Friday, February 3, 2012

All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi’s Decision that Putative President Obama Is a “Natural Born Citizen”


All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi’s Decision that Putative President
                                                         Obama Is a “Natural Born Citizen”


                                                               By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                                   February 3, 2012

Georgia State Administrative Law Judge, Michael M. Malihi, issued his decision on Friday, February 3, 2012, finding that putative President, Barack Obama, is eligible as a candidate for the presidential primary election under O.C.G.A. Sec. 21-2-5(b). The decision can be read here, http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/02/judge-malihi-rules-against-plaintiffs.html .  I must enter my objection to this decision which is not supported by either fact or law.

The Court held: “For purposes of this analysis, this Court considered that President Barack Obama was born in the United States. Therefore, as discussed in Arkeny [sic meant Ankeny], he became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.”

But there is no evidence before the Court that Obama was born in the United States. The court can only rest its finding of fact on evidence that is part of the court record. The judge tells us that he decided the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. But he does not tell us in his decision what evidence he relied upon to “consider[]” that Obama was born in the United States. The judge “considered” that Obama was born in the United States. What does “considered” mean? Clearly, it is not enough for a court to consider evidence or law. It must make a finding after having considered facts and law. The judge simply does not commit to any finding as to where Obama was born. Using the word “considered” is a cop out from actually addressing the issue. Additionally, we know from his decision that neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing let alone introduced any evidence of Obama’s place of birth. We also know from the decision that the judge ruled that plaintiffs’ documents introduced into evidence were “of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiff’s allegations.” Surely, the court did not use those “insufficient” documents as evidence of Obama’s place of birth. Nor does the judge tell us that he used those documents for any such purpose. The judge also does not tell us that the court took any judicial notice of any evidence (not to imply that it could). The judge did find that Obama has been certified by the state executive committee of a political party. But with the rules of evidence of superior court applying, this finding does not establish anyone’s place of birth. Hence, what evidence did the judge have to rule that Obama is born in the United States? The answer is none.

The court did not engage in its own thoughtful and reasoned analysis of the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” but rather relied only upon Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct.App. 2009), transfer denied, 929 N.E.2d 789 (2010), a state-court decision which erred in how it defined a “natural born Citizen.”

The court says that Ankeny is persuasive. The court does not show us why Ankeny is persuasive other than to just provide some quotations from the decision. On the contrary, upon close analysis, we can see that Ankeny is far from persuasive on the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” The court’s decision can only be as sound as the Ankeny decision may be. But an analysis of that decision shows that it was incorrectly decided as to its definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Presidential eligibility is a national issue. Under our Constitution, like the States do not have power to naturalize citizens, they also do not have power to change, add, or diminish the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” See U.S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779 (1995) (states have no authority to change, add, or diminish the eligibility requirements for members of Congress). Moreover, as naturalization needs uniformity, so does the citizenship standard needed to be met by those wishing to be eligible to be President. Hence, any state court decision on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is not binding on the nation in determining who is eligible to be President. Such a decision can only be ultimately made by the U.S. Supreme Court which would make its decision the law of the entire nation. The Ankeny case is a decision of the Indiana state court and not by the U.S. Supreme Court. For this reason, the Ankeny decision is not binding on any court deciding the question of what is a “natural born Citizen.” But not only is the decision not binding, it also needs to be rejected for diminishing the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Apart from the Ankeny decision not being binding on the national issue of what is a “natural born Citizen,” the decision itself should be rejected on its merits.

The Constitution’s text does not define a “natural born Citizen.” Yet, Ankeny did not even discuss what the Founders’ and Framers” original intent was in including the “natural born” Citizen clause in the Constitution. It is a rule of constitutional construction that we can learn what the Founders and Framers intended by a certain term they included in the Constitution by discovering what their purpose was for including the term in that document. But the Ankeny court told us what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is without examining the purpose for which the Founders and Framers included that clause in Article II, Section 1. No where in the decision do we see that the court examined what the Founders’ and Framers’ intent was for inserting the clause in the Constitution. The court conducted no independent historical research or analysis regarding what the Founders and Framers intended when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution in 1787. In fact, no where in the decision did the court even raise the issue of the Founders’ and Framers’ intent when they wrote the clause in Article II. It provided no sources from the Founding period which in any way supports its holding. It discussed no historical records or declarations of historical figures. So its decision as to what a “natural born” Citizen is has no historical or legal support.

The Founders and Framers placed their trust in “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” The Declaration of Independence, para. 1. They came to learn what natural law was from studying ancient history and its influence in the then modern world. They knew from studying this history and the great publicists, including Emer de Vattel who was the Founders’ and Framers’ favorite, that natural law became the law of nations. And Vattel in Section 212 of his The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) defined what a “natural born Citizen” is. There he said that the “natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” The Indiana state court in Ankeny did not even discuss natural law and the law of nations. The Ankeny court just barely acknowledged Emer de Vattel. It refers to Vattel's highly influential work, The Law of Nations, as "an eighteenth century treatise" and discusses neither Vattel nor his work. Hence, it fails to understand the importance of the law of nations and Vattel to the Founders and Framers and in the founding of our nation and their drafting of our Constitution in which they included the law of nations and not the English common law as part of Article III "Laws of the United States." The court hardly knew who Emer de Vattel was. This should be an indication to anyone who has seriously studied the Obama eligibility issue of how much reliance we can place on the court’s ruling as to what a “natural born Citizen” is.

Judge Malihi also did not discuss the early naturalization statutes passed by our early Congresses. These acts are critical in understanding the definition of a “natural born Citizen” because so many members of the early Congresses were Founders and Framers. “The significance of such a statute passed by the first Congress was, of course, the fact that many of the framers of the Constitution were Members of that first Congress, as well as the fact that the first Congress’s understanding of the meaning of the terms of the Constitution was most contemporaneous in time with the document’s adoption. One author has noted that of the “Committee of Eleven,” which first proposed to the Convention of 1787 the eligibility requirement of being a “natural born” citizen, 8 of the 11 committee members were in that first Congress, and none stated objections to or disagreement with the characterization of the term “natural born” by statute by the Congress.” Christina Lohman, Presidential Eligibility: The Meaning of the Natural-Born Citizen Clause, 36 Gonzaga Law Review 349, 371 (2000/2001). The Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802, prove that only a child born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents can be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” These acts treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens themselves. These acts also naturalized children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents to be in 1790 “natural born citizens” and then in 1795 and thereafter “citizens of the United States.” By analyzing these acts, we can see that the only child over whom Congress did not exercise its naturalization power was a child born in the United States to citizen parents. Hence, that child was the “natural born citizen.”

Ankeny misread Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), saying that the Minor Court read Article II and the Fourteenth Amendment "in tandem," suggesting without any support that the latter somehow amended the former. It also erred when it said that Minor "left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen." The Court did no such thing. Rather, the Court left open that question as it applies to a Fourteenth Amendment born "citizen of the United States," not an Article II "natural born Citizen." Minor told us that there is no doubt who a “natural born Citizen” is, telling us that it is a child born in the country of two U.S. citizen parents. That definition is based on natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law. Indeed, this confirms that the Founders and Framers gave us only one citizenship definition to be used to determine eligibility to be President. On the other hand, Minor added that there is doubt as to whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was even a “citizen.” The Framers gave Congress the power to make future “citizens of the United States” through naturalization. Hence, the doubts have been over the definition making persons the parents of a future “natural born Citizen,” not over the definition making the child of those parents a “natural born Citizen.” It also confounded Minor and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) as relying upon the English common law to define a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” It said that Minor relied upon the English common law like Wong Kim Ark did when it did not do any such thing, for it relied upon natural law and the law of nations which when applied in the United States became “common-law” (the language that Minor used), which given the definition of a “natural-born citizen” that the Court provided (including the citizenship of the parents as a condition of being a “natural-born citizen”) could not have been English common law but rather was American common law. In order to justify its decision, Ankeny gave authority and respect to the feudal English common law (per Lord Coke and Lord Chief Justice Cockburn) on matters of U.S. citizenship and gave no such authority and respect to our own American common law which Minor showed replaced that feudal law in the new republic. In fact, there is not one word in the Minor decision which sounds in the language of the English common law, yet Ankeny said that it relied upon English common law. It distinguished Minor in footnote 12 by saying that it “contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.” But it did not explain how or why having one U.S. citizen parent rather than none would make any difference when applying the “natural born” Citizen clause.

Wong Kim Ark, a Fourteenth Amendment citizenship case, answered the question left open in Minor, which question concerned whether Wong Kim Ark was a “citizen of the United States,” not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Wong Kim Ark relied upon the English common law, which historically had been used to define British nationality and not American nationality, to define a “citizen of the United States.” But Ankeny mistakenly concluded that Wong Kim Ark ruled Wong Kim Ark to be a “natural born Citizen” rather than a “citizen of the United States.” Wong Kim Ark did no such thing. There is nothing in Wong Kim Ark decision that suggests that the Court declared Wong Kim Ark an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible to be President. The U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) already had told us that there was no doubt as to who could be a “natural born Citizen.” Since there is no doubt and if Wong Kim Ark was a “natural born Citizen,” the U.S. government would not have argued that he was not even a “citizen of the United States,” let alone a “natural born Citizen.” Also, Wong Kim Ark never said that Minor was wrong in defining a “natural born Citizen” in the way that it did under natural law and the law of nations and not the English common law.

Also, Ankeny relied strictly upon U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark and its historical sources for its decision on what a “natural born Citizen” is. They made a monumental declaration as to the meaning of the clause based solely upon a 1898 U.S. Supreme Court case that did not even involve any dispute regarding the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and which ironically confirmed Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” as stated by Minor v. Happersett in 1875.

Ankeny incorrectly took the Wong Kim Ark holding that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment born "citizen of the United States," and even though Wong itself provides a different definition for an Article II "natural born Citizen," and even though Wong cites and accepts Minor's definition of a "natural born Citizen," the Ankeny court equated the Wong "citizen of the United States" with an Article II "natural born Citizen" and said that the Wong decision stands for such a proposition when it does not. Hence, it erroneously relied upon Wong Kim Ark, stating that the Court there declared Wong a “natural born citizen” when it only declared him a “citizen” of the United States. In Footnote 14 it said: “We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a 'natural born Citizen' using the Constitution’s Article II language is immaterial." This is a fantastic statement given the care and precision which the Founders and Framers used with their language in drafting and adopting the Constitution, a circumstance which has always been recognized by our U.S. Supreme Court when called upon to interpret the Constitution. Additionally, Wong Kim Ark itself distinguished between a child born in the country to one or two alien parents and a child born in the country to citizen parents, telling us that while both are “citizens,” only the latter is a “natural born Citizen." Wong said: “‘The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’ p. 22, note.” Wong Kim Ark, at 666-67 (citing and quoting Binney’s 1853 pamphlet on citizenship).

Ankeny erroneously conflated an Article II "natural born Citizen" with a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States." Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and other parts of the Constitution are clear in distinguishing between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.” The text of the Fourteenth Amendment defines a “citizen of the United States,” not a “natural born Citizen.” Even if we were to give them any controlling effect which they do not have, there is also nothing in the legislative debates which indicates that the amendment was designed to change the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” We cannot just forget about the distinction made by the Framers in Article II between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.” Just ruling someone to be a “citizen of the United States” does not necessarily mean that the person is a “natural born Citizen,” for “citizens of the United States” are made up of “natural born Citizens” and naturalized “citizens of the United States.” The latter are naturalized either “at birth” or after birth. “Natural born Citizens” are citizens by virtue of natural law. Other U.S. citizens are citizens by virtue of positive law which in Wong Kim Ark was “by virtue of the first clause of the fourteenth amendment.” Wong Kim Ark, at 686.

Ankeny as did Wong Kim Ark also mistakenly relied upon Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830). What the court did is cite and quote from Justice Story who was in the minority and whose opinion was not accepted by the majority. The majority of the Court in Inglis, which included Chief Justice John Marshall, did not rely upon the English common law jus soli rule but rather the law of nation jus sanguinis rule when it held that if the demandant was born in New York after July 4, 1776, his minority incapacitated him from making any election as to which citizenship to chose and he therefore inherited the character and election and therefore the citizenship of his father (father and mother) who, if born a British subject and if he continued that national character as of the time of his son’s birth, made the son British also, subject to the son renouncing the citizenship chosen for him by his British father during minority and choosing U.S. citizenship upon becoming an adult. Id. at 124 and 126. The majority cited and relied upon Vattel when arguing that a person has a right to elect what nation to be part of in time of revolution. Id. at 122. Justice Story put forth the English common law jus soli rule for citizenship and ruled that the damandant if born in New York was an “American citizen” regardless of the citizenship of his parents (Id. at 164 and 170). But Justice Story was in the minority. The majority of the Court did not adopt Justice Story’s opinion and reliance on the English common law.

Both Ankeny and Wong Kim Ark also mistakenly relied upon that part of the dissenting opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856), which was not directed to the issue of slavery disabling blacks from being citizens but rather directed to whether we defined U.S. citizenship under natural law and the law of nations or under the English common law. This dissenting opinion did not carry the day and was also rejected by the Minor court which in 1875 defined a “natural-born citizen” as a child born in a country to citizen parents.

Ankeny used English common law to define an Article II "natural born Citizen" when all U.S. Supreme Court cases, including Minor and Wong Kim Ark, have used American common law to do so.

Ankeny said: “Although President Arthur’s status as a natural born citizen was challenged in the 1880 Presidential Election on the grounds that he was born in Canada rather than Vermont, the argument was not made that because Arthur’s father was an Irish citizen he was constitutionally ineligible to be President.” But the court provided no evidence that anyone then was aware that when Chester Arthur was born, he was born to an alien father. Additionally, even if anyone of any authority was aware that Arthur’s father when he was born was an alien, one constitutional violation does not justify another.

Ankeny cited and quoted from Diaz-Salazar v. I.N.S., 700 F.2d 1156, 1160 (7th Cir. 1983) in support of its definition of a "natural born Citizen" when the question of the meaning of the clause did not exist in that case and the only reference therein to a "natural born Citizen" was made by the court when it recited the facts but not when it provided any legal analysis. It is incredible that the court would give such weight to such a statement of dicta and not give any weight to the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” in Minor.

The pro se plaintiffs in Ankeny claimed, among other things, that Obama was not eligible to be President under Article II, Section 1. The court said 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….” The court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint on defendants’ motion that on its face plaintiffs’ complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. 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 neither held that Obama was born in the United States nor that he is a “natural born Citizen.” In fact, there was absolutely no evidence before the court that Obama was born in Hawaii. And as we have seen, there was also absolutely no evidence before Judge Malihi showing the Obama was born in the United States. Hence, the Ankeny opinion regarding whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” is nothing more than an advisory opinion, for the Court never ruled that he was such. The court never addressed the question of whether he was born in Hawaii. No evidence was presented to the court whether he was “born within the borders of the United States.” The court never even examined that issue. Hence, its statement 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” does not prove that Obama was, in fact, born within the borders of the United States” and that he is therefore a “natural born Citizen.”

Ankeny was advisory on the "natural born Citizen" issue because it gave us its definition of a "natural born Citizen" but never applied that definition to Obama's personal situation. It resolved no real controversy. After it pronounced what the law was, it needed to apply that law to the facts. It needed to find that Obama was born in the United States and that he was thus a "natural born Citizen" to give its opinion any binding effect. It never made the finding that Obama was born in the United States. It never said that such a fact was established by the evidence before the court. So its whole opinion on what is a "natural born Citizen" is purely advisory.

To conclude that plaintiffs did not state a sufficient claim given the court’s ruling as to what a “natural born Citizen” is, there would have to exist uncontroverted evidence that Obama was in fact eligible to be President. The question of presidential eligibility is a legal question which the court could examine on a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. But in order to make any conclusion as to whether plaintiffs adequately challenged Obama’s eligibility, given the fact that on a motion to dismiss a complaint the court is supposed to “view the pleadings in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, with every reasonable inference construed in the nonmovant’s favor, and given the court’s own definition of what is a “natural born Citizen,” the court had to examine whether Obama was “born within the borders of the United States.” This legal hurdle shows that the court could not decide the question of the legal sufficiency of plaintiffs’ complaint by simply examining its face alone. Rather, the court needed evidence outside the complaint (e.g. a birth certificate) which means that the court would have had to convert the motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment.

But not only was there no evidence presented to the Ankeny court showing that Obama was in fact born in the United States, the court never called for such evidence nor did it even make such a factual finding. By the court’s own words, the citizenship of Obama’s parents was not relevant. But surely the only element of its “natural born Citizen” test, that Obama was born in the United States, was critically relevant. Yet the court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim without any evidence that Obama was born in the United States. Hence, how can the court dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim? Rather, what the court did is just by way of advisory opinion tell us what it believes to be a “natural born Citizen” without applying its definition to the question of whether Obama is constitutionally eligible. If the court had addressed the place of birth issue, given its definition of a “natural born Citizen,” it would have ended the live controversy. It did not do that so its opinion is a mere advisory opinion with no application to a live factual controversy producing a just resolution. Lastly, if the court’s decision had not been advisory, the nation today would know whether Obama was or was not born “within the borders of the United States.”

The Ankeny plaintiffs may have argued that place of birth did not matter, given the two-citizen parent argument. But surely, they did not concede that Obama was born in the United States and the court did not make a finding that they made any such concession. Hence, once the court rejected the citizen-parents element and relied strictly on the place of birth, it could not simply conclude that plaintiffs did not state a claim, for the ultimate issue was always Obama's eligibility which they clearly stated in their complaint. Again, the court was duty bound on a motion to dismiss on the face of the complaint to give the non-moving party every reasonable inference. I cannot imagine, given that the court was well aware of the issue of place of birth, the plaintiffs never conceded that Obama was born in the United States, the ultimate issue was eligibility, and the requirement that a court faced with a motion to dismiss on the face of a complaint is to give the non-movant the benefit of all reasonable inferences, the court not treating a complaint that says that Obama was not eligible as also encompassing the place of birth issue or in the alternative not giving the non-moving pro se parties the opportunity to amend their complaint.

The Ankeny court could have completely disposed of the case on an independent state ground. There was no need for the court to journey into the waters of what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. Not being satisfied with giving us its opinion on what a “natural born Citizen” is as it pertains to persons born in the United States, the court in Footnote 15 even cautioned that while the question of whether someone born out of the United States can be a “natural born” Citizen was not before it, its decision should not be interpreted to mean that being born in the United States is the only way someone can be a “natural born Citizen.”

As we have seen, Ankeny is simply bad law for many reasons. The main one is that it rests on the incorrect notion that Wong Kim Ark declaring that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment necessarily means that the Court said he was a “natural born Citizen.” Such a position is remarkable given that the Indiana court itself admitted in its own opinion that it is aware that the Constitution contains both “natural born Citizens” and “citizens of the United States” and that the Wong holding did not include “natural born Citizen.”

So, any citation to Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana is misguided for at least two reasons, and as we have seen above there are many more. It read Minor v. Happersett as having doubts about who was a “natural born Citizen” when it had no such doubt. Its doubts were only whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a “citizen” under the law existing prior to the Fourteenth Amendment and necessarily also under that very amendment. It also read Wong Kim Ark as resolving those non-existing doubts and holding that Wong was a “natural born Citizen.” But Justice Gray only held that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. He never held that he was a “natural born Citizen.” So Wong, not addressing the issue, never resolved any doubts concerning what a “natural born Citizen” is.  In fact, the Court cited and quoted Minor v. Happersett’s definition of the clause which was a child born in the country to citizen parents.

