the Third Circuit issued an order to show cause why I should not be made to pay for the Government’s cost for having to defend the appeal because according to the Court, it was not reasonable for me to believe that the Court had standing. This surely was a shock to me given that given that I filed the case after Congress confirmed Obama but before Chief Justice Roberts sworn him in. It was the only case in the country to present such unique standing circumstances. Additionally, our courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, many times give split decisions on the politically charged issue of standing. This means that there really is no way to know whether a court will or will not find standing in cases involving challenges to government action (consider standing challenges in ObamaCare cases). This is more so in the Obama eligibility cases given that there exists no U.S. Supreme Court precedent on the question of whether a concerned citizen has standing to file an Article II presidential eligibility challenge. I felt that the Court’s action was intended to intimidate me and other attorneys from filing other eligibility cases. I filed my opposition to the show cause order which explained that I had the right to discovery of Obama’s birth certificate to show that the Government could have easily mitigated its costs of defending eligibility actions by simply releasing his original birth certificate from day one and thereby have avoided having to defend any further law suits. The Third Circuit in response to my opposition and without waiting for any response from the defendants then immediately discharged its order to show cause, meaning that I did not have to pay for any of the Government’s defense costs. The U.S. Supreme Court refused, without stating any reason for its decision, to grant our petition for a writ of certiorari.
Puzo1 Wrote:
ReplyDelete"I did not cite the New York Code statute to suggest that it provided a national standard for what a “natural born” Citizen is. Rather, I cited and quoted it to show you that the New York legislature did not agree with Lynch and therefore overruled it."
Response:
The applicable section of the Political Code of State of New York adopted November 3, 1846 that defined citizens of New York
wad Section 5 which provided in relevant part:
5. The citizens of the state are:
1. All persons born in this state and domiciled within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls;
2. All persons born out of this state who are citizens of the United States and domiciled within this state.
Lynch case was decided in 1844 and this Political Code was enacted in 1846.
However, in 1858, a court in New York observed:
"It is further contended on the part of the defendant that the plaintiff himself is an alien. He was born in Ballston Spa, in this state, while his father was a resident of Canada, and returned to his father's domicile, with his mother, within a year after his birth. His mother was temporarily there without any actual change of residence either on her part or that of his father. It is argued that at common law a natural-born subject was one whose birth was within the allegiance of the king. The cases of children of ambassadors born abroad, and of children born in English seas, were considered exceptions. Chancellor Kent, in his Commentaries, defines a native-born citizen to be a person born within, and an alien one born out of, the jurisdiction of the United States., 2 Kent, Comm. 37-50. In Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. 583, the question was precisely as here,—whether a child born in the city of New York, of alien parents, during their TEMPORARY SOJOURN there, was a native-born citizen or an alien; and the conclusion was that, being born within the dominion and allegiance of the United States, he was a native-born citizen, whatever was the situation of the parents at the time of the birth. That case, if law, would seem to be decisive of the present question." Munro v. Merchant, 26 Barb. 383, 400-401 (N.Y. 1858)(emphasis added)
Even though the Political Code of New York adopted in 1846 contained language excluding children born in New York to transient aliens of being citizens of New York, the Munro court held that Lynch court's observation that children of transient aliens were citizens of New York was still decisive in 1858, 12 years after Section 5 was adopted in the Political Code of New York.
I still have a problem with "standing."
ReplyDeleteAs I see it, the natural born citizen clause is intended to prevent future harm by preventing the election of a president whose allegiance may not be to the United States.
By that reckoning, it is impossible to establish that you have suffered immediate harm as the standing doctrine requires.
All:
ReplyDeleteGolle gosh gee ... do any of you REALLY think Obama or any of his cohort would LIE???
Who'd a thunk it??
Doublee,
ReplyDeleteOnce executive power illegally vested in Obama, eveytime he uses it he is doing harm. We do not need to wait for any future events. He has the power now, he is illegally using that power now, and he is causing harm now by using that power when he is not authorized by the Constituion to hold and use that power.
Atticus finch,
ReplyDeleteMunro v. Merchant, 28 N.Y. 9 (N.Y. 1863) reversed Munro v. Merchant, 26 Barb. 383 (N.Y. A.D. 1858), the case you cite and quote.
The defendant, Merchant, lost in the Supreme Court (an appeals court) and he appealed to the Court of Appeals of the State of New York (the state’s highest court).
First, the Appeals Court did not decide the question of whether Munro III (I grandfather, II father, and III son, is my designation) was a “citizen” of the State of New York.
One of the arguments made by the defendant on appeal was that the plaintiff, Munro III, did not have good title to real estate because he was an alien.
The Court of Appeals held that both Munro I and II were born British subjects and remained British subjects. Unlike his grandfather and father, there was an issue of whether Munro III, being born in New York to alien parents who were not permanently residing in New York, was a “citizen” of the New York. But the case did not turn on whether Munro III was a “citizen” of the State of New York.
The appeals court only said that Munro III was a “prima facie” citizen. It was not necessary for the court to decide if he was really a “citizen” because as the court explained, he took title to the real estate by purchase and not by inheritance or law. It said that “an alien can take by purchase and hold against all parties except the state claiming under an inquest of office. Id. at 40-41. It is noteworthy that the Court of Appeals only said that Munro was a “prima facie” citizen and did not cite or discuss Lynch v. Clarke, (1 Sand. Ch. R. 583,) which the court below did. It is also noteworthy that the lower court in referring to Lynch said: “That case, if law, would seem to be decisive of the present question.” Hence, the court did not state that Lynch was law. Also, if the jus soli English common law rule of citizenship was so much a part of our nation, why did the highest court of the State of New York say that Munro III was only a "prima facie" "citizen" and not decide whether he was a true "citizen?" Why did the lower court not even know if the Lynch decision was even “law?”
Nevertheless, even though Munro III, even if an alien, could legally purchase and hold the subject real estate, the appeal was granted on the ground that the defendant should be allowed to show to a jury during a new trial that he obtained title to the real estate by adverse possession which if proved would defeat Munro III’s title to the real estate.
Second, Munro II was born in Amboy, New Jersey in 1776. Munro III, his son, would have been born to him and his wife well before 1846. The New York Code section as you say was adopted in 1846. Establishing a new rule for citizenship given what the Lynch court had ruled in 1844, the new statute would not have had any retroactive application to decide the citizenship of Munro III who was already born when it was adopted. Note that the Court sitting in 1863 did not even cite or discuss the statute’s application on the question of Munro III’s citizenship.
The fly has fallen into his hot soup.
ReplyDeleteAtticus Finch is 'out' as Frank Davis.
Frank Davis posts re: NY State Legislature - October 1, 2011 5:31 PM.
Atticus Finch replies to Mario's comments to Frank Davis - October 3, 2011 9:10 AM
Methinks his wings may never fly again.
I posted this story on September 29, 2011, following the lead article that appeared on Terrible Truth.
ReplyDeleteIt is now October 4, 2011. I am rather surprised that we have neither seen nor heard from Dr. Conspiracy on the issue of Obama's mother's photos being fakes. I wonder what happened to him and his Obot followers.
I know that Dr. Conspiracy loves to analyze and examine every claim regarding computer images. But we have yet to hear a word from him and his Obotic retinue.
I'll keep waiting.