Judge Malihi finds that Obama “became a citizen at birth and is a natural born citizen.” What he is saying is that by the mere fact that Obama was a citizen at birth, he is a “natural born Citizen.” But this is not the definition of a “natural born citizen.”  Judge Malihi's definition must fail just on a textual basis.  The clause is "natural born Citizen," not "born Citizen."  The "natural" must also be given meaning. And when we do give "natural" meaning, we see that it cannot be separated from the word of art and idiom, "natural born Citizen" which means a child born in the country to citizen parents. 

The Founders and Framers looked for a citizenship standard that would assure them that the President and Commander in Chief would have the most allegiance, attachment, and loyalty to the republic. A citizenship test that depended only upon when a child became a citizen would not be sufficient, for it alone would not say anything of how the child would be reared. But a test that included to whom a child was born and that provided some indication of how the child would be raised much better provided for their needs for allegiance to the nation. For those reasons, a “natural born citizen” could not just depend upon being declared a citizen from the moment of birth, which any positive law could declare. Rather, the Founders and Framers included two natural components which were that the child would have to be born in the country to citizen parents. This was the time-honored definition of a “natural born Citizen” under natural law and the law of nations and this is what they accepted.

A “born citizen,” “citizen at birth,” “citizen by birth” or “citizen from birth,” if he or she does not satisfy this original American common law definition, is an Article II “Citizen of the United States” as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Act, or treaty, but not an Article II “natural born Citizen” as defined by natural law and the law of nations which definition is a child born in the country to citizen parents. In other words, a “born . . . citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act is simply a person born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” As can be seen, in the Fourteenth Amendment there is no citizen parents requirement, but there is a “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requirement. In contradistinction, in the “natural born Citizen” definition, there is a citizen parents requirement, but there is no “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” requirement, for being born in the country to citizen parents, such a child could not be born other than "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Since the amendment is designed only to allow someone to become a member of the United States and nothing more, according to Wong Kim Ark there is no need to require citizen parents but at least to require that the child be born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. Since a child that is born in the United States to citizen parents will always be born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, we do not engage in “jurisdiction” analysis when exploring whether one is a “natural born Citizen,” but rather just look to see that the person was born in the United States to citizen parents. This is why Minor engaged in no “subject to the jurisdiction” analysis when examining Virginia Minor’s citizenship status. On the other hand, since under Wong Kim Ark a Fourteenth Amendment (or Congressional Act) "born . . . citizen of the United States" can be born in the United States to one or two alien parents, Wong Kim Ark instructs that we must do a "subject to the jurisdiction" analysis which is what it did of Wong. All this tells us that there is a fundamental constitutional difference between an Article II "natural born Citizen," who is born within the sole, full, and complete legal, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction and therefore sole citizenship of the United States and a Fourteenth Amendment "born . . . citizen of the United States" who is born with divided allegiance, jurisdiction, and citizenship.

If any “born citizen,” “citizen at birth,” “citizen by birth” or “citizen from birth” does not satisfy the “natural born Citizen” definition, we cannot simply amend Article II by changing the definition of a “natural born Citizen” to one of these phrases. In other words, we cannot just take an Article II “Citizen of the United States” as defined by the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act and convert that person into an Article II “natural born Citizen” as defined by American common law which has its basis in natural law and the law of nations. Rather, if one is going to maintain that he or she is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” then let he or she prove it under the time-honored definition of the clause. Let us not accept that the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” has somehow been changed to some other phrase such as a “citizen at birth” or “citizen by birth” without seeing any evidence of that ever happening. Let us not because of political expediency take someone who may at best be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” and convert that person into an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The burden of proof is on those seeking to change the Constitution and its original and long-standing definition of a “natural born Citizen,” not on those who are fighting to preserve, protect, and defend them.

So as we can see, our U.S. Supreme Court has given the exact “natural born Citizen” clause only one definition and that is a child born in the country to citizen parents. See Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). This means that only a child born in the United States to two parents who are either Article II “natural born Citizens” or Fourteenth Amendment or statutory “born or naturalized . . . citizens of the United States” is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” This is the consensus opinion of a “natural born Citizen” as provided by our U.S. Supreme Court and Congress since the beginning of our nation. Consequently, a “Citizen of the United States” is any citizen so made by Act of Congress, treaty, or other positive law such as the Fourteenth Amendment. Indeed, while a Fourteenth Amendment “born . . . citizen of the United States” may be born with dual and divided allegiance to the United States, an Article II “natural born Citizen” is born only within the sole, full, complete, and undivided legal, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction of and sole citizenship in the United States.

A “natural born Citizen” includes all those who are born with no foreign allegiance and excludes all those who are born with any foreign allegiance. On the other hand, a “citizen,” “native-born citizen,” “born Citizen,” or “citizen of the United States” who is not a “natural born Citizen” can be born with foreign allegiance but through positive law is nevertheless naturalized to be a “citizen of the United States” either at birth or after birth. Hence, a “natural born Citizen” has only one definition which was recognized during the Founding and which has been confirmed by our U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, and other historical sources. That definition is a child born in the country to citizen parents. Satisfying this definition removes from the child foreign allegiance which may attach by birth on foreign soil (by jus soli) or by birth to one or two foreign parents (by jus sanguinis). It is by satisfying this definition that one is born with no foreign allegiance and thus attached and loyal only to the United States.  Consequently, all “natural born Citizen[s]” are “citizens of the United States,” but not all “citizens of the United States” are “natural born Citizen[s].” Therefore, any “born . . . citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment must still show that he or she satisfies the American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” in order to be considered a “natural born Citizen.” Failing to make that showing, a “born” or “native born” citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is just that but not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Judge Malihi has not made any findings of fact concerning the question of where Obama was born. Obama the candidate wants to be President again. Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, Obama has the burden of proof to conclusively prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.” As part of that burden, he has to conclusively prove that he was born in the United States. Neither Obama nor his attorney appeared at the hearing to present any evidence on the issue. Judge Malihi found the plaintiffs’ documentary evidence to be insufficient for whatever purposes it could have been used. Nor did he find that that evidence, which includes a paper copy of the computer scan of Obama’s alleged long form birth certificate, to be sufficient to prove that Obama was born in Hawaii. We can see from the exact words used by Judge Malihi that Obama has failed to carry his burden to conclusively prove that he was born in the United States. Judge Malihi said that he “considered” that Obama was born in the United States. We do not know what this means and it appears that Judge Malihi attempts to avoid the issue of whether he found that Obama was born in the United States. Clearly, “considered” does not mean found. Since Obama failed to carry his burden of proof as to his place of birth and Judge Malihi’s decision actually confirms that fact, the Georgia Secretary of State should reject Judge Malihi’s decision and rule on his own that Obama not be placed on the primary ballot.

Should the Georgia Secretary of State find that there is sufficient evidence in the record which conclusively shows that Obama was born in the United States, then he can still find that Obama is still not a “natural born Citizen.” We have seen that Judge Malihi relies on Ankeny which is bad law when it comes to the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” He fails in not giving controlling effect to the U.S. Supreme Court case of Minor which clearly defined a “natural born citizen.” Finally, Judge Malihi incorrectly reads Wong Kim Ark and gives controlling effect to that incorrect reading. The time-honored American common law definition of the clause is a child born in the country to citizen parents. There is no dispute that Obama was born to a non-U.S. citizen father (his father was a British citizen) and U.S. citizen mother. Being born to an alien father, Obama also inherited his father’s British citizenship under the British Nationality Act 1948. All this demonstrates that Obama was not born in the full and complete legal, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. He is therefore not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and cannot be placed on the Georgia primary ballot.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
February 3, 2012
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved










218 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 218   Newer›   Newest»
Joe said...

You must have been typing as we were all in disbelief.

Can I ask you one question at a time as I read through your analysis? Thank you so much for doing this !!!

Q 1. two attorneys stipulated Obama wasnborn in HI and one entered his bc into evidence. Why couldn't the court be using that to rely on?

I know why they did it but it looks like that might not have been a good idea.

Question no. 10 will be, how do we fix this??

Joe said...

OK that wasn't so bad. I followed everything you wrote and only had that one question which you answered at the end of the analysis.

If plaintiffs evidence was not good enough to prove anything then it wasnt good enough to prove Obama was born in the US. Perhaps the court should have been more specific.

So now we are here and we are very disappointed. Given Leo's amicus brief, the evidence and testimony, is there any hope? Is there any way to stop the courts from using bad law? Is there any way to get an honest ruling out of them? Or are we stuck with the Indiana ruling from Judges who don't care about the gravity of the situation, need to keep their job or are unable to grasp the argument intellectually?

What can we do now?

Joe said...

I do recall seeing the Indiana case on one of the exhibits in the Van Irion presentation. I think he mentioned it was only dicta and thats all. He really didn't elaborate.

Joe said...

Ok one last thing, I was forced to read the ruling by the judge. He stated that Section 1 only applies to Ms. Taitz's stuff. Therefore::

plaintiffs’ documents introduced into evidence were “of little, if any, probative value, and thus wholly insufficient to support Plaintiff’s allegations.”

only applies to Taitz's witnesses and documents. It does not apply to the bc Van Irion submitted. Orly had 2 hours to present her case. She only used 1 hour.

My question still stands, can this situation be fixed?
thank you Mr. Apuzzo for working on that great analysis of this case. Us non-lawyers just read this stuff and blur-out. Thanks for your help.

Joe said...

I must be losing it . I can't find any reference to the Indiana case in the transcripts on the videos or in the amicus brief. Please disregard that. Looks like the Judge looked that one up himself.

btw if you want to see a good video of the hearing except for Hatfield's, look up William Wagener, On Second Thought TV, on youtube. good sound and closeups of the witnesses.

A pen said...

Thank you Mr Apuzzo for your guidance in understanding the process. It is clear that no matter how well prepared a case is or the effect it may have on the nation or society that what is in the heart of the justice hearing the case may easily trump all argument to the contrary. Mr Malihi opens his dissent stating no defense was made. How then can he defend the defendant by bringing in any other evidence ie Ankeny? I don't recall any of the filings referring to that case. I too take issue with his "none of the written submissions tendered by Plaintiffs have probative value" yet apparently a document that is hotly contested as unsupported by facts in a HI court, which he is well aware of, is taken as having been substantiated. IMO Mr Malihi would have found as he did regardless of the facts, because he just did so.

James said...

I saw this on a blog:

“You might also note the footnotes that appear in Malihi’s decision citing a number of scholarly articles on the topic, which I presume Malihi consulted as well.”

This is an interesting observation and one that can be taken up on appeal. If this is indeed true, then why did judge Malihi IGNORE Leo Donofrio’s Amicis brief. It was not mentioned or cited. The judge neither acknowledged it nor rejected it. The judge IGNORED it; basically making believe that it doesn’t exist. I find it very unsual that the judge would cite a number articles in his decision that were not part of the record but IGNORE Leo’s brief which was part of the record. Further, Leo’s brief is expansive and instructive. And yet, there is no mention of it anywhere. I think Orly mentions it in her brief but again Judge Malihi ignores it.

James said...

Mario,

When this is taken up for appeal, you need to submit an amicis brief like Leo. Herb Titus should also submit one too. Then, the lawyers can point to your briefs on appeal. At the very least, they should point to Leo's brief as it appears to have been completely ignored by the judge.

Reality Check said...

Mr. Apuzzo:

I humbly suggest that you consider changing the name of your blog to "Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Wrong Answers"

There were three decisions in three separate venues reently that said in effect that your theories are nonsense.

Puzo1 said...

Reality Check,

Maybe you should change you name to Reality Denial.

Why do you not bless us with these "three decisions in three separate venues" that show that my "thories" are nonsense.

Thinking.the.Unthinkable said...

With all of the issues that have been raised regarding Obama's so-called long form birth certificate (no state seal, misspelled "TXE" and smiley face in the registrar's stamp, out of sequence certificate number, experts stating the document is a forgery, etc; the affidavit from senior elections official Tim Adams stating that there is no birth certificate; the lack of any evidence from either of the two hospitals that Obama said he was born at; plus the reports that Obama was born in Kenya), it's hard to believe that two of the plaintiffs would stipulate that Obama was born in Hawaii. How is that working out for them now?

According to Dr. Edwin Vieira, "Now that Obama’s citizenship has been seriously questioned, the burden of proof rests squarely on his shoulders. The “burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States * * * is upon those making the claim.” Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640, 653 (1948). ... Therefore, anyone who claims eligibility for “the Office of President” must, when credibly challenged, establish his qualifications in this regard with sufficient evidence."

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin84.htm

GlennBeckistan said...

So by your reasoning:

1) Herbert Hoover was not a natural born citizen since his mother was Canadien born.
2) Woodrow Wilson was not a "natural born citizen" since his mother was English.
3) Neither Chester Arthur nor James Buchanon were "natural born citizens" since they both had Irish fathers.
4) Thomas Jefferson was not a "natural born citizen" since his mother was English. FOREIGNER FOUNDING FATHER ALERT!!!
5) Andrew Jackson was not a "natural born citizen" since both his parents were born in Ireland.

Wow, this conspiracy of foreigner Presidents has been going on for a long time. Thanks for unmasking this devious conspiracy. Your tireless efforts on behalf of the American people are deeply appreciated.

thalightguy said...

Once you take away its intent it serves no purpose.

I predict the natural born citizen clause will be amended out of the Constitution within the next 10 years.

James said...

I have to agree with you Mario. Judge Malihi clearly IGNORED Irion's arguments. Irion's presented different and unique arguments that were never addressed in the Ankeny court. Instead of addressing such arguments and either rejecting them or affirming them, Judge Malihi simply ignored them. I suspect Judge Malihi knew he couldn't counter Irion's arguments and sought an escape route. Judge Malihi was able to find one by simply deferring the whole case to the Ankeny decision, a decision that is clearly not binding. Judge Malihi was then able to IGNORE Irion's arguments by simply stating that he found the Ankeny case persusive and deferred his legal conclusions to that court. Judge Malihi never addressed the merits of the arguments that was in the record in front of him.

I suspect that Irion knew about the Ankeny decision. But since Obama didn't show up to make judicial notice of it or enter it into the record, Irion believed that he could make an argument on the record that says Obama wasn't an NBC. Unfortunately, Judge Malihi IGNORED the record and reached for another court to find a resolution. It was highly unusual for him to do this since the Ankeny case was state court decision and was never reviewed by SCOTUS.

Reality Check said...

Here are the three recent decisions:

In Georgia ALJ Mahili on February 3rd rejected plaintiffs claims and said President Obama is a natural born citizen since he was born in Hawaii.

On January 20th in the Eastern District of Virginia Judge Gabney ruled in Tisdale v Obama that "It is well settled case law that those born in the Untied States are natural born citizens". He then cites Wong Kim Ark, Perkins v Elg, and Hollander v McCain.
http://rcradioblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/gov-uscourts-vaed-275608-2-0.pdf

In Illinois the State Board of Elections overruled a challenge against President Obama's place on the primary ballot filed by a Michael Jackson. Jackson argued that Minor v Happersett defined "natural born citizen". He had also included a copy of Leo Donofrio's 200+ page amicus brief that Leo had sent to Judge Malihi. The hearing examiner said of Jackson's case: "Said pleading is illogical, nonsensical, and not worthy of consideration." (The examiner's findings were upheld by the board this past week.)
http://www.scribd.com/doc/80185259/IL-BC-JACKSON-Hearing-Officer-Recommendation

Puzo1 said...

I of II

James,

You are relying on a “stipulation” by some attorneys as evidence in the court record of Obama’s place of birth. You do not cite to any other evidence in the record. So then, other than your “stipulation” theory, you agree with me that there is no factual foundation for Judge Malihi’s “consideration” that Obama was born in the United States.

Judge Malihi decided the case both on place of birth and citizen parents. He concluded, based on Ankeny alone, that citizen parents is not relevant to deciding whether one who is born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” He in effect ruled that with a U.S. birth case, place of birth and “jurisdiction” are the only controlling issues. The way Wong Kim Ark interpreted the “jurisdiction” requirement, it only becomes an issue if parents are diplomats, military invaders, or lacking the status of being domiciled in the United States. Our current courts have not even wanted to touch the “domicile” requirement of Wong Kim Ark. Obama’s alleged parents were not diplomats or military invaders. So there is no “jurisdiction” issue if Obama was born in the United States. Hence, under Judge Malihi’s view of what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is, which I have shown in my article is a mistaken view, for Judge Malihi to rule that Obama is a “natural born Citizen,” he only had to find that Obama was born in the United States. But Judge Malihi did not make any findings of fact. Just to "consider" something is not a decision either way. So we do not know how he “considered” Obama to be born in the United States, which as I have stated in my article is not legally equivalent to a factual finding.
I do not know the full extent of this alleged “stipulation.” For what purpose was the stipulation made? Was it made for the purpose of just getting to the issue of the citizen parents requirement rather than actually conceding to the place of birth issue? I doubt very much that any attorney would have made such a stipulation to actual concede that Obama was born in the United States. Rather, the stipulation would have been made only to get beyond the place of birth issue which was factually in dispute and get to the citizenship of the parents issue which was not factually in dispute. In any event, Judge Malihi does not mention any attorney stipulation in his opinion which supports my position that he did not view any such stipulation as evidence of record of Obama’s place of birth.

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of II

Even if there should be some binding stipulation of record as you suggest, your stipulation theory still does not preclude my argument that the court did not have sufficient evidence before it that Obama was born in the United States. Judge Malihi had three separate cases before him which each case presenting different party plaintiffs. Each party has his or her own due process rights to present his or her case as seen fit under all applicable laws. Hence, each case stands or falls on its own. Judge Malihi had also granted case severance. A stipulation is binding upon the party or attorney who makes it and has all the legal consequences that attach to it as provided by applicable law or court order. A stipulation by an attorney or party only resolves a certain factual issue for sake of legal argument in the case in which it is made and not in any other case. A stipulation does not actually prove anything in the real sense. It only allows a case to move forward in a legal environment without the court itself having to resolve any given factual dispute before it can resolve the underlying legal issues. Courts are allowed to take judicial notice of not only laws and other generally accepted facts, but also of any facts established of “record” in its own court or that of any other court. Hence, real evidence in a court record (e.g. testimonial, documentary, or physical) can be used for any purpose that the rules of evidence allow which includes not only prejudicing or supporting the case in which the evidence is introduced but also other cases. But what one party and attorney stipulates to in one case cannot be used against some party and attorney in a different case. In other words, except to the extent that there exists already judicially established facts and binding law, each case sinks or swims on its own. Orly Taitz did not stipulate to anything. She argued both place of birth and citizen parents. It is quite evident given her presentation of evidence that she strenuously contested the place of birth issue. Judge Malihi did not give Taitz any opportunity to be heard on whether he should use against her the stipulations of the other attorneys. Hence, your “stipulation” argument, even if it had any merit, does not work as to her.

Harry II said...

Kudos, Mario. If only truth and justice could prevail. . . which I doubt in this former republic, where the rule of law no longer seems to matter to those in power.

Puzo1 said...

GlennBeckistan,

It looks like you are either an innocent newbie to the Obama eligibility issue or a Super Obot misinformation operative. Regardless of who you really are, a little education will help all of us. Our first presidents were English "natural born subjects" who naturalized by condition, the Declaration of Independece and by adhering to the American Revolution, to be "Citizens of the United States." They were not nor could they be American "natural born Citizens." The grandfather clause of Article II allowed "Citizens of the United States” in being at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to be eligible to be President. Hence, our early presidents became eligible to be President as “Citizens of the United States” under the grandfather clause.

Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, after the adoption of the Constitution, only "natural born Citizens" are eligible to be President. This means that today only a child born in the country to citizen parents is eligible to be President. The parents of the child do not need to be born in the United States. They only have to be U.S. citizens by any lawful means available, e.g., the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Act, or treaty. Also, before 1922, an alien woman who married a U.S. citizen automatically became a U.S. citizen herself. So in your examples, all those presidents were either grandfathered to be eligible or were born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents.

The only exception to all our Presidents being constitutionally eligible for the office they held is Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, both children of a British "natural born subject/citizen" father and both not Article II "natural born Citizens." Arthur got away with it through the public not knowing of the full circumstances of his birth. Obama got away with it so far by the establishment covering for him.

James said...

http://networkedblogs.com/tyVBy
Hattfield and Irion need to follow suit and urge SOS Kemp to set aside Judge Malihi's decision.

paleophlatus said...

Mr Apuzzo,

As it appears that qualification is an "all or none' proposition, what difference is it that Obama was or was not born in Hawaii, since his father was not a US citizen?

Also, does Mz Taitz' contention that the birth certificate is a forgery cast doubt on the validity of both Obama's birth place AND his father's alien status, which we of the laity have been using as 'proof' of his ineligibility?

My profound thanks and appreciation for you and other members of the legal profession who have devoted so much time and effort in a valiant attempt to shine the light of reason and understanding into the dark recesses of many minds, with varying success.
It just proves that those who refuse to look will never see.

Kim Papit said...

Mr. Apuzzo - In relation to the judge "considering" that Obama was born in the US, isn't that because the plaintiff's lawyers stipulated to such in their statement of facts? In other words, because the plaintiffs "considered" Obama to be born in the US, wasn't that enough for Malihi to "consider" that to be the case? Those were the facts stipulated to by Van Irion and Hatfield.

Note - I'm not saying he WAS born in the US, I don't have any way of verifying that. However, the facts of the cases, to me, seem to provide the judge cover to make that "consideration"...do they not?

GlennBeckistan said...

Puzo,

Oh dear, you've outed me. I am, in fact, a "Super Obot misinformation operative". Damn you for blowing my cover.

Please, what is the basis for your assertion that both of a person's parents must be U.S. citizens for that person to be a "natural born citizen". Is it just that your head would explode otherwise given that Barack Hussein Obama is now your President? I know he is very very "other" in your mind, so perhaps that is not reconcilable.

Stan said...

Mario,

First of all, thanks for the detailed response, and your replies to various posters.

Second: Please, on appeal, help some amicus briefs to include the quotes from those behind the 14th Amendment when they stipulated that it did not have anything to say to the issue of natural born citizens; it only conferred American citizenship. (And it looks as though both the Indiana and Georgia courts conveniently skipped by this distinction: shameful. Recall proceedings are in order.)

Third: Please make sure that Judge Napolitano knows your full argument. He has an important audience, that needs to know all this.

Thank you for all your good work. Please keep it up, and out there. It's hard for us non-lawyers to know and cite all the ins and outs of the law. Keep repeating the argument and repeating it. It will land, eventually. The truth WILL out.

Unknown said...

Thanks for the splendid and prompt critique of Judge Malihi's decision. Even I, a legal novice, found it to be a disgrace.
My first thought was that this decision was the product of intimidation or worse, of a subtle bribe. Malihi appears to be still at an age when he might be looking forward to a more prestigious judgeship. I thought these thoughts because I found it difficult to believe that someone, who I believe had received his training in law at Boston College, would lack intellectual skills and interest. Presumably he was an attorney for some time and has some experience as a judge. But as our friendly attorney of this site has shown his decision was truly something to be embarrassed about.
The idea of "amending" the Constitution by stealth is very repugnant though that appears to be the case. The law has become something defined by the mass media . . . thus by the will of the corporation folks.
Given the kind of coverage this decision is receiving and will continue to receive, I (as a judge) would have done my very best and even asked for assistance if I found myself unsure. The fact that he has allowed this most shabby of decisions to go forth is due either to a real lack of self respect or the presence of either a serious threat or an irresistible future reward.
Whatever the future holds in this matter it is a great thing to be well informed and to know the truth. Those that have assisted in this deserve much genuine praise!

Joe said...

So glad to hear the stipulation business is out the window. I guess that leaves ZERO honest opinion from the judge.

good job Mr. puzzo

James said...

Mario,

Thanks for responding to my post. I don't think you are going to win the stipulation that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hattfield and Irion specifically waived that argument to get the merits of the NBC argument. I encourage you to contact Hattfield and Irion to see what assistance you can offer. Orly Taitz has already sent a brief to SOS Kemp to try to set aside the ruling. Perhaps you can do the same. Judge Malihi's decision is of no merit. The case decision sounds more like an appeal from Ankeny rather than a independent decision from his court. I truly believe that Judge Malihi couldn't issue a decision that would have found Obama eligible. Instead he found a way out by going with the Ankeny decision.

Find-Local-Business Demo Ad said...

Hail King Obama! The king with no clothes and no clue. Goodbye democracy!

Helen said...

Responding to Joe:

Just a couple of points to be aware of:

1) I believe the Court has erred in combining this decision when earlier he had granted case severance per the request of two of the Plaintiff attorneys.

2) Judge Malihi was charged with "reporting" to the Georgia Secretary of State following the conduct of the hearings. His decision is not a matter of law.

3) The Birth Certificate was placed into evidence as a Statement of Party Opponent to show the identity of the Defendant's father.

4) The SOS must now decide upon the question of whether or not Barack Obama should be shown on the Georgia Democratic Presidential Primary ballot on March 6. If the SOS allows the name to be placed on the ballot, each Plaintiff will be given ten days to file an appeal with the Fulton County Superior Court.

5) Attorney Irion, on behalf of Plaintiff Welden, filed a Motion of Contempt of Court which was supposed to be forwarded to the Superior Court by Judge Malihi. This item is still open.

There are still many miles to be covered on this excursion. Keep the faith.

Puzo1 said...

Reality Check,

Of those three cases that you have provided, did any one of them actually do anything on its own when it comes to analyzing the meaning of an Article II "natural born Citizen" or did they just cite a verse and line out of Wong Kim Ark and say that Wong is dispositive?

If it is the latter, how much value can any such "decision" have, given that Wong Kim Ark, when referring to a “natural born Citizen,” cited and quoted Minor v. Happersett and its definition of the clause and then concerning the issue that was before the Court as to whether Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” construed the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause and held that he was a “citizen of the United States” under that Amendment? Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark changed the underlying meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” I say “underlying” because the amendment did increase the class of people who can be parents of “natural born Citizens.” These cases are simply wrong in relying on Wong Kim Ark to establish the standard of what a “natural born Citizen” is. The standard is found in Minor v. Happersett which was confirmed by Wong Kim Ark, not changed by Wong Kim Ark.

Chris Strunk said...

BRAVO MARIO APUZZO ESQUIRE!!

and GEORGIA WHOSE YOUR STATE?


The former English slave colony Georgia is NOT New York!!

From 1609 forward New York has a full and complete set of precedents of what NBC is and what is acceptable in New York will certainly not run off to the Hoosier State for a finding that the Georgia political sinecure was not able to find among the affects of Georgia.

For the New York State Court of Appeals to change two hundred years of precedent so that one pitiful CIA stooge jackanapes again would be a slap in the face of all New Yorkers and result in the total downgrade of New York Jurisprudence. Unfortunately Georgia has no jurisprudence and it obviously has not recovered by the Jesuit’s Sherman march to the sea had to run to the north for instructions.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/80418612/Strunk-Complaint-and-Demand-for-Eligibility-Hearing-on-BHO-II-in-New-York

The attached Complaint and Demand for a BHO II ballot access hearing is being duly forwarded to the NYS BOE and Albany County District Attorney. see http://www.scribd.com/doc/80418612


I am going to be making a Youtube video on Sunday to report on efforts in New York and the importance of the 1/26/12 hearing in Georgia and the resulting search for Georgia’s past; and as such I will be urging citizen participation in making similar complaint / demands in their respective state.


Also as a heads-up I am filing a Notice of Motion Monday in 2011-6500 for leave to file a direct appeal on the US Const. Article 2 Section 1 Paragraph 5 issue at the NYS Court of Appeals that will resolve matters in trial court and in the pending court of claims cases.

The state by state approach is an effort that needed to be done in 2008 and will require many decisions in order to be finalized at the highest court of each state where appeals must be filed before going to the SCOTUS

Stamina Counts - last man standing rules,

Chris Strunk

James said...

Mario,

The court did acknowledge that WKA did not state the definition of Natural Born Citizen nor did it state WKA was a NBC. The court essentially IGNORED this important point stating that it did not matter which was complete nonsense.

thalightguy said...

It appears the Court in Indiana didn't even follow their own rules in the Ankeny opinion

SEE:
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/previous/archive/10240013.pdm.html

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

No. 49A02-0001-CV-19

WINONA MEMORIAL HOSPITAL,
LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, REPUBLIC
HEALTH CORPORATION OF
INDIANAPOLIS, OrNda HEALTH
INITIATIVES, INC., TENET HEALTHCARE,
CORP., and TENET REGIONAL
INFUSION SOUTH, INC.,

vs.

SHARON KUESTER and
DANIEL KUESTER

The Language of the Act

The relevant standard of statutory interpretation concerning the Act was established more than fifteen years ago:
In determining the meaning of statutes[,] there are certain rules which we are bound to follow. It has been consistently held in Indiana that judicial construction of a statute is permissible only where the statute is ambiguous and of doubtful meaning. If the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, judicial interpretation is inappropriate and the courts will adopt the meaning clearly expressed. If however, a statute is ambiguous and its meaning is not clear from the words used, judicial construction is proper. In such cases, the purpose and goal of judicial construction is to give effect to the intention of the legislature. A statute should be construed to accomplish the end for which it was enacted.

cfkerchner said...

This video by a lady named Tracy identifies who the OBOT Reality Check (RC) is - at about 12:55 into her video. He's some sort of "social engineer (check wiki on what they do)" at the Univ of CT. I think he was also involved with the Undead Revolution website which was allegedly being run by some students from CT conducting a sociology experiment for RC. Possibly an infiltration, double-agent type operation and mind-bending, game and role playing sociology experiment, etc. Imo, RC fancies himself as some sort of super smart manipulator of people and events. I hear tell that RC has a lot of high level contact in Wash DC with the environmental man-made global warming movement lobbyists connected to Obama:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=045_1307642475

MichaelN said...

The entire argument for native birth as solely sufficient for POTUS eligibility is absurd at it's core.

Sound evidence as to the common-sense thinking and intent of the founding fathers, framers of the US Constitution, the Congress and the Senate, can be seen with the enactment of the First Naturalization Act of 1790, where "natural born" was primarily and essentially associated with descent, in the absence of native birth.

Puzo1 said...

paleophlatus,

Notwithstanding the ruling of the Georgia court, the historical record, Congressional Acts, and U.S. Supreme Court cases show that a "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the country to citizen parents. Minor v. Happersett (1875). Hence, to be a "natural born Citizen," one needs both birth in the country and birth to citizen parents.

As to birth in the country, Obama has yet to conclusively prove that he was born in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent. His computerized long-from birth certificate has been discredited as a forgery. Obama was given in Georgia the opportunity to meet his burden of proof regarding where he was born. He failed to appear and to present any evidence on the issue. While the Georgia court ruled otherwise, as I have explained in my article, I disagree with the court. Rather, the court had no competent evidence to establish where he was born. Obama therefore failed to carry his burden.

As to citizen parents, the Georgia court has ruled that it is irrelevant. As I explained in my article, I disagree with the court. On the contrary, Obama has conceded that his father was Obama Sr. There is evidence of Obama Sr. being his father in the INS file, Dreams from My Father, the Obama-Dunham divorce file, and many other sources in the public domain. Obama Sr. was not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born. The INS file proves this. Obama himself has conceded this point.

As we have seen, to be a "natural born Citizen," one must be born in the country and born to citizen parents. Obama fails both the place of birth and citizen parents test. This means that even if Obama were born in Hawaii, he still in not a "natural born Citizen" because he fails the citizen parents test. So, place of birth and citizen parents are both necessary but neither alone is sufficient. Regardless of which factor we focus on, Obama is not a "natural born Citizen."

ABQ said...

Had Obama been disqualified for his lack of birth certificate, we would have elected John McCain, who was born in Panama.

Puzo1 said...

Has the rule of the establishment replaced the rule of law?

thalightguy said...

Puzo1 said...
Has the rule of the establishment replaced the rule of law?

They tell us everyday that we are a Democracy...the Mob has run amok.

s said...

Just for everyone's information. That judge Malihi in Georgia is a MUSLIM! But not just any old Muslim, an IRANIAN Muslim himself NOT born in the U.S.! Considering Obama and his boys knew for months in advance that this case would appear before Malihi, it is very suspicious that just a few weeks ago Obama cancelled the largest ever joint military exercise with Israel scheduled this spring supposedly to reduce tensions with....IRAN! Also considering that Malihi may still have family living in Iran, it is reasonable to conclude that yes, there was "strong-arming", but it wasn't Obama who "got" to the judge.....it was Ahmadinejad!!! The price paid for electing a constitutionally ineligible president with foreign allegiances and entanglements!

Unknown said...

Original birth certificate ——————————————Unavailable
Obama/Dunham marriage license -—————————Unavailable
Soetoro/Dunham marriage license ————————— Unavailable
Soetoro adoption records-————————————— Unavailable
Dept.of Education Hawaii Kindergarten Records-——- Unavailable
Punahou School records-——————————————Unavailable
Occidental College records —————————————Unavailable
Passport (Pakistan) -———————————————— Unavailable
Columbia College ——————————————————Unavailable
Columbia thesis ———————————————————Unavailable
(Topic: Nuclear Disarmament, written during Cold War ’83)
Harvard College records -————————————-——Unavailable
Harvard Law Review articles ————————————— Unavailable
(Evidence that one may have been written, yet it is unsigned)
Baptism certificate ——————————————————Unavailable
Medical records -———————————————————Unavailable
Illinois State Senate records -—————————————None
Illinois State Senate schedule —————————————Lost
Law practice client list ———————————————— Not released
University of Chicago scholarly articles –——————-— None on file

Indonesian Besuki School Application————————-—*Located
(Enrolled with name Barry Soetoro-faith “Islam”
Selective Service Registration- -— -*Released, but under investigation as fraudulent

Puzo1 said...

For those who want to hear Jeff Rense and Mario Apuzzo on the Jeff Rense Radio Show, recorded on Monday, January 30, 2012, you may do so by going here:

http://dprogram.net/2012/02/04/jeff-rense-with-mario-apuzzo-is-obama-coming-unraveled/

Reality Check said...

Now we are moving the goal posts are we not? So unless a judge specifically addresses your arguments you discount the decision? Here is a reality check: In all three cases the plaintiffs based their claim on the theory that the Constitution requires a natural born citizen to have two citizen parents. It two of the cases a copy of Leo Donofrio's 200 page tome was supplied. The theory failed on the merits in all cases.

Birthers have said for three years that all they wanted is for a case to be heard on the merits. Well, it has happened and now you know the results. You can't expect judges to buy a theory that was pulled out of thin blue air in late 2008 to fly against the common sense and historical definition that citizen at birth means natural born. That is exactly the conclusion that Judge Malihi reached with a very clear and concise explanation.

You certainly had the same opportunity as Orly Taitz and the other attorneys to engage in one of the ballot challenges and argue your flawed interpretations of law. You appear to be content after your own failures in the courts to engage in mental wringing of the hands on a blog.

Joe said...

I and I'm certain many others are saddened by the events you have described.

We see now, first hand, what it means to be a nation of powerful men and corporations and not a nation of laws.

In effect, we are all seeing, first hand, the death of a nation.

It is frightening...

James said...

Mario,

Your friend, Doc C. is planning on mounting an attack on you. Of course, Doc C. never has anything helpful to say.

the bonocelli said...

they (the PTB) are just kicking the can down the road on this issue. Either Obama is not a natural born citizen or he wants to hide something about his background. It really doesn't matter.

This will carry on until after the election...if we have one. There is always the emergency declarations that would implement martial law...among other things.

Face it. We're fuched! And relying on the courts will accomplish nothing. I wish people would become more realistic.

Puzo1 said...

Kim Papit,

You said: "However, the facts of the cases, to me, seem to provide the judge cover to make that "consideration"...do they not?"

You are assuming what the "facts of the case" are. There are no "facts of the case" which allows the judge to make any “consideration,” unless there is evidence in the record to support the existence of those facts. A judge can consider alleged facts, but he does not consider a fact as proven unless there is sufficient competent and credible evidence to show that the fact exists. Hence, your statement is fallacious because it assumes that there are "facts of the case" without providing any evidence that those facts even exist in the record.

Again, one of the issues facing the court was whether Obama conclusively proved that he was born in the United States. We do not arrive at an honest and simple answer to that question by going through all the word gyrations that you go through regarding the word “considered.”

The court had to make factual findings. Also, “considering” facts or otherwise stated as “assuming facts” for the sake of addressing plaintiffs’ citizen parents legal argument made to show that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” is not the same as finding facts. A consideration or assumption is not a factual finding. The court can consider many alleged facts and many alleged laws. It can assume facts for the sake of legal argument. But after it considers or assumes all those things, it makes its findings of fact which are based on the evidence in the record and conclusions of law which are based on the existing law or a reasonable extension therefrom. Legal conclusions which are based on assumed facts also must fall should there not be sufficient evidence in the record to ultimately prove those assumed facts. Judge Malihi simply did not tell us what his findings of fact are, including not telling us that he found that Obama was born in the United States. Considering that he was born in the United States for the sake of legal argument simply is not finding that he was born in the United States.

Finally, there is no mention in the opinion that the parties stipulated to anything, who stipulated to what, for what purpose, and whether one party's stipulation was used to bind another party who made no such stipulation. As I have said, Orly Taitz did not stipulate to anything. The judge also said: “None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that none of the written submissions tendered by the Plaintiffs have probative value.” So, what evidence did the Court have which conclusively proves that Obama was born in Hawaii? The answer is none.

Provide here portions of the transcript and/or record that even remotely support your position.

Puzo1 said...

Someone sent me an email providing the definition from the Oxford English Dictionary of the verb “consider:”

1. To view or contemplate attentively, to survey, examine, inspect, scrutinize. arch.

2. intr. To look attentively.

3. trans. To contemplate mentally, fix the mind upon; to think over, meditate or reflect on, bestow attentive thought upon, give heed to, take note of.

b. to consider away: to drive away by consideration or reflection. rare.

4. with obj. clause: To think, reflect, take note.

5. intr. To think deliberately, bethink oneself, reflect.

†b. To take heed, be careful to do a thing. Obs.

†6. trans. To estimate, reckon, judge of. Obs.

7. To take into practical consideration or regard; to show consideration or regard for; to regard, make allowance for.

†8. To recognize or take account of the services of (a person) in a practical way; to requite, recompense, remunerate: see consideration 5, 6. Obs.