Mr. Apuzzo, you are intelligent enough to know what I meant when I said this:
ReplyDeleteWhy didn´t the "puppeteers" not know what an Article II "natural born" Citizen is ? Can it be that no one "knew" this before President Obama´s election ?
October 1, 2011 9:52 PM
Can it be that know one knew that it needed two citizen parents because this is not true ?
You are not able to show one American schoolbook of the last 100 years that says it requires more than to be born on US-soil to be a natural-born citizen and become POTUS. Why this ?
ZorbasLeGreque,
ReplyDeleteWhether something is known or not known does not determine whether that thing exists or does not exist. For example, the planet Pluto has always existed for millions of years regardless of whether humans had knowledge of its existence. Your argument is even weak given that at one point our nation knew what a “natural born” Citizen was but then its meaning went into nonuse because it only applies to the eligibility to be President and Vice-President. But that the meaning of a “natural born” Citizen has lied dormant for many years does not mean that we can just ignore that meaning when a set of circumstances arise as they have today calling into question what that meaning is.
Our nation has not had occasion until now to ask our U.S. Supreme Court to tell us what a “natural born” Citizen is in the context of a presidential election. There is a very simple reason for this. As I have written on this blog, all post-grandfather clause Presidents and Vice Presidents except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, were born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents. Arthur and Obama were not born to two U.S. citizen parents. Chester Arthur escaped scrutiny by what appears to be hiding his birth origins from the public. Obama did not escape scrutiny. Rather, his enablers have allowed him to get away with it so far.
When looking to determine what the meaning of an Article II “natural born” Citizen is, we do not look to American schoolbooks for answers when other sources are available and more authoritative. I have shown by the following sources (not my exhaustive list) that an Article II “natural born” Citizen is a child born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents: constitutional text, constitutional structure, purpose and intent of the Founders and Framers, historical context, historical sources, Congressional activity, decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts, statements of legislators, and law review articles.
So today we are faced with the question of whether Obama is an Article II “natural born” Citizen. The record of evidence that I have listed above amply shows that he is not.
Puzo1:
ReplyDeleteYou may need to wait quite a long time for Kevin Davidson (Doc. C.) to sound off for the benefit of all the Flying Monkeys about the "faked photo" subject matter.
I suppose it's really no surprise the hear that SCOTUS denied Kreep's case of Keyes etc. They genuinely do not wish to hear such things - out of sight, out of mind they seem to believe ... but t'ain't so!!
Maybe Dr. Conspiracy did not like the fake mother-child photo of Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama. He still has not commented on all that fake hair.
ReplyDeleteWell, maybe he'll like this other fake one. Yes, you guessed it. Fake hair again. He can take a look and make a big post about it at his blog, showing us Birthers how wrong we are.
Here's another one for you, Dr. Conspiracy, again courtesy of Terrible Truth:
http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/years-may-pass-but-some-things-stay-the-same-like-stanley-anns-long-fake-hair/
I'll be waiting for all that great commentary and analysis.
Apuzzo,
ReplyDelete(1) "The drafter of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment were not concerned with making anyone an Article II “natural born” Citizen."
If that is indeed the case, as I agree it was, then there is, in fact, no need to define NBC in Minor's case in order to determine if she can be a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment - and you have proven that the definition is dicta.
It cannot be both ways. Either the definition of NBC is ESSENTIAL to the holding or it is not. You admit that it was not a concern of the drafter of the Fourteenth...which means any discussion is nonessential for determining the rights of citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.
(2) You keep referencing that Vattel was the authority in Minor. And that it was in other cases.
Please show a single case where he was cited as an authority to show that citizen parents are a requirement of a NBC
MORE IMPORTANTLY, please show me where Vattel is cited AT ALL in Minor.
Dr. Complacency's analysis of a photograph carries as much veracity as an aardvark's analysis of a jet engine.
ReplyDeleteFrank Davis,
ReplyDeleteI of II
(1) Again, Minor was compelled to determine whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen” given her argument that as a “citizen” she was entitled to vote under the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV and the Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, the Court’s discussion about citizenship was not just some passing remark. Rather, the Court’s discussion of citizenship was a necessary part of the Court’s decision.
The Court explained who all the “citizens” of the United States were from the beginning of the Founding. The first “citizens” were the “original citizens.” Then what followed were citizens by birth and those by naturalization. Virginia was never naturalized and so there was no need for the Court to analyze whether she was a naturalized citizen. The Court then set out to define birthright citizenship.
Virginia Minor was born in 1824. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1868. Hence, her birth status was not controlled by the Fourteenth Amendment. She could not use the Fourteenth Amendment as a basis to show that she was a “natural-born citizen,” for the amendment did not exist when she was born. But Minor said that she did not need the amendment to show that she was a “citizen” of the United States. Minor simply chose to disregard the Fourteenth Amendment as a source for defining who was a “citizen” of the United States. It did not get into defining “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and applying that definition to Virginia Minor. The Court told us that it was not necessary to rely on that amendment to determine whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen” because there were “citizens” of the United States since the Founding and down to the adoption of that Amendment.
The Court explained that those who came after the Founding who were born a “citizen” were called “natural-born citizens.” The Court said that these were children born in the country to citizen parents. There were no other citizens by birth that the Court recognized.
The Court then told us that “some authorities” put forth the notion that there existed another class of birth citizens which were children born in the country to alien parents. But the Court said that “there have been doubts” whether these children were in fact “citizens.” Note the Court did not say “natural-born citizens” which the Court had just defined very specifically and which definition these other potential “citizens” did not meet. This distinction was confirmed by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark which said that children born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” to domiciled alien parents were “citizens” and children born in the United States to “citizen” parents were “natural-born citizens.”
So, Minor analyzed the only class of birthright citizenship that existed when Virginia Minor was born and which existed as of the time the Court rendered its decision in 1875. That class of birthright citizenship is called the “natural born” Citizen class. Since this was the only birthright citizenship class that existed, Minor did perceive a need to have to define what a “natural-born citizen” was. Hence, Minor’s definition of a “natural born” Citizen was central to the Court’s holding regarding whether Virginia Minor had the right to vote under the privileges and immunities clause and that definition is binding precedent and not dicta.
As I have explained, Minor did not define Virginia Minor’s citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment. That the Court could have also analyzed whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment does not erase the fact that Minor did directly define a “natural-born citizen” under American “common-law” because the Court felt it was compelled to do so in order to decide whether Virginia Minor, a woman, had the constitutional right to vote which Missouri could not deny her under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Continued . . .
II of II
ReplyDelete(2) I never said that Minor cited Vattel. What I did say is that Minor’s explanation of what is citizenship and specifically, what is a “natural-born citizen” is taken directly out of Vattel’s Section 212 in The Law of Nations. The language used by Minor to describe citizenship is that of natural law and the law of nations as explained by Vattel. There is not one word in Minor’s description of U.S. citizenship that remotely sounds like the English common law (e.g. born in the dominion and allegiance of the King with the citizenship of the parents not being relevant). No reasonable person can deny that Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen,” i.e., “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens . . . were natives, or natural-born citizens” is basically the same definition of a “natural-born citizen” that we find in Vattel’s Section 212. Note that Chief Justice Marshall in The Venus, 12 U.S. 253 (1814) and Justice Daniels in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856) had cited and quoted Vattel for the same definition.