9. To hold in or treat with consideration or regard; to think much or highly of; to esteem, respect.

10. To regard in a certain light or aspect; to look upon (as), think (to be), take for.

b. with obj. and compl. or obj. clause: To think, be of opinion, suppose.

11. to consider of: to think attentively or carefully of; = sense 3. (Now somewhat archaic.) †Formerly also in senses 1, 7, and 9.

†b. So consider on, upon: to ‘think upon’.

12. considered, the pa. pple. (formerly placed before its n.), is used in an absolute clause, = ‘being taken into account’. [OF. considéré que.] Cf. considering prep.

As we can see, there is no hint that the word “consider” means to find.

Puzo1 said...

GlennBeckistan,

I could smell you a mile away that you were a Super Obot and a pathetic one at that.

Note that there are Obots and Super Obots. You fall in the latter category.

Puzo1 said...

Here is more from citizen researchers:

The word "might thus be originally a term of astrology or augury…."!! See etymology below. Maybe this explains the judge's usage.

consider, v.

[a. F. considérer (14th c. in Littré), ad. L. consīderāre to look at closely, examine, contemplate, f. con- + a radical (found also in de-sīderāre to miss, desire), according to Festus, derived from sīdus, sīder- star, constellation. The vb. might thus be originally a term of astrology or augury, but such a use is not known in the Lat. writers.]

Can you just imagine, astrology or augury.

Brianroy said...

As a go between, I wrote Leo Donofrio and appealed to him about filing an Amicus Curia brief because Ory Taitz wrote me she was going to use the posts he wrote on the 14th Amendment recently (posts I emailed her). I was honored that Leo spent 40 hours of solid preparation and action in response, to a kind request. Unlike Herb Titus who blanketly ignored my appeal in behalf of Orly with her permission to appeal to him to participate. On that Amicus Curia brief by Leo alone, http://www.scribd.com/doc/79112841/AMICUS-BRIEF-by-Leo-Donofrio-in-Georgia-Presidential-Eligibility-Case
there was a sufficient argument as to why Obama is not a Natural born citizen. What makes me a bit flustered is that if the lawyers in the Georgia Case had emphasized that the burden of documentary PROOF is upon Obama to prove as entered into evidence under penalty of perjury in a Court of Law, it would have left Obama and his Iranian ethnic judge Malihi no wiggle-room.

"The burden of establishing a delegation of power to the United States, or the prohibition of power to the States, is upon those making the claim."
Bute v. Illinois, 333 U.S. 640 @653 (1948)

That means it is upon Obama and/or his lawyers to produce Court admissible documents establishing his birth identity with location and witnesses to the birth (cf. Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54,62), - -

Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) @ 54,62
http://supreme.justia.com/us/533/53/
@ 54 : “The mother's relation is verifiable from the birth itself and is documented by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses to the birth.”
@62:” In the case of the mother, the relation is verifiable from the birth itself. The mother's status is documented in most instances by the birth certificate or hospital records and the witnesses who attest to her having given birth.”

So where was the proof in Courts evidence? There weren't any as Obama's lawyers refused to attend or participate in introducing or challenging submissions of evidence. No document was introduced into Court to prove Malihi's assertion that Obama is in any way USA born. I hope that there will be an appeal on this decision with these two cases as main contentions that Malihi had no cause to claim that Obama was USA born was in any way a fact, let alone a fact of law as NO EVIDENCE was ever introduced into the Court record to suggest that there so exists, and Bute v. Illinois with Nguyen v. INS so requires such documents, as subpoenaed by Malihi himself and ignored by Obama.

“Fraud on the Court is conduct:
1) on the part of an officer of the Court;
2) that is directed to the judicial machinery itself;
3) that is intentionally false, willfully blind to the truth, or is in reckless disregard for the truth;
4) that is a positive averment or a concealment when one is under duty to disclose;
5) that deceives the Court.”
Workman v. Bell, 245 F.3d 849 (6th Circuit 2001) @ 852

I accuse Obama, Jablonski, and Malihi as equally complicit and therefore equally guilty of Fraud.

Puzo1 said...

James, @ February 4, 2012 2:27 PM,

You said: "I don't think you are going to win the stipulation that Obama was born in Hawaii. Hattfield and Irion specifically waived that argument to get the merits of the NBC argument." I cannot understand what you point is. Please clarify.

Note that there is no mention in the opinion that the parties stipulated to anything, who stipulated to what, for what purpose, and whether one party's stipulation was used to bind another party who made no such stipulation. As I have said, Orly Taitz did not stipulate to anything.

The judge also said: “None of the testifying witnesses provided persuasive testimony. Moreover, the Court finds that none of the written submissions tendered by the Plaintiffs have probative value.” So, what evidence did the Court have which conclusively proves that Obama was born in Hawaii? The answer is none.

Provide here portions of the transcript and/or record that support your position.

Puzo1 said...

Reality Check @ February 4, 2012 7:34 PM,

I will be happy to address your comments it they make some type of legal argument. But do not expect me to waste my time with your cheerleader's comments.

Puzo1 said...

I just found this at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/

Obama Conspiracy Theories
What a mess!

My hosting company was down a lot, so I went to a new highly-recommended company, and what should happen but the great mother of all outages, related to a "file system problem." It's 9:43 PM on February 4, 2012 and the hosting company says they should be "fully restored" within 12-24 hours.

Of course I don't have backup for the comments left by visitors between the time of the move and this morning when the site went down. I do have copies of all of the articles and all of the comments prior to the move, and the new articles are on my hard drive too.

I apologize for the lack of service to the more than 19,000 individuals that visit my site each month.

Status:

Dear Customers, As you may be aware there was a failure on the cloud hosting platform earlier today. This appears to be linked to a filesystem issue on the cloud storage. As such we have taken the decision to roll back to a backup of the cloud hosting platform that is 2 days old to allow sites to be restored. ** We aim to restore the full cloud platform, with current data, within 12-24 hours ** As a temporary measure we have blocked incoming email to avoid any new emails getting lost. Any pending emails will be stored temporarily on backup email servers. Once the cloud platform is fully restored we will allow these emails to flow into the restored service. Whilst we do understand the importance of email we have taken this decision to make sure no email is lost or left out of sync. All other functions (website/control panels) are up and running. We apologise for this outage, and are working as quickly as possible to restore service.

Update: 4-Feb-2012 10:03 PM: I've gotten a backup of all the images and files from the old site. So even if all is trashed, I can recover to the point of the move. All articles since the move are on my hard drive. I hope "restore the full cloud platform, with current data" means the new stuff will be saved too.

Update: 5-Feb-2012 12:52 AM: The hosting company has done the restore from 2 days ago (before my site was created) and now the site exists with no content. Once the site is restored I will have to manually switch the obamaconspiracy.org domain there once I find out the site is up. You can check to see if the site is up before I switch the domain through this temporary address.

When we finally do get up, I will be publishing my new article:

Arrogant Apuzzo attacks Atlanta ALJ

PolitiJim said...

Mario,

Thank you so much for the time not just in dissecting the decision and your objection - but the other questions coming up on your blog.

Hopefully Kemp was disguised to win under Soros's Secretary of State project.

Question, if the appellate court holds, can it be appealed to the Georgia Supreme Court?

Would that need to play out before filing in Federal court?

Stranger said...

No doubt you won't post this comment but I'll make it for your consideration anyway. I've been bothered for some time by the contortion that has been engaged in that mischaracterizes what Justice Waite wrote in Minor. He did NOT "define" NBC, he merely *described* children born to native parents as being "citizens",natives, or NBCs. That was a description not of a NBC but of children born within the country of their parent's nationality. It did not set parameters for a NBC. It did not limit or define the scope of who is a NBC, it only observed that those so describe were among the class of citizens who fit the NBC description.

I've written quite extensive on this subject because it has been a source of cloudiness in the principle of natural citizenship. Natural citizenship is not dependent upon place of birth. Just consider John McCain who is a natural born citizen. For a full understanding of the truth about natural citizenship, read the essay I wrote this week; It's on my blog at http://obama--nation.com:
It's titled: WHO IS A NATURAL AMERICAN and WHO IS NOT? (who can be President and who can not?)
http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/a-natural-american/ It explains everything and blows away much of the unnecessary legal fog on what a natural born citizen is. You assert correctly that natural citizenship is derived from natural law. Well you need to read the pure unadulterated truth of what the principles of nature law reveal. And it's not what you believe.
It's companion pieces are:
THE MISCONSTRUENCE OF MINOR V HAPPERSETT http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/misconstruence-of-minor
OPEN LETTER TO LEO DONOFRIO, Esq.
http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/letter-to-leo

Also read my essay titled: The End of Eden & The Rise of Obama http://patriotpost.us/commentary/2012/01/27/the-end-of-eden-the-rise-of-obama/
Under U.S. law, in 1961 Obama's mother had been expatriated when he was born and therefore was, in the eyes of the INS, a British subject and not an American. That policy was uncontested until 1967 in Afroyim v Rusk

And here's a few more important treatises that will open you mind to a way of seeing things that has eluded you.
Obama & Mother; Expatriated by Marriage; British Subjects Only Until Divorce
The Audacity of Fraud; An Unnatural American President
~Obama: A Citizen by Grace & President by Fraud
The Constitutional Truth About An Unconstitutional President

sincerely your in the common cause, Adrien Nash

Stranger said...

Surely, hopefully there is at least one court or Attorney General or Sec. of State among the 50 states who will decide the issue on the facts, but they can't if their lives are being threatened, not by the White House but by unseen and unknown characters. Remember, the RFK murder is still a mystery, -with too many bullet holes in the walls and a trigger man that was acting like a zombie. Just sayin...
Anyway, if ever a court requires the presentment of an original Hawaiian certified Birth Certificate Truecopy, then Obama can't produce one because none exists. If he presents a print-out of the forgery, and it contains all the elements of certification, then a true forgery will have been presented and cannot be authenticated because it will be nothing more than an ABSTRACT and not a TRUECOPY because Hawaii no longer creates TRUECOPYs since going digital. There is no such thing as a certifiable ABSTRACT because certification is the attestation that the copy is a true representation of the original. But an abstract is a concoction that is not a true representation of an actual document by is merely an abstract computer-generated version and can easily be altered and faked. Read my essay on the subject at obama--nation.com: http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/bastardization-of-certification/

Reality Check said...

The bottom line is that no modern court addressing Presidential eligibility has adopted your two-parent-citizen views whereas, within the past week alone, at least three jurists have discarded them and followed the Ark line of reasoning.

We can argue on your blog or my radio show (except you turned down that chance) until the cows come home. What counts is what the courts say. It's a leisurely drive from New Jersey to DC and Richmond, so why not reach out to Mr. Tisdale? Proceeding in forma pauperis, he attempted to argue your theory pro se and was quickly smacked down by Judge Gibney. It occurs to me that if you were to represent him pro bono on appeal, it could be your big chance to dazzle the 4th Circuit with your legal brilliance.

In choosing to address eligibility on the merits in his sua sponte dismissal, Judge Gibney left the door wide open for you. It is time to put up or shut up Mr. Apuzzo, Esq. Here is your chance to be remembered for all time.

my911 said...

Mr. M Appuzzo

What am I missing?
The issue of natural born citizen seems simple.
Two conditions must be true.
A Born in America
B Born to parents who are American Citizens.
If either is false, then one is NOT a natural born citizen.

Yet the case of B H Obama rages on.
Is that because some disagree with my/your/our simple concept of Natural Born?
Is it for some other reason?

Please help.

Thank you.

winnybar said...

Nobody has proved that Stanley Anne Dunham and Obama,Sr. were his parents.
His 'conceding' that Obama,Sr.was his father was putting a LIE out for fact.
The divorce papers don't list any name. They appear altered.

liberty said...

spent an hour trying to post and it would not let. But this nothingness comment will probably post....

js said...

can we get a fair hearing...it appears not...does the truth belong in a court of law anymore...

this is where we are going when these kinds of decisions are made under the color of justice

js said...

Prior to the 14th Amendment, Obama would have been considered an alien, born in this nation of a father who was a British citizen. There was no doubt that Obama was not a natural born citizen at that time, and any suggestion that a Brit. Citizen was qualified to be POTUS would be met with charges of treason.

Congress has no authority over this issue. No law that they could pass would be binding. Only a constitutional amendment could change the birth status of children born in this nation of alien parents. They do not have the right to award any type of citizenship short of naturalization, nor remove it.

Malihi's choice to defer to a different states court error was the easy way out. He failed in his duty to properly detail the facts of law as badly as Orly failed to properly introduce expert testimony in his court. 2 wrongs dont make a right...but it makes it easy to ignore the points in these 3 lawyers presentations that could not be overcome.

Carlyle said...

I am not surprised at the outcome, but I am surprised at the thinness of the ruling.

The judges opinion/ruling was not any more impressive, learned, or carefully researched than a half-hearted high-school moot court.

I was expecting to see one of the byzantine twisted logic pieces that appear on this blog from time to time by self-styled legal experts and Obama apologists. Instead, this judge clearly just 'punted'. SIGH

Unknown said...

I would like to believe that once upon a time in America the judges were better, the Attorney General was outstanding, and so on. But I do not know. It would take a very illumined scholar many years of hard work to determine such things. And he might err.
There will always be many as there are now who simply can not grasp the simple truth. "Natural born citizen" is not some very abstruse mathematics that might require years of preparation to understand. A person of reasonable intelligence and an open mind can grasp the essence of this matter in very little time.
But someone with an attachment to something which this eligibility requirement threatens will be as dumb as a door nail. I am sure most of us know this from experience. Even to get someone to listen to the matter is an accomplishment not often enjoyed.
Yes, Judge Malihi's decision would make a good case for a law school class. It is truly atrocious.
My question at this point is: can this decision be appealed in time and with any real hope of success? Would an appeal to a higher court really produce an equally obtuse decision? Just how high can this sort of thing go before embarrassment if nothing else calls a halt?

Puzo1 said...

Stranger,

I do not know why you believe that I would not post your comment. I read your cited articles. They are basically in agreement with everything that I have written on this blog and in my submissions to the courts in the Kerchner v. Obama/Congress case which went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, except that I maintain that only a child born in the country to citizen parents can be a "natural born Citizen" and you maintain that the definition is not so restrictive. Hence, you also include in the "natural born Citizen" class children born in a foreign country to U.S. citizen parents. The Naturalization Act of 1790, 1795, 1802, and others that followed, prove that your position is not correct.

I also note that in order to defend your position, you maintain that Minor v. Happersett (1875) did not “define” a “natural born citizen,” but rather only “described” one situation in which one was a “natural born citizen.” You take such a position to avoid Minor’s stating that “children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” It is rather clear from this simple statement that Minor did more than as you contend just describe one situation of a person being a “natural born citizen.” Rather, it provided the time-honored natural law definition of the clause, which is birth in the country to citizen parents. Accepting your view of things, which is also the view of Judge Malihi as evidenced from his comments regarding Minor, would lead us to the absurd result that the Founders and Framers gave us a term in the presidential eligibility clause (of all places) that had no bright line meaning and that could change over time depending on the personal and political wishes of whomever is defining the clause.

All this brings us to the inescapable conclusion that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents. This means that only a child born in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent to a father and mother who are both at the time of the child’s birth either “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States” is a “natural born Citizen.”

cfkerchner said...

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) Leading a Group in Pennsylvania to File Ballot Access Challenge/Objection to Obama
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/cdr-charles-kerchner-ret-organizing-a-group-in-pennsylvania-to-file-ballot-access-challengeobjection-to-obama/

thalightguy said...

Mario,

Maybe you could give us a history lesson on why the Founders included the nbc requirment and how the felt about the idea of dual nationals.

Border Raven's Blog said...

US Citizenship by Birth Matrix

http://www.scribd.com/doc/80494391/US-Citizenship-by-Birth-Matrix-V3-0

Border Raven's Blog said...

Nothing for SOS GA
http://www.sos.ga.gov/pressrel/_announcements.asp

Puzo1 said...

Reality Check,

Why not provide me with Judge Gibney's opinion so that I can tell you what I think.

I'm sure that other readers of this blog would also like an opportunity to see what Judge Gibney said which is as you say a "smack down" of what I consider to be the original American common law meaning of an Article II "natural born Citizen," i.e., a child born in the country to citizen parents, which to this day has not been changed by either the Fourteenth Amendment or any U.S. Supreme Court decision, including Wong Kim Ark.

Reality Check said...

I provided a link in my earlier comment.
http://rcradioblog.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/gov-uscourts-vaed-275608-2-0.pdf

Why haven't you approved my last comment?

Puzo1 said...

Who is Judge Michael M. Malihi?

http://intangiblesoul.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/who-is-judge-michael-malihi/

Puzo1 said...

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) Leading a Group of Citizens in Pennsylvania to File a Ballot Access Challenge/Objection to Candidate Obama

http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/cdr-charles-kerchner-ret-organizing-a-group-in-pennsylvania-to-file-ballot-access-challengeobjection-to-obama/


Commander Kerchner,

I also salute you, Sir, for your valor and fortitude. It takes great courage to fight for what one believes to be right. We will continue this fight together.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

cfkerchner said...

@thelightguy

Read this:

http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/new-organization-to-educate-and-mobilize-the-public-on-the-significance-of-natural-born-citizen-and-the-2012-election-by-sharon-rondeau-thepostemail-com/

juniper55 said...

One thing I noticed no one addressed yet - Malihi said Taitz' witnesses were not "expert" witnesses regarding identity fraud, etc. Susan Daniels struck me as legit at least because this is what she does for a living, isn't it?

Can't similar people be found that meets Malihi's (and a typical court's in general) criteria of "expert witnesses?"

Did malihi leave a door open here???

What kind of designation of "expert" do you need and who provides it?

Also, why did the Ankeny folks never appeal?

bdwilcox said...

Fealty Dreck said: "The bottom line is that no modern court addressing Presidential eligibility has adopted your two-parent-citizen views whereas, within the past week alone, at least three jurists have discarded them and followed the Ark line of reasoning."

Beyond the fact that WKA defined a natural born citizen twice within the ruling by quoting both MvH's definition and referencing Binney: "The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.", what is being proposed by Fealty is that judicial activism of modern judges trumps the Constitution. A bold position to take and quite enlightening in its decrepit honesty.

Puzo1 said...

Reality Check,

I read Judge Gibney’s 2 and ½ page Order in Charles Tisdale v. Obama, Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-00036-JAG, filed in the Federal District Court of the Eastern District of Virginia. With all due respect for Judge Gibney, the case citations that he provides to support his conclusion that a child born in the United States to one or two alien parents is a “natural born Citizen” do not provid any basis for his conclusion:

(1) He cites Wong Kim Ark and the holding of the case. But that case and its holding do not directly relate to a “natural born Citizen.” Rather, it concerns only a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong even confirmed that there is a distinction between a “natural born citizen” child born in the U.S. to citizen parents and a “citizen” child born in the U.S. to alien parents. In fact, the Wong holding that Judge Gibney provides does not even include the clause “natural born Citizen” in it.

(2) He cites Perkins v. Elg, but that case supports the plaintiff’s position and not the judge’s. In that case the child was born in the United States to citizen parents and therefore confirmed to be a “natural born Citizen.” How can that case be cited for the proposition that a child born in the United States to one or two alien parents is a “natural born Citizen” when those were not the facts of the case and surely not the holding of the Court?

(3) Judge Gibney cites the Fourteenth Amendment, but as the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) explained, that amendment does not provide the standard for defining a “natural born Citizen” and in fact does not even mention the clause.

(4) Finally, Judge Gibney cites Hollander v. McCain (2008) in support of his on-the- merits dismissal with prejudice of Tisdale’s complaint for failure to state a claim. But the Court in Hollander dismissed his claim that McCain was not a "natural born Citizen" on the ground that Hollander failed to prove Article III standing to make that claim. The Hollander court never reached the merits of Hollander’s argument that McCain was not a “natural born Citizen.” In fact, the court even said that it was not relevant for its decision where McCain was born. Additionally, dismissal for lack of standing is not with prejudice. But Judge Gibney did reach the merits of Tisdale’s “natural born Citizen” argument. How can Judge Gibney rely on a case that never reached the merits of the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” for support for his decision which did reach the merits of that very question? There simply is nothing in the Hollander case that supports the merits decision made by Judge Gibney. A decision on standing does not provide any substance as to the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, Judge Gibney's reliance on Hollander is misplaced.

Sorry, Reality Check, but you are going to have to do better than that. I think you need a real reality check.

MichaelN said...

Puzo1 said ........
"(3) Judge Gibney cites the Fourteenth Amendment, but as the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) explained, that amendment does not provide the standard for defining a “natural born Citizen” and in fact does not even mention the clause."

Furthermore, from a logical perspective, how could the 14th Amendment possibly define "natural born Citizen"?...... when according to the very same SCOTUS case that DOES define a US "natural born citizen" as one who is born in US to US citizen parents, the SCOTUS stated ....

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens.
Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that."

The 14th Amendment IS A PART of the US Constitution.

Joe said...

I guess you are having fun with reality check but if you want to read some very good posts on the subject, I hope you have had time to cruise freerepublic.com.

click on naturalborncitzen there for discussions on different news and such. It sure would be great if all the arguments were in one place. But I keep learning something new everyday from someplace.

All these judges making intellectually dishonest rulings are going to take a toll. There will only be one place left to appeal and that is going to be very tough because they have been able to avoid it thus far.

Reality Check said...

I take your reply to mean that you don't plan to take up Mr. Tisdale's case? Good choice. I suspected that you were not up to suffering another embarrassing defeat in the courts.

John Woodman posted an excellent refutation of the two citizen parent theory on his blog. He gives a shout out to both you and Donofrio.

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/02/why-the-birthers-lost/#comment-726

Puzo1 said...

What is ironic about Judge Malihi's finding that the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark are dispositive on the question of whether Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen," is his citation in Footnote 4 of his decison of Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1 (1968).

If one were to actually read what Mr. Gordon wrote in his much cited law review article, one would see a much different picture than what Judge Malihi presents. Charles Gordon, was counsel with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and an Adjunct Professor of Law at the Georgetown Law Center. He addressed the eligibility of George W. Romney, who ran for president in 1968, in the Winter 1968 issue of the Maryland Law Review. Mr. Gordon explained that the Wong Kim Ark holding is rather limited and did not extend to defining a "natural born Citizen." He stated:

“In any event, the majority’s opinion [in Wong Kim Ark] did not discuss the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution and is not necessarily relevant to its interpretation, except possibly by inference. . . .” Id. at 19. No court case, including Wong Kim Ark, “directly addresses the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution. . . .” Id. at 22. “The fourteenth amendment, adopted primarily to confirm the full citizenship denied to Negroes by the Dred Scott decision, did not refer to “natural-born citizens, did not purport to limit or define the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution. . .” Id. p. 31-32. The dicta stated by Wong Kim Ark “are not addressed to the presidential qualification clause and cannot control its construction.” Id. at 32.

Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1 (1968).

Ray said...

Folks may want to check out Leo Donofrio's recent comment:

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/a-rat-called-tandem/#comment-21056

Puzo1 said...

I of II

Reality Check,

I asked that you provide legal arguments here, but you persist with your cheerleader’s comments. I see that your rooting arguments have to take the place of any substantive arguments that might even remotely defend what Judge Gibney did.

I guess that you also have not taken my advice to do that real reality check. Instead of being proud of that “empty table,” you and your followers should think of the embarrassment to Obama and his supporters caused by putting himself in a situation in which he is going to be summoned in so many state courts throughout the United States to prove a simple thing like where he was born and to prove that he is a “natural born Citizen.”

The other embarrassment that I see is how the intellectual minds in our nation are responding to our constitutional crisis. I am being kind to say that they are even responding.

Other than the courts’ political policy choice of using standing to avoid having to decide the issue of whether Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen” which I, along with millions of other Americans, are convince he is not, you have not been able to make one winning argument. So what should I be embarrassed about? You have the losing side, not me, and if not the court today, then history tomorrow will judge it so.

John Woodman, who now defends Obama, tells us that he is a “lifelong conservative” and how much at first he did not like Obama. So I guess that tells us that he is, indeed, now the gatekeeper of the truth on all things Obama. And let us not forget how Mr. Woodman makes sure to tell us that he in not lawyer. I get it, so Six Pack Joe on the street can believe his plain and simple truth.

Mr. Woodman is so blinded by his bias and falsehoods that he faults Mr. Donofrio for admitting to using mushrooms and ecstasy, but yet with the same brush he defends Mr. Obama (the putative President) who has admitted to using cocaine and marijuana. Mr. Woodman takes Mr. Donofrio’s poetic description of himself and attempts to convince the reader that we should take Mr. Donofrio’s descriptions of himself in a literal sense. The rest of his comments regarding Mr. Donofrio are really corny.

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of II

On the substance of Mr. Woodman’s arguments (which there really is none), he offers a lot of personal opinion and manipulations of truth (e.g., that Paul Irey was not qualified to be an expert witness and that the “birthers” cannot find any real experts rather than state the truth which is that Orly Taitz simply did not put in the record his qualifications), but no or at best very little in terms of logic, historical materials, Congressional historical analysis, and U.S. Supreme Court case law as support for his conclusions. What is pure bunk is Mr. Woodman’s taking Minor’s thoughtful and extended analysis of what is U.S. citizenship and calling it a “passing remark” and that Minor did not give us a definition of a “natural born Citizen.” That Minor did not give us a definition of the “natural born Citizen” clause is baseless when we simply consider that the Court in starting its analysis of the meaning of the terms said: “The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that” (emphasis supplied). Did you see that, the Court said “shall.” Hence, whatever the Court told us after that statement surely would be a definition that described all persons who “shall” be a “natural born Citizen.” It would make absolutely no sense for the Court to give us just one example of a “natural-born citizen” when there could have been more. The nonsense of such a position is elevated even more when we consider that the Court did mention that there were “some authorities” claiming that a child born in the country to alien parents could even be a “citizen.” The Court added that “there have been doubts” about this other class of citizen which clearly shows that the Court looked at those persons not as “natural-born citizens,” but as possible “citizens” under the new Fourteenth Amendment.

Mr. Woodman’s “is” and “is not” argument is hilarious. Yes, indeed, the statement that a cow “is” an animal that gives milk does not mean that a cow “is not” an animal that also gives orange juice. So therefore, a cow also gives orange juice. Is this the legal brilliance that you and your people are peddling to the American public?

Mr. Woodman claims ownership of “the facts” but presents no evidence of what “the facts” are.

I love how Mr. Woodman concedes that it is “impossible for the 14th Amendment, passed in 1868, to have established the original meaning of the term ‘natural born citizen’ in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which was ratified in 1788, some 80 years earlier” and that the 14th Amendment did not “intend[] to alter the very definition of ‘natural born citizen’ in a fundamental way.” It is beyond comprehension how he believes such a concession supports his baseless arguments.

I could go on and show you more of Mr. Woodman’s errors but I will stop here.

You and Mr. Woodman have to realize (reality check) that you are dealing with a public that knows how to read, write, and think and just simply taking the Obot or conservative establishment sound bites will not make the mark.

js said...

so much for smart stuff...

Congress has seen bills to determine what natural born citizen means for years, as well as attempts to redefine or amend Article II “Natural Born Citizen” Clause of the United States Constitution, but those bills have failed so many times its become a revolving door.
Malihi stated in not too unspecific terms that his decision in this case is based on the idea that a child born to 2 aliens inside of this country are natural born citizens. This could not be further from the truth.
Congress rejected that...( under H.J.R. 33: which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution – “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.”) see 5. Attempts to redefine or amend Article II “natural born Citizen” Clause of the U.S. Constitution :
From June 11, 2003 to February 28, 2008, there had been eight (8) different congressional attempts to alter Article II – Section I – Clause V – natural born citizen requirements for president in the U.S. Constitution, all of them failing in committee — All of it taking placing during Barack Obama’s rise to political power and preceding the November 2008 presidential election.
The documentation that this absurd idea, having been submitted to Congress as a bill to establish the same basic argument as either a constitutional amendment or valid US Law and rejected, should be presented as fact of proof that the meaning of “Citizen” is not the same as the meaning of “Natural Born Citizen” as specified for qualification to become POTUS.
Now a Judge fails to enforce the Constitution, citing Indiana state court decisions, and ignoring long standing legal procedures...putting himself above both the US Constitution and the entire Legislative Branch of our Government.
Where is this leading America...it is nothing short of tyranny when this happens...and these judges hold their jobs without fear of reprisal...usurping the authority of the US Constitution should be a crime, or at least cause for dismissal.

creeper said...

Mr. Puzo:

The judge's ruling incorrectly gives the name of the case he's citing as "Arkeny". Does that mistake provide any grounds for overturning his decision.

If one were inclined to conspiracy theory, one might think Malihi's ruling was made under duress and he included the error in order to invalidate it.

js said...

Is this a denial of due process? Did the Judge violate the right of the plantiffs by his failure to follow the basic steps required of Jurists? Does the failure to apply the standards which insure that equal and accurate representation of our laws for every citizen rise to the level of a violation of ones right to a fair trial under adminstrative law?

Mick said...

“These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union? But the convention have guarded against all danger of this sort, with the most provident and judicious attention."

----Federalist #68, 1788

“Foreign influence”– the most deadly adversary.

“improper ascendant”-- Improper ANCESTOR (ascendant– n. ancestor– Websters Dictionary, 1813)

“To raise a Creature of their own”– the solution to an “improper ancestor” (foreign ancestor) is to raise, from birth, a child of Domestic ancestry.

“The most Provident and Judicious attention”— requiring that the President be a “natural born Citizen”, i.e one born in the US of US Citizen parents.

Could “raise a creature of their own” possibly mean a child born to a foreign, never US Citizen father?

Puzo1 said...

Someone just sent me this. It is a decision of a former Georgia Secretary of State, Cathy Fox, in which she rejected ALJ Michael Malihi's decision in an election contest matter.

Take a look at how Secretary Fox refers to actual findings of fact by Judge Malihi. As I have indicated, in the Obama case, Judge Malihi made no findings of fact. Also, note how Secretary Fox also reject the ALJ's conclusions of law.

This decision also illustrates the importance of the qualifying process in Georgia. It shows that in Georgia a candidate does not only file his/her application and pay the fee. The candidate has a legal obligation to show that he/she is in fact qualified for the office he/she seeks.

Let us see what Secretary Kemp does with Judge Malihi's decision.



Here is a link to the full decision of Secraty Cox in Tuck v. Sauder. http://sos.georgia.gov/pressrel/pr000607.htm

Ladyhawkke said...

All the judges have been intimidated and threatened with their lives and the lives of their families, literally. Unfortunately, all of the people who can attest to the truth about Obama have been silenced and everything has been scrubbed. One can still find mention of the murder of the gay choir boy at Rev Wright's church. There is also Donald Young's mother who can attest to the affair between Obama and Young. There is a wealth of information at Larry Sinclair's website. Yes, I know he has a criminal background, but I believe him over the usurper. When will everyone understand that no matter how much law you come up with, there is not one judge who dares rule against the Usurper. Instead of him being afraid of the judges, his Chicago thugs do his bidding. And we are left frustrated. None of the candidates running for any office will speak up for fear of upsetting the applecart. After all, neither Romney nor Rubio are eligible. No difference between either party. Just CYA.

Reality Check said...

It is obvious that you failed to read the article that you linked. In the case of candidate Sauder he filed papers to run as a Republican then withdrew and refiled as a Democrat. Judge Malihi had affirmed the challenge against Sauder. Secretary Cox obtained advice from the AG and declined to take Malihi's recommendation. This left Sauder on the ballot as a Democrat.

Secretary Cox said "There simply are no qualified candidates, in theory or in practice, until the political parties submit a certification of qualified candidates within three days after the qualifying period closes, O.C.G.A. 21-2-154, and to conclude otherwise would wreak havoc on the elections system.". In the current case the Democratic party in Georgia has already qualified one candidate, Barack Obama.

Puzo1 said...

Reality Check,

You really are something. And what did I say that is incorrect? That you provide further details about the case does not equate to me having said something that is incorrect.

The point that you miss is that in Georgia, a candidate has to qualify for office, not just file some papers and pay a fee. State law allows a voter to challenge a candidate's qualification, just like the law allows a candidate and a political party to challenge such qualifications.

my911 said...

Mr Apuzzo,

Earlier I asked why the simple definition of NBC caused so much disagreement.
I did not get a response, but the answer was, I fear, in your initial post where you said of "Ankeny"...

"But an analysis of that decision shows that it was incorrectly decided as to its definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Yet, not all agree.Here is an enlightening, at least for me,excerpt
= = = =
What I have noticed in the heated arguments on many political forum boards lately is that Obama supporters are countering Minor v Happersett with the Indiana case Ankeny v Daniels. That case declares this:

“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://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2012/02/06/ankeny-v-daniels-appeal-court-ruling-written-by-competent-judge-judge-michael-malihi-ruling-flawed-ruling-based-on-flawed-ruling-natural-born-citizen-lies/
Scusi - I don't know how to embed URLs.
= = = =
So, now I understand there is "counter law ?)or disagreement, which the GA judge used instead of your view.

THAT was a long introduction to my questions.
1. Has anyone mounted a challenge to Ankeny?
2. Going forward, how can Ankeny be pre-empted / muted ?

Puzo1 said...

my911,

Ankeny is a state case. Minor v. Happersett is a U.S. Supreme Court case. Minor therefore trumps Ankeny.

Ankeny mistakenly relied upon Wong Kim Ark for its decision to declare that a child born in the United States to alien parents is a "natural born Citizen." Wong Kim Ark did not hold any such thing. In fact this is what a highly respected law professor says about Wong Kim Ark.

“In any event, the majority’s opinion [in Wong Kim Ark] did not discuss the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution and is not necessarily relevant to its interpretation, except possibly by inference. . . .” Id. at 19. No court case, including Wong Kim Ark, “directly addresses the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution. . . .” Id. at 22. “The fourteenth amendment, adopted primarily to confirm the full citizenship denied to Negroes by the Dred Scott decision, did not refer to “natural-born citizens, did not purport to limit or define the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution. . .” Id. p. 31-32. The dicta stated by Wong Kim Ark “are not addressed to the presidential qualification clause and cannot control its construction.” Id. at 32.

Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1 (1968).

Jo said...

In some other country Constitution a child born of mother parent and born of mother parent country is citizen and "natural" born citizen.
Child born follows mother citizenship.

In US Constitution Republic a child born of father and mother parents, and born on American soil is a "natural" born citizen. Child born follows its father citizenship.


Our friend judge prefers to miss the exact requirement in the Constitution that one(1) American parent and born in American soil is considered a "natural" born.

Our friend judge favorite citation is the Ankeny's case judgment. He knew his premise will be rectified.

Commander Kerchner we're with you in spirit.

js said...

my911

the term "natural born citizen" does not appear in the 14th amendment...the 14th amendment is the excercise of congress' naturalization powers...any court decision based on the 14th amendment is strictly a naturalization issue

congress has no authority to declair who is, or is not, a natural born citizen...period

the only way it can be created is through the natural process, children of citizens are natural born citizens, children born with dual allegiance, or dual citizenship, are natural born citizens of no nation at all, but half citizens of both "IF" the man made laws authorize it...because any nation can reject the citizenship of children born on its soil of aliens

James said...

Mario,

I strongly encourage you to send a certified letter of appeal to SOS Brian Kemp, strongly urging him to not accept Judge Mahili's decision. I encourage others to do the same.

Stranger said...

from second half of: A TALE OF A DEAD PRESIDENT & HIS TWIN BROTHER'S CHARADE
http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/a-dead-presidents-twin/

The founding fathers cared not where American sons were born. They cared only that they were born to American fathers and not foreigners. American fathers were needed to instill American values, -something that national borders cannot do.

In the first Naturalization Act the Congress inserted an order to the U.S. executive and judicial branches that Americans born abroad were to "be considered as natural born citizens". That was meant to protect all their rights as citizens so that they wouldn't be erroneously viewed a foreigners, nor as naturalized children who were ineligible to be President. Congress was officially recognizing them in that Act as what Congress believed them to be.
Congress did not and could not declare them to be natural born citizens because it only had authority to legislate regarding foreigners and their naturalization.

But Congress felt responsible to clarifying the nature of foreign-born Americans. It intended by its insertion of a reference to them that they were to be considered to be that which they were by birth, namely natural American citizens by the same principle as their domestic born fellow citizens, -namely the citizenship of their parents.

Those who argue and insist that citizens such a John McCain, son of a WWII Navy Admiral, a tortured war hero who spent five horrible years in a North Vietnamese prison, are ineligible to be President because his mother wasn't in the U.S. when he was born, are as misguided about the founding fathers' view of them as those who ignorantly assert that birth in the U.S. alone is qualification to be President, even if the father was Fidel Castro or Adolph Hitler. By the one, anyone can be President by the magic power of U.S. borders as long as they are born within them. By the other, no one can be President by the magic power of U.S. borders if they are born outside of them. Neither has any natural principle backing them. No principle whatsoever.
Either a person is a natural American by being born in America, or one is a natural American by birth to Americans. It's one or the other. It cannot possibly be both.

One is fair and the other is unfair. One makes sense and the other makes no sense. One is based on a natural principle of natural law, the other is based on the Divine Right of Kings.

Americans parents can bring their natural American children into this universe anywhere, and all that matters is that they themselves are citizens, -not where they're born. Otherwise no American born 4 feet over the border, or born on the ocean or outside U.S. airspace) would be a natural American and thus would be constitutionally barred from the office of the president (including John McCain).
One comes into this world and society the same as what their parents are, whether it be by race, ethnicity, culture, language, or nationality. They are what they are by their natural connection to those to whom they are born. America is an idea founded on the principles embodied in the Declaration of Independence. Those principles are what bind us together as a unique people, not the land we happened to have been born on.

Vattel described the characteristics of those who are *citizens*, but not all citizens, because some citizens are not native born, same with natural born citizens. The only thing he "defined" was native-born citizens. They are born in the country of their parents' nationality by definition. But "citizen" and "natural born citizen" do no convey any implications as to place of birth so it can't be asserted that his description attached a native-birth meaning to the other two terms.

Dad said...

I have never studied law, much less constitutional law, so I will ask a common man's question.
For the plaintiffs to get the Supreme Court to decide exactly what Natural Born Citizen implies, would it not make sense to lose so they could appeal this case to the higher court? If the defendant loses there is no guarantee of appeal.

Stranger said...

the Indiana case Ankeny v Daniels. That case declares this:

“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 .”

What this incompetent nincompoop of a judge is saying is "based on "natural born citizen" we conclude that persons born within U.S. borders are "natural born citizens"! Even worse is the added "regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”

One only has four possible explanations, -all terrible. Either the judge was as stupid as a monkey or he was bribed, or intimidated, or was a big Obama fan fully willing to flush his integrity down the toilet for him. Yikes! Could it get much worse?