(3) Do you agree with me that Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana’s definition of a “natural-born” Citizen is obiter dictum and therefore not binding?
Mr. Apuzzo,
ReplyDeletelet me first thank you that you allow this discussion on your blog.
Of course you are right that the rules of nature exist independent of the thoughts of mankind. The earth would stay round even if everybody agreed that is flat. Astronomie, Geology and so on are exact sciences.
Not so Jurisprudence. There may be "Natural" laws like "Though shalt not kill!". Even there the interpretation between Quakers and Catholics is not the same.
All other laws are - in democracies - kind of a treaty between the habitants of a given country.
If all partners of a treaty agree about the meaning of a certain word in this treaty, then this word has this meaning, even if a linguistic research would say otherwise.
In our case 99,99 % of all Americans agreed for more than 200 years that - to be a "natural born" citizen - it was sufficient to be born on American soil. Through this agreement they defined the meaning of "natural born" and no research in old books can change that.
Sincerely yours
ZLG
1) Obama was born 'out of wedlock' due to the marriage between Obama, Sr. and Dunham void ad initio due to bigamy.
ReplyDelete2) Under the 14th Amendment/8 USC 1401 and 1101, Obama was considered a 'citizen at birth' per se. However, British law also provided 'citizenship by descent' for a British subject's child to a foreign mother (not necessarily 'wife') born outside British dominion/jurisdiction.
3) British citizenship by descent has been part of their law since 1350, and codified in their 1772 Act. If Obama, Sr. had assumed normal responsibility for Jr. and registered Jr.'s birth with the British secretary of state, Obama would have had full British citizenship.
4) Because Sr. failed to do this, 8 USC 1101 denied legal parent status and nationality jurisdiction/determination by law favored that of the mother.
5) Since the 1920's, under U.S. law, marriage to an alien husband does not revoke U.S. citizenship of the mother. She may gain the alien citizenship, e.g., Dunham's Indonesian citizenship married to Soetoro, but the state department would not consider that to be a revocation of her 'maiden' U.S. citizenship.
6) Under British laws at the time of the U.S. constitution, and for over a century from its ratification, a U.S. born Obama would solely be a British subject and NOT eligible to the presidency. That is the legal framework by which we MUST interpret Article II's Natural Born Citizenship . . . requiring birth, native birth the default condition, but absolutely requiring a U.S. citizen father (once married, the mother assumes the citizenship of the father).
7) In my studies of British and U.S. law, most summarized and fully cited in my Feb-2008 blog at paraleaglenm.wordpress.com, the U.S. romance with Jus Soli was due to over a century of limited jurisdiction of the colonies, being under total control of the monarchy. The monarchy availed itself of jus sanguinis, but did not provide that for the colonies.
One more thing. If it is proven Malcolm X was the biological father, it makes no difference.
ReplyDeleteObama, Sr., unchallenged as the father on the Hawaiian birth registration, is considered the 'putative' father . . . legal for all intent and purposes, which includes nationality.
ZorbasLeGreque,
ReplyDeleteYou're welcome.
The Constitution is the supreme law of the law. The Constitution is not trumped by popular opinion. In a constitutional republican form of government, the U.S. Supreme Court is duty bound to apply the Constitution and the rule of law rather than what is popular. This is rightfully so, for I am sure that Katy Perry’s “Fireworks” video will get many more popularity hits than any video on the Constitution or our debt crisis could ever dream of getting. It is the job of the U.S. Supreme Court to tell us what the Constitution means in any given case that comes properly before it. This is the mandate that The People gave to it in our constitutional republic, a mandate that is critical to the survival of our nation under a tripartite form of republican government which acts through a limited grant of power, checks and balances, and separation of powers, all which the Founders and Framers believed would best guarantee personal liberty. And in exercising that critical function, our U.S. Supreme Court has, despite your protest, often resorted to having to do “research in old books.”
Our Constitution gives us two classes of citizens, the “natural born” Citizen and the “Citizen” of the United States. There has never been any dispute or doubt as to what an Article II “natural born” Citizen is. See Minor v. Happersett (1875) (“it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth . . . natives or natural-born citizens”). On the other hand, “a certain word” which has been the topic of contention throughout our history has been “Citizen” of the United States. Under natural law and the law of nations which we adopted as part of our Constitution’s Article III “Laws of the United States,” a “Citizen” is simply a member of society who collectively makes up the nation and who owes allegiance to the nation and in return for which he or she gets protection from that nation. But our nation has not always agreed on who shall be members of our republic. We have seen throughout our history the political, social, and legal battles to define a “Citizen” of the United States and to determine whether that national character should be bestowed upon freed slaves, Asians, American Indians, and any other children born in the United States to alien parents. Out of that dispute, our nation has come to consensus regarding what a “Citizen” is, although there is dispute today regarding “anchor babies.” Today, we may find the meaning of a “Citizen” of the United States in the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Acts, and treaties. Hence, your statement about “99.99 % of all Americans” agreeing on the meaning of a “natural born” Citizen applies to those Americans agreeing to what a “Citizen” is, not agreeing to what a “natural born” Citizen is. There has been no dispute regarding what a “natural born” Citizen is, whose meaning is found in natural law and the law of nations which on matters of citizenship our U.S. Supreme Court has adopted as American common law. In short, the battle has been over who is a “Citizen,” not who is a “natural born” Citizen. Consequently, these same Americans have not had to agree on the meaning of a “natural born” Citizen.
Given the explicit instructions that the Founders and Framers gave in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 that there is a fundamental distinction between a “natural born” Citizen and a “Citizen” of the United States and that they made that distinction for the purpose of the preservation and survival of the new republic, it is an insidious attack upon the Constitution and our nation to conflate these two clauses and to give them equivalent meaning as you and other Obama enablers seek to do.
Zorba said:
ReplyDeleteNot so Jurisprudence. There may be "Natural" laws like "Though shalt not kill!". Even there the interpretation between Quakers and Catholics is not the same.
and...
All other laws are - in democracies - kind of a treaty between the habitants of a given country.
As an aside (since Zorba's comments are something of an aside to start with):
It has been generally accepted by theologians and scholars that the differences in interpretations of "thou shalt not kill" are contextual, inasmuch as the Hebrew לא תרצח is "murder," whereas "kill" is it הרגר The latter is not used in this context in the Torah.
It should be evident that God doesn't mean one should never take a life, even if the Quakers believe this.
Secondly, America is a Republic - not a democracy.
Rockdog
ZorbasLeGreque said:
ReplyDelete"In our case 99,99 % of all Americans agreed for more than 200 years that - to be a "natural born" citizen - it was sufficient to be born on American soil. Through this agreement they defined the meaning of "natural born" and no research in old books can change that."
-That's an incredible assertion, especially to go unchallenged. Please site your source for such an assertion.
Apuzzo,
ReplyDelete(1) Minor was a question about whether Minor had the right to vote. She used the Fourteenth Amendment. The only reason citizenship is discussed is to determine whether the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to vote. NBC is not vital to that determination. If you can show how a definition of NBC is vital to determining whether all citizens had the right to vote, I will accept it as the holding.
(2) Vattel was in French. English translations did not have the phrase until well after the Constitution was in force. Therefore, it's impossible to look to it as definitive. And if you're going to cite to it as authority it needs to be definitive.