Mick said...

@ Stranger

Just like some elements of Common Law are practiced in America, as is law of nations, our law is the Constitution, as interpreted by the SCOTUS. SCOTUS has interpreted A2S1C5 many times, and w/ precedence in Minor v. Happersett to mean "born IN the US to US Citizen parents". As a security measure, it makes more sense to close off any possible avenue of foeign influence and intrigue by requiring birth in the US. McCain needed US Code 8 S. 1403 to be deemed a US Citizen, and as such is not eligible. A2S1C5 is totally out of the purview of Congress, who can only make naturalization law (per A1S8C4). If you are made a Citizen by an act of Congress, then it follows that you are not a natural born Citizen.

Stranger said...

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that” Did you see that the Court said “shall.” Hence, whatever the Court told us after that statement surely would be a definition that described all persons who “shall” be a “natural born Citizen.”
You've failed to recognize the logic error in that statement. Correct version: -a definition describing persons (native-born to citizen parents), all of whom are natural born citizens.
Incorrect: -a definition describing *all* NBCs.

"It would make absolutely no sense for the Court to give us just one example of a “natural-born citizen” when there could have been more." Why can't you recognize that the court wasn't interesting in defining NBC but in defining the common characteristics that describe American citizens of the non-immigrant or naturalized-immigrant variety? There was no reason on earth to veer off base from domestic citizenship when foreign-born citizenship had nothing to do with normal, average, typical, common, native-born citizenship that makes up the 99% of NBCs.

js said...

hi stranger;

The issue about McCain...I spent a long time considering this.

His father was in the US Military, and on assignement to Panama, accompanied by his wife under the full authorization of our Government. This is not so different than a diplomat, both are under the authority and direction of the POTUS. Sending military personnel to service in foreign nations does not remove the right of thier children to be natural born citizens, as long as both parents are US Citizens. Had he married an alien and had children, this would not exist, however, his wife was a US Citizen and authorized to be with the military member under the color of the Authority of the POTUS.

McCain is a Natural Born Citizen. We cant send our soldiers to serve in foreign nations and remove thier rights by penalizing thier children, it would be a disgrace upon this great nation to do so.

Puzo1 said...

Stranger,

The law of nature exists in a state of nature. When man joins with his fellow man to better promote his safety and happiness, he creates civil society.

A civil society makes and promulgates binding positive law. It is that very law which is supposed to promote a person's safety and happiness. In a constitutional republic such as the United States of America, positive law can and does override natural law to the extent permitted by the Constitution which the People adopted and ratified for the purpose of giving to a central government the limited power to make those positive laws that are supposed to promote the safety and happiness of the common good. Through the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the People and states retained for themselves all powers and protections not given to that central government.

Under this constitutional scheme, natural law and our own positive laws have decided who shall be "natural born citizens." They are the children born in the United States to citizen parents. Indeed, Congress, from 1790, has informed us that, not only citizen parents, but also place of birth is controlling in the question of whether one is born a "natural born Citizen." In 1790, Congress informed us that the only children it did not or could not exercise any naturalization jurisdiction over were children born in the United States to citizen parents. These were the “natural born Citizens,” who came into being purely by natural law and not by any positive law. In this first Act, Congress also informed that children born in the United States to alien parents were aliens. They also informed us that children born in foreign countries to citizen parents were to be considered as “natural born citizens.” Starting from 1795, children born in the United States to alien parents were still aliens, but those born in foreign countries to U.S. citizen parents became considered as "citizens of the United States” and not "natural born Citizens." This same pattern was followed in 1802. Since 1795 to the present, Congress has considered children born in foreign countries to U.S. citizen parents as “citizens of the United States” and not “natural born Citizen.”

Likewise, note that Congress through the Fourteenth Amendment has considered children born in the United States and only “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” rather than born to citizen parents as only “citizens of the United States” and not “natural born Citizens.” It is for this reason that if Obama were born in the United States, not being born to two U.S. citizen parents, he is only a “citizen of the United States” and not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” This same rule disqualifies Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Bobby Jindal from being “natural born Citizens.”

On the other hand, Senator John McCain, who was born in Panama to U.S. citizen parents who were serving the national defense of the United States, is a "natural born citizen" because he is "reputed born" in the United States to citizen parents. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 217 (children born to citizens serving the armies of the state are reputed born in the country).

Puzo1 said...

Stranger,

Ankeny held:

“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 .”

Yes, indeed, we see things there made up out of whole cloth.

"[T]he language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4" provides for "natural born Citizens" and "Citizens of the United States," with the former having a higher standard of citizenship.

"[T]he guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark" shows that a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents is a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States," and not an Article II "natural born Citizen."

Liberty4USA said...

The "I'll cover you if you cover me" show that just went down in Georgia was a sad statement on our current legal system and the injustice regarding Obama's eligibility proof truth.

One new fact that emerged in that a sitting president has been allowed to ignore a court order, yet still prevail, an outcome that would be highly doubtful for any other candidate.

With a high degree of certainty we can state that it is now public knowledge that a high percentage of people(insight gained through professional pollsters) are not satisfied that anyone has ever verified any actual, authenticated documents proving either citizenship status or circumstances of birth.

This state, along with all the others, are systematically escaping any accountability to the citizens for doing their due diligence of real certification by pretending that it it is an optional condition for the candidate to provide the proof.

Maybe the states should be sued for that negligence, and all who have signed or attested to facts they have no way of verifying should be forced to explain their actions?

Bob said...

Stranger --

I agree with everything that Mario has written, except his application of Vattel's Section 217 to Senator John Sydney McCain III.

I appeal for my views to Horace Binney, the exemplary American jurist from Philadelphia in the mid-19th Century --

This is from my private notes --

Horace Binney, Federalist, leading Philadelphia lawyer, opponent of Andrew Jackson, contemporary of Daniel Webster, advocate of Abraham Lincoln, wrote a paper in 1853: “‘Alienigenae’ of the United States under the present Naturalization Laws,” quoted in Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 669, 670 (1898) by Justice Horace Gray. In fact, one of Mr. Binney’s own grandsons was an ALIEN as the Law then stood.

As a result, the ‘Act of Feb 10, 1855’ (10 Stat. 604, § 1), reformed the Naturalization Laws to say: “All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth CITIZENS thereof, are declared to be CITIZENS of the United States.”

This is still the current law, and was the law when McCain was born.

Using Mario's own language, Emer de Vattel makes perfectly clear in the same Section 217 that Mario refers to that service in the armies of state is 'positive law,' and could never be jus naturae.

That is the view of Binney as well, and has been the view of the U. S. Congress as well.

Kim Papit said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

A few questions for you.

1) What is your opinion on SOS Kemp's final decision?

Regarding the cute little foot note:

"Judge Michael Malihi previously consolidated the above-captioned candidate challenges for the purpose of issuing his initial decision. Those candidate challenges remain consolidated for the purpose of issuing this Final Decision."

2) Is this type of consolidation normal or rare?

3) Doesn't it show that Malihi had no leg to stand on in the Hatfield case without consolidation? Meaning...since Hatfield did NOT submit a copy of the WH.GOV LFBC image Malihi would be prevented from even "considering" Obama to be US born in relation to that case.

And finally...Let's imagine we live in a world where justice always prevails, truth always beats lies and unicorns roam freely in the hillside...

4) IF, and we know this will never happen, the current SCOTUS were to take on the question of defining A2S1 NBC what do you think they would decide. I fully believe that you and Donofrio have it 100% correct, but would they be honor bound to find that way or would they cave? What do you think the split would be?

Puzo1 said...

I of II

Bob,

You said: “Using Mario's own language, Emer de Vattel makes perfectly clear in the same Section 217 that Mario refers to that service in the armies of state is 'positive law,' and could never be jus naturae.”

I must disagree with you, Bob. Vattel does not say that the “armies of the state” exception is positive law. Rather, he considers the exception part of the law of nations which is based on natural law.

Vattel says that under natural law alone, it matters not where someone is born, for a child follows the condition of his/her parents. Section 215. That makes perfect sense when we think about children being born in tribes on land belonging to no one. Or even if we think of children born to nomads who just traveled about with no certain home. Vatttel, Section 203. Accidental birth one some piece of land surely did not create any allegiance to that land. Vattel, Section 215. Rather, it was birth to the child’s parents who belonged to the tribe that made that child at birth also a member of and in allegiance with that tribe and no other.

Of course, all that changed when people become more organized and created civil society which took on its character from language, religion, race, or some other factors. People then took possession of land so they could cultivate it for food. Vattel, Section 203. As civil society organized even more, it created the nation or state which provided each member of that society with greater advantages and protection. Vattel, Section 1. The members of those nations then formed governments to better manage and protect the nation and its people. Id. If the government was controlled by all the people, the form of government was a democracy. If it was controlled by a few, the form was an aristocracy. And if it was controlled by single individual, the form was a monarchy. Vattel, Section 3. Those governments made positive laws which also determined territorial boundries which in many cases were based on some natural line of demarcation.

As Pufendorf and Vattel (Section 212) inform, the first members of those nations were those who first created those nations. Their children became the natural born members and also the children of the children and so on. Vattel, Section 212. The positive laws of those nations then provided for others to join that nation. This process came to be called naturalization which made a person who was not born a member of that nation as though he or she had been so born. Vattel, Section 214.

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of II

Throughout the history of the western world, members of nations, whether natural born or naturalized, have been called citizens or subjects, depending on the form of government of the nation. In Great Britain, children born in its dominions to English “natural born subjects” were considered “natural born subjects. But children who were naturalized at birth by the mere fact of being born in its territory and regardless of the citizenship of the parents were also called “natural born subjects.” Vattel, Section 214; William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357-58, 361-62 (1765). In fact, even persons naturalized after birth were considered “natural born subjects.” "The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.’” Co. Litt. 129 (quoted and cited in United States v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. 785, 790 (1866).). Under English common law, once a person became naturalized, he or she was deemed to be a “natural born subject.”

On the contrary, the United States has never considered any child born in its territory to alien parents a “natural born Citizen.” Before the Fourteenth Amendment and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), they were considered aliens under the naturalization acts of Congress. See the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802. The Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark opened the “citizen” class also to the children born in the United States to alien parents. In the United States, those who by positive law are naturalized, at birth (by the Fourteenth Amendment or Acts of Congress) or after birth (by Acts of Congress or treaty), have been called “citizens.” Those who do not need naturalization at birth or after birth by any positive law have been called the “natural born Citizens.” All the “citizens” together are U.S. citizens.

So Vattel explains that by natural law alone, a child born in a foreign country is still a “citizen” of the same nation to which his or her parents belong (the parents not having quitted their nation and joined the one in which their child was born). Vattel, Section 215. He states that the child follows the condition of his or her parents. Id. But he cautions that a nation can through its civil or political laws (positive laws) decide to treat that child born in a foreign county to its citizens as it pleases. Id. He states that these positive laws must be followed. Id. He adds that under the law of nations, which is based on natural law, a child born to citizen parents who are “serving the armies of the state” is “reputed born” in the country. Vattel, Section 217. He continues that parents serving the national defense of their nation are not considered as having quitted their nation to join another. Id. Hence, under natural law and the law of nations, not positive law as you state, that child is not considered as born in a foreign country.

All this leads to the inescapable conclusion that John McCain, who was born in Panama to U.S. citizen parents who were serving the national defense of the United States, is considered born “in” the United States. Since he was born to citizen parents “in” the United States, he is a “natural born Citizen.”

Puzo1 said...

Reality Check,

I see that you have run away from here and retreated to your blog to write an article about me, accessed at http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/mario-time-to-putz-up-or-shut-up/. You have not won one argument here, being shot down with every one of your comments, so you figure you better go to your blog and reinvent history and spread lies about my legal work. What a coward!

In your sophomoric article, you state I never cited Minor v. Happersett in the Kerchner complaint. You really are ignorant about the legal process. A complaint is not the place an attorney cites legal cases. The cases are cited in legal briefs. Check my Kerchner legal briefs and you will see it there. For your information, I first wrote on Minor v. Happersett on January 2, 2009, arguing that Obama was not a “natural born Citizen” and therefore ineligible for President because of how Minor defined a “natural-born citizen.” Robert Stevens posted my article at the web site of Attorney Orly Taitz on the same day. The article as originally written by me may be read at Ms. Taitz’s web site at http://drorly.blogspot.com/2009/01/obama-cannot-be-natural-born-citizen.html. I also have discussed the Minor case in great length all over my blog.

Also, for you information the "natural born citizen" argument was first cited and discussed in recent times by P.A. Madison, before anyone else. http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/ On November 8, 2008, he wrote an article in which he argued that under natural law and the law of nations, which the Founders and Framers embraced, a "natural born Citizen" is a child born to a citizen father anywhere in the world.

My position differs in that I maintain that a "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent to a father and mother who are both either "natural born Citizens" or "citizens of the United States." I first wrote on December 20, 2008: “I maintain that as it applies to being President and Commander in Chief of the United States, “natural born Citizen” means that you have to be born on U.S. soil to a mother and father who are both U.S. citizens when you are born. If one of the child’s parents is not a U.S. citizen when he or she is born, that child is not a ‘natural born Citizen.’” http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2008/12/two-constitutional-obstacles-obama-has.html.

You write about the 4th Circuit Tisdale case and how you confronted me with it. But you dishonestly fail to post my response to you provided on this thread which shows why I disagree with the court’s conclusions.

You say that MommaE had a better understanding of Wong Kim Ark than I did as early as 2009. I discussed the Wong Kim Ark case in my December 20, 2008 article cited above. I said, among other things: “But this holding, which only tells us what a “Citizen” is, has nothing to do with what a “natural born Citizen” is as that term is used in Article II of the Constitution.” I think that says it all.

You keep mentioning about how the 3rd Circuit wanted to make me pay for damages allegedly suffered by Obama in having to defend himself. First, the Court quickly retreated from its position when I argued that I had a right to discover whether Obama had a long-form birth certificate which he could have simply shown the public from day one and thereby avoided having to spend millions defending himself. Second, millions of Americans support my arguments concerning Obama. I do not think they agree with you about me having to pay for Obama’s defense.

You praise John Woodman. But I showed here in this thread how his arguments are flawed.

Why do you not come back here and post some more of your arrogant nonsense and see how far you get.

MichaelN said...

@Puzo1

I wouldn't expect Reality Check to demonstrate any reasonable degree of honesty.

The entire pathetic argument of RealityCheck and his ilk, i.e. these traitorous suppressors and deniers of truth, is based on the ABSURDITY that the founding fathers and framers were not diligent or careful in the imperative to ensure security and protection of the high office of POTUS and commander in chief from any foreign influence, allegiance and claim.

The fact is that the founding fathers and the framers were simply not that slack or stupid.

Stranger said...

"But he (Vattel)cautions that a nation can through its civil or political laws (positive laws) decide to treat that child born in a foreign county to its citizens as it pleases. Id. He states that these positive laws must be followed."

The view is true but without a natural foundation. The natural law by which members and citizens are made is unchanged by the presence or absence of national borders. One enters this world being what the parents are. Having what the parents have. Positive law can usurp control from natural law but that does not somehow make it natural. It is unnatural and in violation of what Americans view as an unalienable right of natural membership in the group/nation to which their parents belong.
The European governments may not have recognized that unalienable law but our founding fathers did and did not usurp authority over natural law by authoring anything into the Constitution that controls or defines natural citizenship. They didn't mention the citizenship of native-born natural citizens nor that of foreign born natural citizens. By not mentioning the latter's citizenship they did not mean to invite in the erroneous view that those natural citizens could or should be treated any differently by the government. Later Congresses may not have realized that.AR Nash

Stranger said...

BDWILCOX: "referencing Binney: "The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."

Read yesterday's lengthy post by Donofrio who deeply researched the Binney paper that the quote was taken from and found that it was an error that was remove via peer review before it was reprinted. So Waite erroneously quoted an erroneous statement that was lifted from am old pamphlet he found among his old papers. But he didn't have the corrected version. Check out his naturalborncitizen.com blog for an amazing history of error and intrigue.

Stranger said...

"the term "natural born citizen" does not appear in the 14th amendment...the 14th amendment is the exercise of congress's naturalization powers...any court decision based on the 14th amendment is strictly a naturalization issue

congress has no authority to declare who is, or is not, a natural born citizen...period"

One slight huge error; Amendments are not congressional legislation, they are apart of our fundamental governmental law so they can do things that Congress can't, It was not always true than any court decision based on the 14th amendment was a naturalization issue because the free negroes declared to be citizens by it were not naturalized technically speaking because they were natural born natives, unless they were new slaves kidnapped from Africa.

Stranger said...

Mick said...@ Stranger

"SCOTUS has interpreted A2S1C5 many times, and w/ precedence in Minor v. Happersett to mean "born IN the US to US Citizen parents"."
SCOTUS has never interpreted A2S1C5 because there has never been a presidential eligibility case tried before them. To understand this issue clearly read the essay I wrote this morning to shed light on the misconceptions that seem logical but are based on false logic: An Erroneous Definition of Natural Born Citizen http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/erroneous-nbc-definition

"McCain needed US Code 8 S. 1403 to be deemed a US Citizen, and as such is not eligible. A2S1C5 is totally out of the purview of Congress, who can only make naturalization law (per A1S8C4). If you are made a Citizen by an act of Congress, then it follows that you are not a natural born Citizen."
True, but it doesn't follow that McCain "needed" anything in order to be a natural American. His membership in the American family was natural membership via his parents' membership. If Congress failed to recognize that fact then it was Congress that failed, not natural law, natural principles, nor Natural Rights. McCain's American citizenship is an unalienable right that Congress has no authority to deal with, except to pass instructions that it be recognized, as our founding fathers did in 1790 when they passed the Naturalization Act. The sons of Patriots are our natural American children regardless of where on earth they are delivered from the womb.

http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/erroneous-nbc-definition read it

Stranger said...

Puzo1 wrote: "Under this constitutional scheme, natural law and our own positive laws have decided who shall be "natural born citizens."
What I see is that nothing has "decided" anything. A natural citizen is what it is, and no positive law can change the natural principle by which one is a natural citizen. This is not an issue that can be explained by employing human choice or opinion. No one's opinion has any weight or value. It is strictly defined by a principle of natural law, not human wisdom, preference, choice, or law.


"They are the children born in the United States to citizen parents."
That describes native-born natural citizens. Not all NBCs are native-born because some are born abroad to native citizens traveling or living abroad.

"In 1790, Congress informed us that the only children it did not or could not exercise any naturalization jurisdiction over were children born in the United States to citizen parents."
Your logic error is revealed in this; "exercise naturalization jurisdiction over". A clear-eyed read of the Act shows that the jurisdiction that was being exercise was over the United States government, and not natural citizens born abroad. Rather, they were to be protected from infringement of their unalienable rights by obtuse immigration officers and policies of the government . Congress was in effect ordering the government to treat them with all the respect afforded to their domestically born siblings because they were also completely natural citizens like them. Read it again with that perspective in mind and I think you'll see it in a different light.
http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/erroneous-nbc-definition

Stranger said...

Puzo1: "Since 1795 to the present, Congress has considered children born in foreign countries to U.S. citizen parents as “citizens of the United States” and not “natural born Citizen.”