(3) No. It is in fact binding. It is what they base their HOLDING ON:
Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the
United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. Just as a person “born within the British dominions [was] a natural-born British subject” at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, so too were those “born in the allegiance of the United States [] natural-born citizens.”
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/o...
There are two claims that the plaintiff stated, and the court had to establish whether the lower court was correct in dismissing the case for failure to state a cognizable claim. The standard for such dismissal is that on the face there is no claim - basically, either there is a claim that is factually true but: (1) for which there is no relief in law, or (2) that the claims are legally incorrect and therefore there is no chance of success.
The important part is that the court actually assumes, under this standard, that all of the facts that the plaintiff alleges are true, and applies the legal standards to it.
This means that the standards that the court addresses are binding upon lower courts.
Therefore, the holding that the plaintiffs here failed to state a claim is based on the conclusion that Obama qualified as a NBC under the law, so the plaintiffs were asserting a claim that was legally wrong. It adopts the standards or illuminates those necessary for determining the claim.
It's the merits of the claim...therefore, it is holding, precedential, etc.
borrbdwilcox:
ReplyDeleteZorba's claim is also incredibly WRONG!! Falling down drunk wrong!!
In the comments on this thread, I have brought forward information on how the State of New York defined its citizens in the mid and late 19th Century before the Wong Kim Ark decision.
ReplyDeleteNow we have some more interesting information that has been unearthed about how the New York State Board of Elections currently defines a "natural born" Citizen(simply as "Born a citizen" which is not what Article II says) and how it has decided to block researchers from using the Way Back Machine to track the changes that it made to its web site over the years regarding its definition of a "natural born" Citizen. See the article at
http://pixelpatriot.blogspot.com/2011/10/new-york-state-boe-website-cover-up.html
Frank Davis,
ReplyDelete1. I have shown that Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” is not obiter dicta, but rather one of the holdings of the decision. You argue that Minor did not need to define a “natural born” Citizen. You say that it could have simply declared Virginia Minor a “citizen” by resorting to the Fourteenth Amendment. You have therefore conceded that the Fourteenth Amendment does not define a “natural born” Citizen.
2. I have also shown that Vattel was the source for the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born” Citizen. Apart from other evidence that I have produced, I have provided citations and quotes from our U.S. Supreme Court in which it either cited and quoted Vattel (The Venus, Inglis, and Dred Scott) or just paraphrased him on his definition of a “natural born” Citizen (Minor and Wong Kim Ark).
3. Based on your definition of dicta which you have been applying to Minor (you argue that Minor could have used the Fourteenth Amendment to declare that Virginia Minor was a “citizen” and did not need to analyze whether she was a “natural born” Citizen and therefore its definition of a “natural born” Citizen is dicta), you are wrong about Ankeny’s definition of a “natural born” Citizen not being dicta. The court could have completely disposed of the case on an independent state ground without reaching the constitutional issue. The court ruled that that the Governor of Indiana has no duty to determine the eligibility of a party's nominee for the presidency. Once the court ruled that under its state law, the Governor had no such duty, it had all the ground it needed to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint. There was no need for the court to reach a federal constitutional issue involving the meaning of the Article II “natural born” Citizen clause by putting forth a scenario wherein the Governor may have such a duty. Deciding the meaning of a “natural born” Citizen was not essential to the court’s dismissing the case. Hence, according to your definition of what a holding is, the court’s definition of a “natural born” Citizen is dicta.
You are also wrong about what Ankeny held. The Ankeny court dismissed the pro se plaintiffs’ complaint for failure to state a claim. What is also amazing about the Ankeny case is that after it went through its explanation as to what a “natural born Citizen” is and while it dismissed the plaintiffs’ case in which they argued both that Obama has yet to prove that he was born in the United States (it called that claim a “non-factual assertion[]”) and that even if he were so born he still fails to meet the legal definition of a “natural born Citizen,” it did not hold that Obama was born in the United States or that he is a “natural born Citizen.” In fact, there was absolutely no evidence before the court that Obama was born in Hawaii. The court never even raised the issue that there was no proof before the court that Obama was "born within the borders of the United States." In fact, the Ankeny court, while dismissing the plaintiffs' case, never ruled that Obama was "born within the borders of the United States." Nor did it rule that he was a "natural born Citizen."
Instead of getting any real response to the fake photos of Stanley Ann Dunham, here is what we get from Dr. Conspiracy's Obot peanut gallery:
ReplyDeleteobsolete October 5, 2011 at 5:53 pm obsolete(Quote) #
"I wouldn’t give Apuzzo’s latest pathetic conspiracies any ink on this blog if I were Doc C. They are not even worth ridiculing.
Let Mario sink into well-deserved obscurity, heightened by his ever-lessening grip on reality. (Like Polland). Eventually these guys will have to resort to playing with their own poo on YouTube to get any attention."
So, I see. Just hope that no one finds out and let it sink into obscurity.
The problem for Dr. Conspiracy and his Obot clan is that the cat is already out of the bag.
P.S. There was one comment there that did acknowledge that the Stanley Ann photos showing her with long hair have all been photoshopped. Here is the comment:
WEP October 5, 2011 at 9:57 am WEP(Quote) #
"Yes. Apparently all of the pictures showing President Obama’s mother with long hair have been photo-shopped.
Here is the original article Mario was referencing…
http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/
I thought it may have been spoofery until I noticed Ms. Trowbridge’s associations on her LinkedIn page, and that Erik Rush of WND fame had co-written one of the entries."
In 1789, James Madison declared that 'place of birth' was the general principle of citizenship.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the feudal demand of permanant allegiance based on place of birth was diluted in the Magna Carta. Then, in 1350, the forced allegiance upon 'denizens' and their children was lifted.
In 1772, the time of the American colonies, the British Nationality Act provided foreign born children of subjects traveling outside the king's dominions full rights and privileges of natural born subjects.
One can imagine then, that a baby Obama, born in July of 1776 . . . or after the March 23, 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act (ten months after Madison's generalized proclamation of principles of law regarding native-birth) would be, without doubt, a natural born British subject . . . NOT a U.S. citizen.
Why then are jurists, from Madison to Justice Gray, and dozens of case law, religiously cited in support of jus soli, or native-birthright citizenship, when clearly in conflict with legislated naturalization act?
Why then is the Las Cruces, NM born Al-Awlaki, raised by two Yemeni parents, considered a U.S. citizen with constitutional rights?
Under U.S. law, Al-Awlaki's active participation in a global war against the United States revoked his claims to citizenship.
YET, it was the JUDICIARY in both the Wong Kim Ark case and the Terrazas case that undermined legislated act by, 1) Giving him citizenship at birth; and, 2) Undermining statute revoking his citizenship.
One might forgive Madison, Gray, and many other jurists . . . they were limited in their perception and biased by the law relied upon by the colonies which did not extend jurisdiction beyond borders of states, but were subject to the control of the monarchy.
They read only one paragraph of Blackstone, ignoring the rest of the text, from which I got the 1772 Act citation, and the analysis of 1350 law over denizens.
There is no birthright citizenship at birth, and Obama was only a citizen by provisions of statute concerning a U.S. citizen mother abandoned by an alien, bigamist father.
In neither case was he a natural born citizen, because Minor was correct; that required two U.S. citizen parents.
This is why SCOTUS won't review 'birther' cases. It is not only shy of a political question (which this is not, it is a question of constitutional law) but knows that Obama would be found ineligible.
And so the liberals under Obama continue to win the COUP over our REPUBLIC, taking over our government without firing a shot . . . BECAUSE REPUBLICANS ARE A PARTY OF COWARDS.
@ Frank Davis & Atticus Finch.
ReplyDeleteWhat did Lord Coke - Calvin's case mean when he stated...
"..... that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject ....." ?
Waiting!
MichaelN,
ReplyDeleteLord Coke’s more complete sentence reads as follows: “for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.”
Lord Coke considered a child born to an invading soldier in the King’s dominion as not being born to a “subject” and not being born under the King’s allegiance, and therefore not a “natural born subject.” The reason for his rule came from the two great exceptions to jus soli found in the English common law. Under English common law, there were exceptions to simply being born in the dominion of the King making one a “natural born subject.” Those exceptions were the child being born to diplomats or to members of an invading army. These two exceptions were discussed at length in Lynch v. Clarke (1844) and United States v. Wong Kim Ark. 169 U.S. 649, 693(1898). So, being physically present in the King’s dominion and at the same time not being a “subject” applied only to diplomats and soldiers. It did not apply to a person who was an alien in amity and who happened to be physically present in the King’s dominion, for such aliens’s temporary and local allegiance was “in the words of Lord Coke, in Calvin’s Case, 7 Rep. 6a, ‘strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject.’” Wong Kim Ark. 169 U.S. at 693.
What is more critical to note about Calvin’s Case is Lord Coke’s statement: “Calvin the plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth-right, since the descent of the Crown of England.” Here, he told us that Calvin was naturalized at birth. We need to understand that Parliament had refused for political reasons to naturalize persons like Calvin, a postnati, as he was born to alien parents in Scotland after Scottish King James IV in 1603 became King of England as James I. So, they left it up to the English courts to do so. Under English law, a child born anywhere in the world to British “natural born subjects” was himself a “natural born subject.” Calvin had to be naturalized because his parents were aliens (“by procreation”). And he earned the right to be naturalized at birth because he was born within the King’s dominions (“by . . . birth-right”). Vattel in Section 214, entitled “Naturalisation,” confirmed this aspect of English common law when he said: “Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” So, Vattel would have considered Calvin to be a naturalized citizen from birth, not a Section 212 “native, or natural-born citizen.” Hence, Calvin could be a “natural born subject” under English common law, but he, being naturalized at birth by the power of jus soli, could not be a “natural born” Citizen under American common law, for the latter needed no naturalization at birth by any judicial or legislative act because of being born in the country to two citizen parents. Calvin, if born under the same circumstances in the United States (i.e., born in the country to alien parents) after the adoption by the First Congress of the Naturalization Act of 1790 and before Wong Kim Ark would have been an alien for being born to alien parents. After Wong Kim Ark, he would have been a born “citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment (as interpreted and applied by Wong Kim Ark) and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a). But Calvin, not being born to British subjects and therefore needing naturalization at birth, could not be an Article II “natural born” Citizen.
Relying on Calvin’s Case, Wong Kim Ark obtained the same exact result as that case, i.e., it in effect naturalized Wong at birth to be a “citizen” of the United States. In doing so, Wong Kim Ark also acknowledged the distinction between a “natural born” Citizen and a “citizen” of the United States.
Under rules of jurisprudence and precedent, I found Coke's 'Calvin' case to be unsuitable to the argument of 'citizenship at birth.'
ReplyDelete1) The discussion of the Scots and Hanovians involved monarchy and King's Law. We are a Republic. The philosphies and therefore law that apply are different for the two different systems of organized society and its polity.
We don't have the 'allegiance' problem of the European monarchs . . . our allegiance is to the constitution, not our leaders.
2) It is foreign law. While English common law is the source of many terms of art in our legal system and was essential in the judicial transition from colony to free republic, our early judiciary ruled that English law had no force of law in the face of our own legislated acts . . . PERIOD.
As the judiciary strove to assume unconstitutional powers over naturalization law, it tended to resort more and more to English law while ignoring our own statute.
Alien law benefitted aliens, especially the illegal ones. Go figure.
In conclusion, the Lord Coke arguments are invalid from their introduction and summarily dismissed.
barry soetoro has numerous ctiizenships. The reason [he] made an executive order on Jan 21, 2009 to not allow his past school records to be released was simply because he attended Occidental College on a Foreign Student Grant or something of this nature. Either way it doesn't matter if Malcolm X or Sr. was [his] father, [he], (soetoro, alleged president in an illegal election) was an Indonesian citizen, with an Indonesian passport, with numerous fake identities, with numerous social security numbers, with numerous plans to internally destroy the United States of America, etc., etc., etc., you get the picture.
ReplyDeleteApuzzo,
ReplyDelete(1) "I have shown that Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” is not obiter dicta, but rather one of the holdings of the decision. You argue that Minor did not need to define a “natural born” Citizen. You say that it could have simply declared Virginia Minor a “citizen” by resorting to the Fourteenth Amendment. You have therefore conceded that the Fourteenth Amendment does not define a “natural born” Citizen. "
The above makes no sense. Conceding that the Fourteenth Amendment does not define a natural born citizen (at least in a sense that it intended to do so) but rather citizens generally does nothing to support the idea that the NBC definition is part of the holding. If the definition had been deleted from the discussion, the holding would have been exactly the same.
(2) "Venus" is irrelevant as (a) Vattel is quoted in the dissent, which is by definition dicta, (b) Vattel is quoted in the issue of what it meant for a person to make a place his domicile, not about born citizens, (c) it does not use the phrase "natural born citizens," (d) resort to the law of nations was important as, because the case dealt with individuals involved with international trade, international (multiple) concepts of citizenship were considered.
(3) "Ingliss" is irrelevante because (a) Vattel is quoted in dissent, again, (b) dealt with citizenship as part of an inheritance claim, (c) dealt with issues of citizenship during the revolution, with individuals that were loyal to the crown and subjected to banishment at the beginning of the nation's working, etc. The situation is utterly alien.
(4) "Dred Scott" is a case that is embarrassing to cite in any sense.
(5) Your argument regarding the need to reach the constitutional claims does not account for the fact that this court is affirming a dismissal for failure to state a claim. Such a dismissal is not met to rest merely on a procedural issue, but must also all substantive issues addressed regardless of whether they are expressed in an inarticulate or incorrect manner. The general rule in appraising the sufficiency of a complaint for failure to state a claim is that a complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.
It is a type of dismissal, therefore, that is not used lightly, and requires full examination of all claims. Where a court determines that no matter what the plaintiff alleges there is no relief, or no chance of success. It is wholly insufficient.
(6) In order to affirm the claim, the court must determine whether there is a set of facts the plaintiff could allege or a standard set by law such that the plaintiffs could be bringing a claim that could succeed in any manner.
The court didn't determine Obama was qualified because that was not the question. The question was rather whether the plaintiff could not present any argument that he wasn't, based on facts alleged. As the claims were from the plaintiff that he was ineligible, the court need only determine that the plaintiff failed to prove that claim...and could never.
Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes provides a modern answer to that question. Hughes once stated in a speech in 1907 that “we are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is...”