This contains an almost invisible logic error. I'll attempt to explain. Congress, in exercising it's constitutional authority in the area of naturalization and immigration, had no reason to insert language that served no purpose except in the issue of presidential eligibility, which had nothing to do with naturalization. In order to keep the later acts totally germane to their purpose, the natural born language was natural dropped from naturalization acts. That had no bearing whatsoever as to whether those foreign born Americans were or were not natural born citizens. Therefore, for one to say in so many words "Congress considered them to *not* be NBCs is a false characterization of the reason why that language had to be dropped. All that mattered was that they were "citizens" -as opposed to being aliens, and didn't need naturalization to possess their American citizenship birthright.
Presidential eligibility was unrelated.

For some unknown reason, word verification returns a mismatch every time when I try to publish with OpenID. Only Stranger works.

John Woodman said...

Mario,

Speaking of "being shot down with every one of your comments," I have answered every single one of your points here, in a way in which you did not and could not answer mine:

http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/02/why-the-birthers-lost/#comment-743

"I discussed the Wong Kim Ark case in my December 20, 2008 article cited above. I said, among other things: “But this holding, which only tells us what a “Citizen” is, has nothing to do with what a “natural born Citizen” is as that term is used in Article II of the Constitution.” I think that says it all."

I think it does say it all, as it is abundantly clear that the Court in Wong Kim Ark in fact addressed the question of whether a person in Wong Kim Ark's situation was "natural born" -- and found -- as their "irresistible" "conclusion" -- that the allegiance to the United States of Wong Kim Ark's parents, who were most certainly part of "every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here," was quite specifically "strong enough to make a natural subject [using the historical English term, because they were quoting Lord Coke], for if he hath issue here, that issue [or in modern language, that child] is a natural-born subject.”

Face it, Mario. Your theory is over. The cat is out of the bag, and it can never be put back in. Minor v. Happersett was never a case about citizenship, but fundamentally one about VOTING RIGHTS. Furthermore, to the degree that it DID touch on citizenship, it ONLY did so to the extent of basic citizenship, with no distinction whatsoever necessary between natural-born citizenship and naturalized citizenship. Virginia Minor's voting rights did not depend at all on whether she was natural-born, or naturalized. For that reason, Minor could never possibly establish the "binding" "definition" of "natural born" that you and Donofrio claim.

On the other hand, Wong Kim Ark WAS fundamentally (and very, very clearly) about citizenship -- and the Court not only declared Wong Kim Ark to be a "citizen," they ALSO declared EVERY child in his EXACT situation to be "NATURAL" and "NATURAL BORN."

Since the Court found Wong Kim Ark to be both "NATURAL BORN" AND A "CITIZEN," they undeniably found him to be a NATURAL-BORN CITIZEN. And it wasn't even close. It was 6 to 2.

It is now similarly clear that you are on the losing side of the argument. You have a choice at this point. I am inviting you to join the winning side. You can admit reality, end up salvaging a significant amount of your dignity, and go down in the history of this issue as the guy who helped bring reality back to America. Or, you can stick stubbornly to your guns and go unrelentingly and inevitably down with the sinking ship.

The choice is up to you.

John Woodman said...

PS - I will publish my comment as an "open letter," at my blog. Mario, I hope you'll join me on the factual and winning side of the issue.

Best wishes,

John Woodman

Reality Check said...

I answered on the post at my blog that you linked. I will not repeat all of that here.

Besides the obviously legal and historical fallacies with your “two citizen parent” definition of NBC I believe it is on a fundamental level un-American, and un-American to such an extent that if the Constitutional authors were to be reincarnated and read your arguments they would immediately go back in time and remove the clause.

One the founding principles of the USA was that “all men are created equal”. I think it is even in one of the documents in a case at the National Archives in Washington, D. C. This principle permeates the text of the Constitution, especially the Bill of Rights. One of the few exceptions to the equality principle is the NBC clause that was added with little public discussion because of fear that a European prince might somehow be installed in the new and powerful office that was being created to head the Executive. However, the idea that someone born on US soil, despite working hard and displaying the qualities that we admire in a leader throughout their lifetime as a citizen would be barred from holding the highest office in the land merely by parentage is such an anathema to the core principle of equality that Americans should be sickened at the thought of embracing such silly idea.

Puzo1 said...

I of II

Stranger/AR Nash,

You have missed Vattel’s point about positive laws controlling the citizenship status of the children born in a foreign country to citizen parents. Vattel first states in Section 215of The Law of Nations that by the law of nature alone, those children follow the condition of their “fathers” (meaning parents under citizenship unity of husband and wife), and that the place of birth should not take away from the child what nature has given to him or her. But he adds that a nation can pass “civil or political laws” that decide otherwise and that the “regulations” of these laws must be followed. Hence, Vattel acknowledges that the law of nature should be the only factor which decides the citizenship fate of these children, but adds that a nation is not bound by that law of nature and can pass positive laws to alter it. And our early Congresses did just that with the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and the other acts that followed. Surely, you cannot reasonable argue that such laws were unconstitutional, given that Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 is given the power to make uniform the laws of naturalization. Naturalization is part and parcel of foreign relations. How we treat persons born in a foreign sovereign territory surely impacts our foreign relations with that country. Can you imagine some foreign nation and not our own law dictating in some unreasonable fashion what citizenship status, which carries legal, political, and military obligations, people born on U.S. territory should have?

Hence, for political and military reasons and through its naturalization powers, our early Congress specifically and expressly decided that after 1795 they did not want a person born “in a foreign country” (which includes not “reputed born in the country”) to be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military, positions which give an individual great and singular powers over foreign political and commercial relations, treaties, and the ultimate sacrifice, war. Since so many in the early Congresses were also intimately involved with the Revolution and the drafting of the Constitution, and George Washington also had to sign those Acts into law, we can reasonable conclude that the Founders and Framers of the Constitution had the same beliefs.

On the contrary and to clear any confusion that this issue may generate, Congress has no constitutional power to alter the status of a “natural born Citizen,” which is a child born in the country to citizen parents. This is the very reason that Congress has never passed any a naturalization act, including the Civil Rights Act of 1866, or even the Fourteenth Amendment which constitutionalized the Civil Rights Act, in which it sought to alter the citizenship status of such a citizen. This is the very reason why, as I have repeatedly argued on this blog, the early naturalization acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802, passed by those same Founders and Framers, prove that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents. This is the very reason Minor v. Happersett tells us that Virginia Minor did not need the Fourteenth Amendment or any Act of Congress to prove that she was a “natural-born citizen,” for those positive laws simply are not the source from which that status emanates. Rather, Minor correctly recognizes that her status came from “common-law,” which I have repeatedly shown on this blog was not English common law, but rather American common law which had its roots in natural law and the law of nations as codified by Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations. Remember that the law of nations, through Article I, Section 8, Clause 10, was included in the Constitution as part of the Article III “Laws of the United States.” The English common law was given no such treatment.

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of II

Finally, you state that “European governments may not have recognized that unalienable law but our founding fathers did.” I can see that you are suggesting that the law of nations was some foreign law not worthy of American esteem and respect. This has also been the arrogant Obot and some current court’s opinions (Ankeny does not even know who Vattel is). You are all very wrong on this point. The Founders and Framers did not view the law of nations as international or foreign law. Rather, they viewed it as that which came from “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” Declaration of Independence. It is most probably because of natural law and the law of nations that we even had an American revolution and are currently blessed with our current Constitution.

James said...

Mario,

Instead of considering RC's offer of taking up an appeal with the Tisdale Case in Virginia, I strongly encourage you to contact Hattfield and Irion of the Georgia suit and determine how you might be able to lend your legal expertise and skills. Judge Mahili's decision is so legally flawed that an aggressive appeal is likely to be successful. You might help that case out best by crafting an Amicis Brief which points the flaws in the Ankeny case. You and Leo could collaborate together in a joint effort brief.

js said...

House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” It wouldn’t be practical for the United States to claim a child as a citizen when the child’s natural country of origin equally claims him/her because doing so could leave the child with two competing legal obligations, e.g., military duty.

Under the old English common law doctrine of natural-born subject, birth itself was an act of naturalization that required no prior consent or demand of expressed allegiance to the nation in advance. Furthermore, birth was viewed as enjoining a “perpetual allegiance” upon all that could never be severed or altered by any change of time or act of anyone. England’s “perpetual allegiance” due from birth was extremely unpopular in this country; often referred to as absurd barbarism, or simply perpetual nonsense. America went to war with England over the doctrine behind “natural-born subject” in June of 1812.

http://www.federalistblog.us/2008/11/natural-born_citizen_defined/

Puzo1 said...

Stranger/AR Nash @ February 8, 2012 2:27 AM,

I can see from your comment that the “hugh error” is yours. A “natural born Citizen” is by nature a child born in the country to citizen parents. The fact that the Fourteenth Amendment is a constitutional amendment did not change that unless you can show that it did. I have shown that the amendment, which by clear and plain text addresses only “citizens of the United States” and not “natural born citizens,” did not directly alter the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” What it did was expand the class of people who can be born “citizens” who then may go on to become the parents of “natural born citizens.”

Hence, whenever the Fourteenth Amendment makes a born “citizen” of someone who is not a “natural born Citizen,” the amendment is naturalizing that person at birth by removing alienage inherited by that child at birth from one or two alien parents.

Also, you fail to understand that naturalization can also occur by judicial decision. Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case (1608)and Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark (1898) naturalized Calvin and Wong , respectively, at birth.

Puzo1 said...

Stranger/ AR Nash @ February 8, 2012 2:50 AM,

We both agree that McCain is a "natural born Citizen," but for hughly different reasons.

You maintain that to be a "natural born Citizen," it does not matter where one is born, provided the person is born to citizen parents.

I say that one must be born in the United States to citizen parents in order to be a "natural born Citizen" and that McCain, because he was born in Panama to parents serving our national defense, is under Vattel Section 217 reputed born in the United States. Hence, McCain was born in the country to citizen parents which makes him a "natural born Citizen."

Puzo1 said...

See the WND story, Shocker for GOP on Rubio eligibility-Stunning number of Republicans believe he's not a natural-born citizen, at http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/shocker-for-gop-on-rubio-eligibility/

As we can see, I was correct when I told the arrogant Reality Check that millions of Americans do not agree with him that I should be paying for Obama's legal expenses generated by him to defend himself against my allegations that he is not an Article II "natural born Citizen."

Puzo1 said...

Stranger/AR Nash,

You said: "A clear-eyed read of the Act shows that the jurisdiction that was being exercise was over the United States government, and not natural citizens born abroad."

What you wrote makes no sense. How can the government in the grand sense exercise jurisdition over itself? Jurisdiction it exercised by something over another thing.

Your arguments are also not based on a logical reading of Congressional Acts. You are simply making stuff up and have become repetitive.

Puzo1 said...

Stranger/AR Nash @ February 8, 2012 3:40 AM,

Again you err. Congress was well aware that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 distinguishes between a "natural born Citizen" and a "Citizen of the United States" in a very critical way. After the adoption of the Constitution, only the former was eligible to be President.

For you to suggest that when Congress wrote "citizen of the United States" in the Naturalization Act of 1795 or any Act for that matter, they also secretly meant "natural born Citizen" is utter nonsense.

The next thing you are going to repeat here is the Maskellian ridiculous notion that when Congress wrote "citizen of the United States" in the Fourteenth Amendment, it also really secretly meant "natural born Citizen." Should you even be thinking that, my comment also extends to Congress writing "citizen of the United States" in the Fourteenth Amendment.

Puzo1 said...

Judge Malihi's decision is totally insufficient and for the Secretary of State to adopt it is even a greater travesty of justice.

Judge Malihi made no findings of fact. When a judge makes a finding of fact, he/she has to point to what evidence exists in the record which supports that finding. He could not make any findings because he would have had to make a finding of fact as to the central issue given his definition of a "natural born citizen" (simply born in the USA), which was Obama's place of birth. Since there was no evidence in the record showing conclusively that Obama was born in the United States, Malihi simply ran away from the whole place of birth issue and said he "considered" that Obama was born in the United States, but did not tell us what he found after “considering” whatever he alone knows what he considered.

juniper55 said...

Question - if we have separation of powers, then who has "jurisdiction" over a corrupt judiciary? That is, if judges are succumbing to overt or covert political pressure to deny these cases regarding NBC and presidential eligiblity, all the way up to the Supreme Court if Kagan and Sotomayer fail to recuse themselves, to whom do we appeal?

I am getting very frustrated by this situation. Granted, some of the various legal challenges have been thin, goofball, or downright erroneous, but why has EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM been denied?

We are asking for a clarification of a fundamental construct of the US Constitution and NOBODY would touch it. Why not? Again, to whom do we appeal? Congress? Many have tried, with no luck. Certainly not the Executive!

We can't even petition for any kind of relief from the Supreme Court outside of some already-denied court case to simply clarify the definition of NBC once and for all???

MichaelN said...

@ John Woodman, who said......
"I think it does say it all, as it is abundantly clear that the Court in Wong Kim Ark in fact addressed the question of whether a person in Wong Kim Ark's situation was "natural born" -- and found -- as their "irresistible" "conclusion" -- that the allegiance to the United States of Wong Kim Ark's parents, who were most certainly part of "every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here," was quite specifically "strong enough to make a natural subject [using the historical English term, because they were quoting Lord Coke], for if he hath issue here, that issue [or in modern language, that child] is a natural-born subject.”
------------------------
Response:
Regarding the WKA court, what the English termed "natural born subject", the US termed "citizen of the United States", hence the decision in Wong Kim Ark, being based on the long-term domicile and dedicated business practices of WKA's NON_CITIZEN parents, there was a similarity recognized in the English common law that recognized birth-right citizenship.

In 17th century English common law, for a child born in the realm to be a "natural born", the parent father had to be a "subject" and if that father was not a "subject", then his child cannot be a "subject", even if born in England.

The English deemed an alien-born, visiting England in friendship to be a "subject", hence his child if born in England was a "natural born", by "nature and birth-right".

The "subject" status of the parent father was THE MOST ESSENTIAL and PARAMOUNT factor in determining "natural born".

Basically everyone born in the English realm was a "natural born" save children of diplomats and enemies, these are the equivalent to US 14th Amendment "citizens of the United States"

The English did not have any other form of born subject, but the US does, as can be seen by the choice of wording in the 14th Amendment.

US doesn't automatically deem alien-born visitors to be citizens/subjects, so a child born in US to a visiting alien(since WKA court ruling by interpretation of the 14th Amendment)is at best a "citizen of the United States.

John why do YOU suppose, that with all the talk about "natural born" that took place in the WKA court that the court did not use the words "natural born" in the decision for Wong Kim Ark?

Why do YOU suppose, that the 14th Amendment used the wording "citizen of the United States" to describe the born citizens, rather than "natural born".

Do you really think that if it was of such paramount importance to make it so clear, the drafters of the 14th Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark court just plain forgot to write 'natural born' into their definitions?

There is no precedent to be found in any English common law to do with presidential eligibility in a republic.

The term "natural born" used by the framers was a criteria for a highest office and commander in chief, which was selected INSTEAD OF "native born" because it meant one who would be MOST likely to be free from any foriegn influence, allegiance and claim.

The term "natural born" in English common law was a term to describe anyone born in the realm to a "subject" and was NOT an eligibility criteria for any high office.

Chalk and cheese.

John, your entire argument is based on a silly ABSURDITY that the framers were derelict in their duty of responsibility to protect and secure the office of POTUS from any foreign influence, allegiance and claim, they were simply not that stupid.

Puzo1 said...

Reality Check,

So Dr. Conspiracy is the champion of civil rights and you are the champion of egalitarianism.

Your attempt to give the impression that you are the good guy and I am the bad guy will not amend the Constitution. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which is the Constitution, creates the distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen.” I never heard someone argue that the Constitution is illegal. Rather, we can just change it by amendment. So, what I am saying is that you have to take it up with the Founders and Framers, not with me.

Additionally, our nation has always had distinctions between types of citizenships. The "natural born Citizen" clause, which applies only to the office of President and Vice-President, was put into place for national safety and security, not as you suggest only during the Founding but for all time. The reason for the distinction is eminently reasonable. The clause as I am interpreting it does not offend current standards of equal protection.

Furthermore, who is your plaintiff to bring a claim that the "natural born Citizen" clause is discriminatory?

cfkerchner said...

Regarding the founders and framers concerns about "foreign influence" and the office of the presidency and commander of our military we have their very words to tell us that was their ultimate concern as to why the term "natural born Citizen" was put into the constitution ... as a "strong check" against foreign influence. The Obot disinformation social engineers can read it at this link:
http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/johnjay1787lettertogeorgewashington-transcription+original-withPOL.pdf

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
www.protectourliberty.org
CDR Kerchner's Blog

cfkerchner said...

Obama's Orwellian 1984 of America is Upon Us ... starting with our elementary school children.

Obama Indoctrination of Elementary School Kids on Martin Luther King Jr. Day, 2012 – YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woItHu67X08

This is disgraceful and most be stopped! Our allegiance is to our Constitution not men, and per the pledge of allegiance, to the republic flag for which it stands, not to some charismatic person temporarily in office, illegally and unconstitutionally at that, who is trying to become a dictator.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org/
http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty/collections/
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/

“The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation without knowing how it happened.” Ronald Reagan alerting us to Norman Thomas’ and the socialist/progressives’ long-term stealth agenda to transform the USA from a constitutional republic into a top-down, central controlled, socialist form of government

Puzo1 said...

II of II

You argue that Minor v. Happersett (1875) is about women’s right to vote and not about citizenship. Minor is not about citizenship and only about a woman’s voting rights as much as Dred Scott (1857) is not about citizenship and only about whether the court had jurisdiction over his case. Whether or not Virginia Minor’s voting rights depended on whether or not she was a “citizen” does not erase the Court’s thoughtful and reasoned, in-depth analysis of American citizenship, starting from the Founding and to the time of the Court’s decision, an analysis which was consistent with what was said by Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus (1814), Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1830), Shanks v. Dupont (1830), Justice Daniels in Dred Scott, and The Slaughter-House Cases (1872) regarding a “natural-born citizen” and birthright citizenship.

On whether Minor gave us a definition of a “natural-born citizen,” when a court decision or a statute provides a definition of a thing, the elements of the definition given are not provided with an additional statement that they are each necessary and sufficient conditions comprising the thing defined. The fact that the description is stated as a definition makes each and every element of the description a necessary and sufficient part of the definition without having to additionally say so. Your point about Minor not providing a definition of the clause “natural born Citizen” is as absurd as someone arguing that Minor said that a cow is an animal that gives milk that humans drink, and since the Court did not at the time that is told us what a cow is also say that giving milk that humans drink is a necessary condition of the definition, a dog, which is an animal, can also be a cow. You also fail to take into account that the definition that Minor gave of a “natural-born citizen” is the same definition that was given by Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus (1814), Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1830), Shanks v. Dupont (1830), Justice Daniels in Dred Scott, and The Slaughter-House Cases (1872).

As far as changing sides, I recommend that you join my side which is the winning side because it is the argument that is in the best interest of the United States. Your argument is only designed to achieve a political result which on its face we can readily see weakens the safety and integrity of the Office of President and Commander in Chief which is not and cannot be in the best interest of the United States.

The choice is up to you.

Reality Check said...

Mario said: "Furthermore, who is your plaintiff to bring a claim that the "natural born Citizen" clause is discriminatory?"

I do not need to file a lawsuit since my interpretation of the meaning of the clause is the correct one as confirmed by every court decision. Your interpretation is incorrect for the same reason. That is why I said there is nothing to debate.