ReplyDeleteAnother justice (perhaps Scalia?) responded differently, that he was obligated to follow the law, i.e., legislated act. After all, the code of judicial conduct does require a judgeto “respect and comply with the law,”
I put these concepts up for analysis because of my moral outrage against Justice Gray and Barack Hussein Obama who have violated the law, Gray intentionally, and Obama secondarily until such time as his use of fraudulent documents and outright thievery by obstruction of justice are proven.
What was Gray's motivation to ignore the U.S. attorney's perfectly argued case against birthright citizenship appying existing law . . . or even Chief Justice Fuller's citation of precedent, e.g., Greisser?
Did Gray have a moral obligaton to grant Wong Kim Ark citizenship? Or, was he just creating a convenient solution to a unkind situation, i.e., the laws denying Ark the right to apply for citizenship, or his parents naturalization, increasing the plight and discriminatory disadvantages to the Chinese.
What of the judge in the Schneiderman case (1944) who denied the legal challenge of citizenship granted to an immigrant who was a Communist activist, in direct violation of the Aliens and Nationality Act?
When there is no obvious moral outrage, there is a prima facie obligation for a judge to FOLLOW THE LAW, which is the legislated acts out of the People's House.
In the case of Wong Kim Ark, there were obstructions to his application for citizenship under the Cooley Act and Burlingame Treaty. Justice Gray, with his holding, ignored U.S. legislated acts and treaty, the latter concerning treaties the only constitutional power enumerated to the court.
The result has been violation of our borders through illegal immigration and the assumption that Obama's native-birth is all that was required for him to meet Article II natural born citizen eligibility.
This is an uphill battle, but how can we convince our congress that it has plenary power to revise 8 USC 1401(a), ever so slightly, to correct the misinterpretation of Gray in Ark, restoring the intent of the 'under the jurisdiction thereof' clause by way of a simple definition based on legislative history . . . which is entirely valid.
The courts have refused citizens standing . . . the court will have to address such a revision.
Frank Davis,
ReplyDeleteI of II
(1) You just do not get that Minor did not rely upon the Fourteenth Amendment to define Virginia Minor’s citizenship. Rather, it relied upon American “common-law” to do so. You also do not get that, with Virginia Minor not claiming that she was a naturalized citizen, Minor therefore determined the only other type of citizen that she could be, i.e., a “natural born” Citizen. It then defined a “natural born” Citizen to determine if Virginia Minor was a “Citizen.” The Court said that she was a “natural born” Citizen and therefore also a “Citizen.” You can try to twist and turn any which way you want, but you cannot erase the fact that the Court defined a “natural born” Citizen as a child born in the country to citizen parents and that the Court doing so was essential to its determining whether Virginia Minor, a woman, had a constitutional right to vote. All your gyrations do not help you.
(2)
(a) Chief Justice Marshall’s dissent in The Venus had nothing to do with citizenship. He dissented because the majority held that the claimant should lose his ship and cargo and Marshall concluded that he should not. Hence, the majority and dissent did not differ on how the Court defined citizenship.
(b) In any prize case, the first thing any court had to do was to determine what the citizenship of the parties was, for the propriety of capture and condemnation depended upon what nations were at war and what the citizenship of the parties involved in the capture and seizure was. After citizenship was determined, the issue of domicile came into play, for a party in a commercial transaction also gained or lost rights based on what his domicile was. A prize court would never just start with domicile without first determining citizenship. So Chief Justice Marshall’s definition of the “natives or indigenes” was central to his reasoning used in answering the question of whether the capture and condemnation were justified.
(c) In 1758, Vattel wrote in French “Les naturels, ou indigenes.” The early English translations of Vattel, starting with 1759, translated these words to “the natives, or indigenes.” Chief Justice Marshall in 1814, in The Venus, still used the words “natives or indigenes,” probably because the Vattel English translations still used those same words. But there is little doubt that “native or indigenes” also meant “natives or natural-born citizens.” The historical record shows that the Continental Congress in 1781 when translating “indigenes” translated the word to “natural born.” See http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2539663/posts. This 1781 translation was subsequently confirmed by the 1797 translation of Vattel’s “Les naturels, ou indigenes.” In this 1797 English translation, the words “natives, or indigenes” were changed to “natives, or “natural-born citizens.” Moreover, “indigenes” and “natural-born citizens” have always been translated to mean the same thing, i.e., children born in the country to citizen parents. All U.S. Supreme Court cases that I have cited translated Vattel to say “natives, or natural-born citizens” and have provided the same definition of these terms when used together in that fashion, i.e., a child born in the country to citizen parents.
(d) Marshall resorted to defining U.S. citizenship under the law of nations because he knew, being a Founder, that the other Founders and Framers also used the law of nations to define national citizenship in the new republic and not the English common law.
Continued . . .
II of II
ReplyDelete(3) You have got to be kidding me saying that Inglis is irrelevant. First, you and other Obama enablers have sworn by Inglis and Justice Story jus soli statement as to what citizenship in America was. I guess Lynch also did not believe that Inglis was irrelevant, for it cited and quoted the decision and Justice Story’s jus soli statement. Even Wong Kim Ark did not think that Inglis was irrelevant, for it cited and quoted the decision for support for its unfounded statement that “[t]he same rule [jus soli] was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the constitution as originally established.” What a false statement, given that the First Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790 said that any child born to an alien, no matter where born, was an alien. Ankeny also cited Inglis. Then I exposed the big Inglis fraud, i.e., that what Lynch, Wong Kim Ark, and Ankeny cite to is Justice Story’s jus soli minority opinion in Inglis (that a child born in New York after July 4, 1776, regardless of the fact that his parents were British subjects, was U.S. citizen) which the majority rejected when it adopted jus sangunis rule for U.S. citizenship when it ruled that a child born in New York after July 4, 1776, to British parents was himself a British subject and not a U.S. citizen.
(4) First, Dred Scott is embarrassing to you only because it goes directly against you. If the case supported you, you would not care one iota how much the case embarrassed anyone. For example, I note that the case was not embarrassing to Justice Gray who cited the Justice Curtis dissent on justifying his use of colonial English common law to define what a “Citizen” of the United States was after July 4, 1776. As another example, I also note that the case was not embarrassing to Ankeny which cited and quoted the same Curtis dissent to support its statement that a “natural born” Citizen is a child born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” regardless of what the child’s parents’ citizenship may be. Second, what Dred Scott said about defining a “natural born” Citizen is still good law. Both Minor and Wong Kim Ark repeated the same exact Vattelian definition of a “natural born” Citizen that Justice Daniels gave in Dred Scott.
(5) Your response is nonsensical. Ankeny dismissed the complaint on an independent adequate state ground, i.e., it found that the Governor of Indiana did not have a legal duty to determine if Obama was eligible for office. It simply did not have to reach the constitutional issue. End of story.
(6) First you said that Ankeny ruled that Obama was a “natural born” Citizen. I pointed out to you that it did not such thing. I guess you have since gone back and read the case more carefully. Now you want to tell me that Ankeny “didn’t determine Obama was qualified because that was not the question.” But you are a little too late now.
In my score card, you continue to lose on all issues.
Be sure to read the new post at Terrible Truth. This one shows how "someone" has been busy altering photos of baby Obama. I wonder why someone would do that.
ReplyDeleteSo, we have altered photos of Stanley Ann Dunham (they put her in long hair when she really had short hair) and now we have altered photos of baby Obama. I wonder what else we will see.
See the new post entitled, "When The Bough Breaks, by Martha Trowbridge, accessed at
http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/2011/10/10/when-the-bough-breaks/
Maybe Doctor Conspiracy and his assistants can take a jab at this one, too.
Something still does not make sense - in regard Zero's parentage. Or any of these Photoshop Theories.
ReplyDeleteWhat is the point? Why bother? By all indications, Zero is nothing special. Even if he is MX's son. So what. He is a common "dime a dozen" urban street thug. So why to the puppeteers need HIM? If he is all this trouble, why did they not simply throw him away and get another puppet?
We will not make any progress until we understand that critical "why". Obviously something is VERY SPECIAL about Zero. We certainly have not seen that yet. What is it????
Puzo1 said...
ReplyDeleteMichaelN,
"Lord Coke’s more complete sentence reads as follows: “for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King.”
----------------------------
Mario,
The point I am making is that the parent father had to be a subject, for his child to be 'born under the ligeance of a subject' and thus be a NBS.
It was not WHY the parent father is a subject or not that mattered.
MichaelN,
ReplyDeleteBut he or she was considered not a "subject" only when he was a diplomat or an army invader. All other aliens in amity were treated as "subjects," i.e., subject to the authority, power, and laws of the Kingdom and in return entitled to its protection as long as he or she physically remained within the Kingdom.
Puzo1 said...
ReplyDelete"MichaelN,
But he or she was considered not a "subject" only when he was a diplomat or an army invader. All other aliens in amity were treated as "subjects," i.e., subject to the authority, power, and laws of the Kingdom and in return entitled to its protection as long as he or she physically remained within the Kingdom."
-------------------
Yes, according to Lord Coke, England accepted all alien-born visitors (except enemy & diplomats) as subjects, but not so much as subjects to the 'authority, power and laws of the Kingdom' but rather to the sovereign King.
Lord Coke - Calvin's case....
"Ligeantia, is inherent and inseparable, and cannot be respited."
"By that which hath been said it appeareth, that this ligeance is due only to the King"
"And it was resolved, that it was due to the natural person of the King (which is ever accompanied with the politique capacity, and the politique capacity as it were appropriated to the natural capacity) and it is not due to the politique capacity only, that is, to his crown or kingdom distinct from his natural capacity, and that for divers reasons."
MichaelN,
ReplyDeleteIt appears that you agree with me as to who were "subjects" in England. So we can move on from that.
Now it seems you want to analyze to what these "subjects" were subject.
In the quote that you pulled from my writings I said that "subjects" were "subject to the authority, power, and laws of the Kingdom."
You say they were subject to the King.
I do not believe that we are really saying anything different.
Of course, these subjects were subjects of the King and I have written that so many times already. What I did in my sentence is give a more detailed breakdown of exactly to what they were subject.
In short, being subject to the King is being subject to the authority, power, and laws of his Kingdom.
Mario,
ReplyDeleteWhat I am getting to is to generate thinking and constructive discussion on the differences between a 'subject' (i.e.subject to a sovereign king)and a 'citizen' of a republic (where the citizens are the collective sovereigns).
Also the difference between being a 'subject' and being 'subject to the jurisdiction'.
Also the differences between an English NBS in the setting of a monarchy and this term not meant to describe a person's security status & eligibility for high office, and a US NBC, a term used to describe a person's security status & eligibility for high office.
Puzo1 said...
ReplyDelete"MichaelN,
But he or she was considered not a "subject" only when he was a diplomat or an army invader. All other aliens in amity were treated as "subjects," i.e., subject to the authority, power, and laws of the Kingdom and in return entitled to its protection as long as he or she physically remained within the Kingdom."
--------
Reply:
The point is that one must be born "under the ligeance of a subject" to be a "natural born subject".
Jus sanguinis is essential & paramount to qualify as a NBS.
The erroneous notion that born to an alien, in the land = NBS, has been cherry-picked from Calvin's case without regard to, or even any mention of the jus sanguinis REQUIREMENT that is made quite clear by Lord Coke.
Sure the parent may be alien-born, but the parent is (if visiting in amity) a 'subject'/citizen.
This is not the case with alien born visitors to US, who must naturalize to achieve citizen/subject status, and ONLY then to they have the 'ligeance of a subject'/citizen to be able to produce a NB Citizen.
MichaelN,
ReplyDeleteI wrote on Calvin’s Case (1608) to explain what the basis of the jus soli naturalized “at birth” rule under English common law was. I did not say that we ever adopted its rationale as the basis for our national citizenship. On the contrary, I have written at great length on this blog that we did not adopt the English common law as the rules of decision for defining our new national citizenship. While the English common law continued to have limited effect in the states to resolve local issues, it was abrogated by the Constitution, Acts of Congress, treaties, and the law of nations which became the law applicable to the new Republic. In fact, Acts of Congress, treaties, and the law of nations became the “Law of the United States” under Article III.
There exist many great examples of how we abrogated the English common law as a law to define our national citizenship.
First, the Constitution itself uses "natural born Citizen," not "natural born subject." This alone is an abandonment of the English common law on the question of U.S. citizenship. Citizenship--with its political rights, including the right to expatriate, and representative government--was completely alien to the British monarchy.
Second, as I have long explained, Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790 and the many that followed it treated children born anywhere in the world, including the United States, to alien parents as aliens. These acts abrogated the jus soli naturalized at birth rule of Calvin's Case. Rather, our naturalization laws compelled the parents of such U.S.-born children to naturalize which then by derivative right allowed their spouses and minor children also to become “citizens of the United States.
Third, the many U.S. Supreme Court cases, especially Minor v. Happersett (1875), that I have cited and analyzed on this blog show that we did not adopt the English common law to define our national citizenship. Minor explained that in the U.S. “there have been doubts” whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a “citizen.” Such a declaration was surely not consistent with English common law which focused only upon birth within the dominion of the King with no importance given to the citizenship of the child’s parents (except for parents who were ambassadors or part of an invading army).
Fourth, the Civil Rights Act of 1866 required a child born in the U.S. to be born "not subject to a foreign power" for that child to be born a "citizen of the United States." Again, Congress adopted a definition of U.S. citizenship that was not found in English common law, for the parents of born English “natural born subjects” could be subject to foreign powers and their children still be born “natural born subjects.”
Fifth, the Fourteenth Amendment with its "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause, as intended when written, also presented a concept of citizenship not found in the English common law. This clause was intended to mean subject to the full and complete political jurisdiction of the United States. Surely, aliens in amity under English common law owed no such allegiance and attachment to the King at the time of their children's birth in the dominion of the King. The jurisdictional concept was so alien to the English common law that Justice Waite in Minor, not having to analyze the jurisdiction clause because Virginia Minor was a “natural born” Citizen, avoided analyzing it. On the other hand, Justice Gray was compelled to analyze it in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) because, not being a “natural born” Citizen, Wong had to rely on the Fourteenth Amendment to be declared a “citizen of the United States.” While Justice Gray baldly asserted in his opinion that the English common law continued to apply in the U.S. after the Revolution and adoption of the Constitution to define our national citizenship, he surely did not prove it in his many pages of recitation of the English common law.
Mario,
ReplyDeleteFrom my reading & understanding of Lord Coke's report of Calvin's case, I take it that jus soli was NOT sufficient to make a 'natural born subject'.
Rather, jus sanguinis was the paramount essential element to make a NBS both within and without the realm.
It seems to me that a child born to any male parent in the realm (except those without ligeance to the king)was a NBS, but only those who were born off-shore (i.e. NOT jus soli) who could be NBS, were the children of ambassadors and their English wives.
Coke:
"There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. 1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king. 2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other. For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because though the King of England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitain, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are Subjects to the king of England. 2. The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject. And therefore if any of the king’s Ambassadors in forein Nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the Common Laws of England they are natural born subjects, and yet they are born out of the king’s dominions. But if Enemies should come into any of the king’s dominions and surprise any Castle or Fort, and |[18 b] possess the same by hostility, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the king, though he be born within his dominions, for that he was not born under the king’s ligeance or obedience. But the time of his birth is of the essence of a subject born; for he cannot be a subject to the king of England, unlesse at the time of his birth he was under the ligeance and obedience of the king."
MichaelN,
ReplyDeleteYou said: “[J]us soli was NOT sufficient to make a ‘natural born subject.”
(1) This is correct because one could be born within the dominion of the king but not “under the ligeance and obedience of the king." This would be the case of a child being born within the king’s dominion to an ambassador or a member of an invading army.
(2) You said: “Rather, jus sanguinis was the paramount essential element to make a NBS both within and without the realm.”
(a) Your statement is correct as it relates to children born outside the king’s dominions. The example that Coke gives is a child born to an English ambassador’s English wife. No matter where that child was born, being considered as born “under the ligeance and obedience of the king,” he or she was a “natural born subject” of the king. Coke says that by the common law of England this was so. The court in Ludlam v. Ludlam, 31 Barb. 486, agree that the “common law” allowed a child that was born out of the country to citizen parents to be himself a citizen. There the court said: "The universal maxim of the common law being partus sequitur patrem, it is sufficient for the application of this doctrine that the father should be a subject lawfully, and without breach of his allegiance beyond sea, no matter what may be the condition of the mother." Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark (1898), citing various authorities, said that the common law of England was not so. He said that the right to be an English “natural born subject” given to children who were born out of the king’s dominions never descended from the parents but was only granted by Parliament by statute. The confusion on this issue is in the use of the word “common law.” The point is that American common law permitted the rule but maybe the English common law did not. This same confusion occurs when applying the “common law” to defining a “natural born” Citizen. American common law as per Minor v. Happersett (1875) (confirming Vattel’s law of nation’s definition of a “natural- born citizen”) said that it was a child born in the country to citizen parents. English common law said that a “natural born subject” included a child born in the dominions and allegiance of the king, regardless of the citizenship of the parents who were neither ambassadors or members of an invading army.
(b) Your statement is not correct as to children born within the King’s dominion. In this case, a child that was born within the king’s dominion whose parents were aliens in amity (not ambassadors or invading armies) was considered as being born “under the ligeance and obedience of the king” and therefore a “natural born subject.” Hence, jus sanguinis was not necessary. For those born within the king’s dominions, all that was necessary was birth within the dominion and “under the ligeance and obedience of the king.”
Puzo said:
ReplyDelete"(b) Your statement is not correct as to children born within the King’s dominion. In this case, a child that was born within the king’s dominion whose parents were aliens in amity (not ambassadors or invading armies) was considered as being born “under the ligeance and obedience of the king” and therefore a “natural born subject.” Hence, jus sanguinis was not necessary. For those born within the king’s dominions, all that was necessary was birth within the dominion and “under the ligeance and obedience of the king.”
----------------
Mario the alien born, visiting the English realm in amity, was a subject, it is the ligeance & obedience that made him so.
Coke:
"Ligeance is a true and faithful obedience of the subject due to his Sovereign. This ligeance and obedience is an incident inseparable to every subject:"
Therefore the subject status of the parent father is essential & paramount, for his child (by blood) to be a NBS.
MichaelN,
ReplyDelete"Jus sanguinis" relates to the citizenship of the blood, not just to the blood. You have left out the "jus" part of the clause. It is not just "sanguinis."
Puzo said:
ReplyDelete"...a child that was born within the king’s dominion whose parents were aliens in amity (not ambassadors or invading armies) was considered as being born “under the ligeance and obedience of the king” and therefore a “natural born subject.”"
---------------------------
Mario, it is my understanding that such a child is born "under the ligeance of a subject", as opposed to "being born “under the ligeance and obedience of the king”"
Without the 'subject' parent, there is no ligeance for the child to be born under.
The parent father must have ligeance to the king.
The ligeance of the subject is reciprocated by the king's protection.
The child's ligeance & subject status is a result of the child's father's subject status.
Coke:
"...that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King."
MichaelN,
ReplyDeleteMichealN,
Again, a “subject” included any alien in amity, provided he/she was not an ambassador or invader.
The citizenship of that alien in amity (the parent) had no relevance to making a "natural born subject" out of his child when that child was born in the dominion and under the ligeance of the king.
The ligeance and obedience were owed to the king, not to the parent of the child.
Hence, there was no jus sanguinis requirement to make an English “natural born subject” of those children who were born in the dominion and under the ligeance of the king.
Puzo1 said...
ReplyDelete"MichaelN,
Again, a “subject” included any alien in amity, provided he/she was not an ambassador or invader.
The citizenship of that alien in amity (the parent) had no relevance to making a "natural born subject" out of his child when that child was born in the dominion and under the ligeance of the king."
-------------------------
Reply:
The 'citizenship' or 'nationality' of the alien visiting England in amity is irrelevant......... he was a 'subject' with 'local ligeance'
Puzo1 said...
"The ligeance and obedience were owed to the king, not to the parent of the child.
Hence, there was no jus sanguinis requirement to make an English “natural born subject” of those children who were born in the dominion and under the ligeance of the king."
------------------
Reply:
The ligeance of the child is not a consideration in determining the child's NBS status.
It is the ligeance and subject status of the parent father that is essential in detremining the NBS status of the child.
Call it what you like, but it certainly additional to jus soli and has to do with the parent father's 'subject' status.
Terrible Truth has just posted information linking Obama's Chicago house style with Malcolm's house in Queens, New York. The post also reveals that Obama's house is right around the corner from Nation Of Islam
ReplyDeleteheadquarters, where [Minister] Malcolm spent a LOT of time, working on his newspaper and helping Elijah Muhammad.
And dig this: the fundraiser Obama had in Harlem last March was right in the midst of Malcolm's 'hood'.
Read all about:
http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/2011/10/20/nesting-or-red-rooster-ing-its-memory-lane-for-obama/
Be sure to read all about it-- The Mystery of the Missing Eyeglasses. See Martha Trowbridge's new article at Terrible Truth entitled, "Another Cold Case File, Closed: 'Malcolm X’s Missing Eyeglasses,'”
ReplyDeleteaccessed at http://terribletruth.wordpress.com/2011/10/25/another-cold-case-file-closed-malcolm-xs-missing-eyeglasses/
Ms. Trowbridge wants to know, whose glasses was Obama wearing as he slept on that couch? Were they Malcolm X's "lost" eyeglasses?
Terrible Truth presents the most compelling evidence I've seen for Obama's actual origins and history that I have seen to date.
ReplyDeleteThe Terrible Truth site has it right on the fatherhood of Malcolm X but wrong on the mother. Stanley Ann Dunham was the true mother. There are a lot of distractors out there due to CIA cover and TT got off track due to these distractors.
ReplyDelete