Puzo1 said...

I of II

John Woodman,

Regarding Wong Kim Ark, you are simply putting words into the mouth of the Court which are not there. There is language or the lack of language in Wong which shows that the Court recognized the distinction between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States,” and that it went as far as only holding Wong to be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” and not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

First, the question presented and holding of the Court speak of a "citizen of the United States" under the Fourteenth Amendment, not a "natural born Citizen" under Article II. No where in the question presented or in the Court’s holding will you find the words “natural born Citizen.” You cannot provide one quote from the Court which shows that the Court found Wong to be “natural born.”

Second, the Court cited and quoted Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen,” with no criticism or distinguishing of that definition to reach its holding that Wong was a “citizen of the United States.” This is critically important because Minor had held that a “natural-born citizen” is a child born in a country to citizen parents. If the Court was willing to abandon that definition it would have told us so.

Third, the Court said, by quoting Mr. Binney: “‘The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law, or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.'" Wong Kim Ark, at 169-70 (citing and quoting Horace Binney, The Alienigenae of the United States Under the Present Naturalization Laws (1853). Note Binney’s reference to “in the country” which is directly out of Vattel Section 212’s definition of a ‘natural-born citizen.” Note also that, with the Court requiring “birth in the country” in order to acquire birthright citizenship if one does not otherwise qualify for the status under some naturalization statute, the Court recognized that only a child born “in the country” to citizen parents can be a “natural-born citizen.” The Court by this quote told us in clear words that while both a child “born in the country” to citizen parents and a child “born in the country” to alien parents are “citizens” by the mere fact of being “born in the country,” only a child born “in the country” to citizen parents is a “natural-born citizen.” The reason for this distinction is that under the English common law which the Court applied to make Wong a “citizen,” a person naturalized at birth either judicially or by statute is a “natural born subject,” whereas under American common law, which is based on natural law and the law of nations, a person who is naturalized at birth can be a “born citizen,” but never a “natural born Citizen.”

Fourth, the Wong Kim Ark Court was willing to make Wong a “citizen” because he was born in the United States and his parents’ domicile in the United States at the moment of his birth created a strong enough allegiance to the United States (in the words of Lord Coke and Blackstone local and temporary) to consider Wong to be born “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” yet that allegiance was not as strong as if the parents had been citizens of the United States and therefore not strong enough to make Wong a “natural-born citizen.”

All this is critical since the original and amended Constitution, all Acts of Congress, and treaties read as a whole show that there is a distinction between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States,” with Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 making an express distinction with post-Constitution adoption eligibility for President allowed only to the “natural born Citizen.”

Continued …

Puzo1 said...

II of II

You argue that Minor v. Happersett (1875) is about women’s right to vote and not about citizenship. Minor is not about citizenship and only about a woman’s voting rights as much as Dred Scott (1857) is not about citizenship and only about whether the court had jurisdiction over his case. Whether or not Virginia Minor’s voting rights depended on whether or not she was a “citizen” does not erase the Court’s thoughtful and reasoned, in-depth analysis of American citizenship, starting from the Founding and to the time of the Court’s decision, an analysis which was consistent with what was said by Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus (1814), Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1830), Shanks v. Dupont (1830), Justice Daniels in Dred Scott, and The Slaughter-House Cases (1872) regarding a “natural-born citizen” and birthright citizenship.

On whether Minor gave us a definition of a “natural-born citizen,” when a court decision or a statute provides a definition of a thing, the elements of the definition given are not provided with an additional statement that they are each necessary and sufficient conditions comprising the thing defined. The fact that the description is stated as a definition makes each and every element of the description a necessary and sufficient part of the definition without having to additionally say so. Your point about Minor not providing a definition of the clause “natural born Citizen” is as absurd as someone arguing that Minor said that a cow is an animal that gives milk that humans drink, and since the Court did not at the time that is told us what a cow is also say that giving milk that humans drink is a necessary condition of the definition, a dog, which is an animal, can also be a cow. You also fail to take into account that the definition that Minor gave of a “natural-born citizen” is the same definition that was given by Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus (1814), Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1830), Shanks v. Dupont (1830), Justice Daniels in Dred Scott, and The Slaughter-House Cases (1872).

As far as changing sides, I recommend that you join my side which is the winning side because it is the argument that is in the best interest of the United States. Your argument is only designed to achieve a political result which on its face we can readily see weakens the safety and integrity of the Office of President and Commander in Chief which is not and cannot be in the best interest of the United States.

The choice is up to you.

Stranger said...

"How we treat persons born in a foreign sovereign territory surely impacts our foreign relations with that country."
How we treat our own foreign-born natural citizens and what opinion that host nation has is irrelevant to whether or not they are natural citizens or foreigners. They are natural citizens by natural law, regardless of how nations deal with them. They either follow natural law and The Law of Nations, and thus avoid conflict, or they do what dictators do, which is whatever seems desirable to their leaders.

" Can you imagine some foreign nation and not our own law dictating in some unreasonable fashion what citizenship status, which carries legal, political, and military obligations, people born on U.S. territory should have? "
I certainly can, absolutely, that follows the Law of Nations IF they are born to parents who are not U.S. immigrants but mere transient foreigners with no Green Card of legal permanent residence.

"our early Congress specifically and expressly decided that after 1795 they did not want a person born “in a foreign country” to be eligible to be President."
Now you're scaring me. "expressly"? The Congress had the authority to both add and strip the "natural born" appendage from "citizen" and they removed it because a naturalization act has absolutely nothing at all to do with presidential eligibility. The naturalization acts had one purpose only, how to treat those born abroad. Were they foreigners and subject to legitimate Congressional authority, or were they Americans? Were foreign-born citizens under the authority of Congress or was their citizenship outside of it like their domestically born brethren? Understand this; Congress did NOT have any authority to proffer any opinion, or preference as to who can be President. That was/is wholly a constitutional issue and only a constitutional amendment can address it, NOT a naturalization act. Also, they had NO authority over natural American citizenship, because it is not derived from Congress but from citizen parents -where ever they happen to be when giving birth. For further illumination read what I penned today: How Marco Rubio Could Destroy The Apple Cart at http://obama--nation.com It's an eye-opener.

Stranger said...

"the early naturalization acts...prove that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents." That could be true if your logic was free of all flaws, but it isn't. It contains a big one that is firmly lodged in your blind spot, but I hope to open your eyes to be able to see it because your voice is an important one.
"Virginia Minor did not need the Fourteenth Amendment or any Act of Congress to prove that she was a “natural-born citizen," You could have and should have omitted "natural-born" being as only citizenship was relevant, even if it was naturalized citizenship because both are identical except in regard to the presidency, and I'm pretty sure she wasn't running for that office.

"Finally, you state that “European governments may not have recognized that unalienable law but our founding fathers did.” I can see that you are suggesting that the law of nations was some foreign law not worthy of American esteem and respect. "
Mario, this statement illustrates a propensity toward unsupported presumptive conclusions such as the view that Vattel's description delineated the parameters of an absolute authoritative definition of the appelletion "natural born citizen" or indigenea when it carried no authority nor exclusivity (the exclusion of "ONLY"). The unalienable law I spoke of was NOT the Law of Nations, I said European governments may-not-have-recognized it. I didn't say it was some foreign law nor did I cast disrepute on foreign law. All that and what you wrote that followed it resulted from either speed reading or from an over-active imagination, because the unalienable law that I referred to was in reference to the sentence before it; "an unalienable right of natural membership in the group/nation to which their parents belong" That unalienable right is a central element of natural law and it applies in both the natural realm and the political realm, and it does NOT depend on where the mother is located when her child is delivered. So I repeat, combining jus soli with jus sanguinis has no basis in any principle of Natural Law because jus soli has no place in Natural Law.
http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/erroneous-nbc-definition

js said...

reality chk...during the times leading up to the US Revolution...there were many people who clove to the king and his tyrannies...every last one of them were wrong...

just like you...and the other idiots that refuse to bear witness to the truth...

js said...

Congress has no right to adjudiciate the natural rights of citizenship...they cannot deny the right of the child to its fathers citizenship, period.

Obama was born a British Citizen, and has admitted that he was born subject to the BNA of 1948. Its not that complicated.

We have a natural born citizen of England sitting in the Oval Office. We disrespect the founding fathers and the roots of our own prosperity if we dont right this wrong.

Puzo1 said...

Stranger,

Under Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark, a child has to be "born in the country" to be a "citizen" under the Constitution. If the child is not "born in the country," then the child can be a citizen only by satisfying all the requirements of a Congressional naturalization statute.

Also under Minor and Wong Kim Ark, only a child who is "born in the country" to citizen parents is a "natural born Citizen." Any child who is "born in the country" and only "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States is a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen," but not an Article II "natural born Citizen,” for only a child who is "born in the country" to citizen parents can be a "natural born Citizen."

Puzo1 said...

You said: "So I repeat, combining jus soli with jus sanguinis has no basis in any principle of Natural Law because jus soli has no place in Natural Law."

That is correct and I have stated as much. But you fail to understand that postive law can change natural law. Our Congress since 1795 has determined that any child born abroad to "citizen" parents is only a "citizen," and not a "natural born Citizen."

Wong Kim Ark has confirmed that any child "born out the country" can only be a "citizen" by satisfying a Congressional naturalization statute.

And both Minor and Wong tell us that only a child that is "born in the country" to citizen parents can be a "natural born Citizen."

Puzo1 said...

js,

Congress has no constitutional power to change the constitutional definition of a “natural born citizen” which is a child born in the country to citizen parents. Only a constitutional amendment can change that definition.

cfkerchner said...

It takes two tigers to make a tiger and two lions to make a lion. Mixing a tiger with a lion and you get neither one. So the biological aspect of "natural law" is very important. But their is more to "natural law" and the body of law known as the "law of nations" than only biology in governance as to world widely accepted legal principles and laws than mankind accepts as universal. Obviously man cannot pass law which undue biological facts and natural unalienable rights. But man does address other components of Citizenship when it comes to natural born Citizenship in the body of law known as the "law of nations" which was in large part based on a codified understanding of universally accepted principles of natural law. For a person to have unquestioned citizenship in one and only one nation under the body of law called the "law of nations" they must be born of parents who are both citizens of the country their child in born in. It is "naturally" obvious that a person born in a country of parents are both citizens of that country that the person is born with sole allegiance to and unity of citizenship of that country and only that country and thus can be the commander of that countries armies and president, a person who is perceived as having no foreign influence on them by birth status. The USA is not the only country with a natural born citizen requirement to be President. So does the Philippines. The term was tested in the Philippine Supreme Court and they confirmed that a natural born Citizen is one born in the country to two citizens (born or naturalized citizens) of that country.

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com

Puzo1 said...

In my earlier comments I said:

"Judge Malihi's decision is totally insufficient and for the Secretary of State to adopt it is even a greater travesty of justice.

Judge Malihi made no findings of fact. When a judge makes a finding of fact, he/she has to point to what evidence exists in the record which supports that finding. He could not make any findings because he would have had to make a finding of fact as to the central issue given his definition of a "natural born citizen" (simply born in the USA), which was Obama's place of birth. Since there was no evidence in the record showing conclusively that Obama was born in the United States, Malihi simply ran away from the whole place of birth issue and said he "considered" that Obama was born in the United States, but did not tell us what he found after “considering” whatever he alone knows what he considered."

I want to add that we should also note that Secretary of State Kemp, who accepted the ALJ's decision, did not tell us why he accepted the decision or even what standard he applied in making his decision.

I call the whole legal process that we have so far witnessed in Georgia justice by stealth.

Kath said...

Several years ago now, on the website Fight The Smears there existed a statement-"The truth about Barack's birth certificate" and it said this " Truth: Senator Obama was born in Hawaii in 1961, after it became a state on August 21, 1959. Obama became a CITIZEN AT BIRTH UNDER THE FIRST SECTION OF THE 14th AMENDMENT."

Emphasis mine. Now for all the talk about disengenous court cases, Obama himself has NEVER called himself a natural born citizen and his propaganda website called him a 14th amendment citizen. Later this same website CHANGED the above statement to say "native born".
There are apparently many permutations to the ever changing story of Obama.

I have the printed copy captured from the WayBackMachine right here, next to me. It may be now scrubbed, who knows, but I have it.

thalightguy said...

Mario,

How can we ever expect justice to be served when the two U.S. Supreme Court Justice's appointed by the Usurper himself will not recuse themselves as seen in the case that you brought before them?

Stranger said...

There are four types of citizenship.
1.Natural born 2. Naturalized 3. Constitutional 4. Derivative Automatic Naturalization. Obama is not the first nor the third because his father was not an American nor an immigrant. He never underwent the naturalization process so the second is also out. That leaves only the fourth. His citizenship was derived from his mother's, but that may not have been the case from his birth if the INS followed the policy of "expatriation by marriage" in 1961. If so, then he did not become an American until she divorced his father and his mother was repatriated somehow. If the INS and State Dept did not follow a policy of expatriation by marriage then he was a citizen by birth to his American mother via a naturalization statute that was part of the Nationality Act of 1940 or an Attorney General Interpretation of the Supreme Court's position on expatriation by marriage. No one has yet identified the exact passage followed by the INS in determining his citizenship status. We have for President a man with a form of citizenship so arcane that it can hardly be traced to anything that can be readily identified. He's not a natural born citizen, -he's a mystery born citizen.
A.R. Nash

Stranger said...

Nowhere in the Constitution is Congress given any authority to make any law in regard to the free exercise of religion, freedom of the press,...nor the nature of the citizenship of natural citizens. Its authority is only in regard to the nationality regulation of foreigners and their children. Americans do not give birth to foreigners. No American born anywhere in the world is a foreigner, therefore Congress has no authority to regulate their citizenship status. No authority at all. One could almost assume that even a constitutional amendment would have no business "amending" their status because they (natural American citizens) are not regulated by anything in the Constitution. They are what they are by nature. Nature doesn't care where an off-spring enters this world. It is a natural off-spring regardless. Same with natural citizens.
Neither Congress nor the Constitution itself have any say in the issue of the birth location of American citizens. Such authority was never written nor given. It cannot be given by man because it is an unalienable right given only by the Creator. Any assertion to the contrary is baseless.

MichaelIsGreat said...

Hello Mr. Apuzzo,


It is now official: OBAMA IS OFFICIALLY A "NATURAL BORN CITIZEN" ACCORDING TO THE LAWS OF THE USA FOLLOWING JUDGE MALIHI'S DECISION.

Now, the question is: what's next?
In a court of law, Obama ALWAYS get away not showing any proofs of any kind!
Do you expect any court to judge Obama's case fairly, honestly, and with full discovery on several issues: false social security number used by Obama; no official long form birth certificate fully certified officially (an online version is not proof that it is valid nor fully certified officially!!)?

There is basically no hope whatsoever to get the truth in courts!!!

Puzo1 said...

Stranger/A.R. Nash,

A person born in 1961 derived citizenship from parents only if born abroad and satisfied the Congressional statutory requirements. Obama was allegedly born in the U.S. Additionally, since 1922, when the Cable Act was passed, American women have not been bound by the citizenship of the men they marry. Hence, your derivative citizenship theory does not apply.

As to what type of citizen Obama is, Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark judicially naturalized Wong to be a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen" like Lord Coke in 1608 judicially naturalized Calvin to be an English "natural born subject." By the power of that decision, others like Wong, i.e., born in the United States to one or two alien parents, are judicially naturalized at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment to be U.S. citizens.

So, assuming that Obama was born in the United States and that at the moment of his birth his father was an alien and his mother was a U.S. citizen, Obama is a "citizen of the United States" by the rule of decision of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which is a positive law, but not by the rule of decision of natural law and the law of nations which is what defines an Article II “natural born Citizen,” which rule Minor v. Happersett (1875) confirms was adopted as American “common-law.” Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 of the Constitution and early decisions of our U.S. Supreme Court, including Minor, and lower courts show that this “common-law” became part of Article III “Laws of the United States.” Obama is therefore a judicially naturalized Fourteenth Amendment "born citizen," created by positive law, but not an Article II "natural born Citizen," created by natural law. Not being a “natural born Citizen,” Obama, like Senator Marco Rubio and Governor Bobby Jindal, is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief.

Puzo1 said...

MichaelIsGreat,

Yes, indeed, it is a sorry state of affairs in our courts with how they are treating the importance of the "natural born Citizen" issue.

I am working on an article which I hope to publish today on another "decision" just recently handed down by the federal court on the definition of a "natural born Citizen."

Loren said...

@cdrkerchner:

"The term was tested in the Philippine Supreme Court and they confirmed that a natural born Citizen is one born in the country to two citizens (born or naturalized citizens) of that country."

No, the Philippine Supreme Court held the exact opposite. In 2004, they voted in FAVOR of Fernando Poe Jr's eligibility, and he was born to an American mother who was not even married to his Filipino father. Poe was the illegitimate child of just *one* Filipino parent, and yet he was held to be a natural-born citizen of the Philippines.

Do you have a more recent case where their Supreme Court reversed itself?

my911 said...

Open Letter to Gov Nathan Deal

This contact information was obtained from an independent website after unsuccessfully trying to get it from the ga state website , from non-available chat agents, and from a tel call which was promptly cutoff at 6pm – midstream.
The website that works is
http://people.smu.edu/rhalperi/governors.html

Georgia Governor Nathan Deal
Office of the Governor
203 State Capitol
Atlanta, GA 30334

RE: GA Ballot Challenge Case
Sent via USPS and Fax to 404-656-1776/ 404-657-7332

Gov. Deal,

Here in SC we are experiencing a terrible stench.
It has been tracked to your Secretary of State’s office.
Apparently Mr. Brian Kemp has been sharing his bed with Mr. Michael Jablonski.
I am reasonably tolerant of consenting adults; until I am the one getting ….well, if you want plain language, call me… but it is , politely, fornicated.

The net result is that “the fix was in”.

You need to determine why your Secretary of State failed to recuse himself or his subordinate when he had a clear conflict of interest.
To have a defendant’s attorney on your advisory board and not act is inexcusable; criminal.

The “decision” rendered by Mr. Mahili and supported by Mr. Kemp reeks of corruption to the 100th power.
As a result, Georgia is the laughing stock of America with one great black eye.

If you feel any obligation to remove this stain on your State, you will step in immediately to overturn the “decisions” pending full review by your AG; with proper attention to timeliness.

In hopes that GA has character and pride, I await your action
Regards,

MichaelN said...

@Loren

Poe was ruled a natural born citizen, due to his FATHER being recognized as a citizen.

"Supreme Court Justice Hilario Davide, Jr. said a preponderance of evidence established that Poe's father was a Filipino because Poe's grandfather, Lorenzo, had not declared allegiance to Spain by virtue of the Treaty of Paris and the Philippine Bill of 1902.[2]

Davide said that, in the case of an illegitimate child whose father is a Filipino and whose mother is an alien, proof of paternity is enough for the child to take after the citizenship of his putative father."

MichaelN said...

@ Loren

Re: Phillipines - citizenship of women who marry Phillipino citizen husbands.

"We therefore hold that under the first paragraph of Section 15 of the Naturalization Law, an alien woman, who is married to a citizen of the Philippines, acquires the citizenship of her husband only if she has all the qualifications and none of the disqualifications provided by law."

Loren said...

@MichaelN

"Poe was ruled a natural born citizen, due to his FATHER being recognized as a citizen."

That's swell...and totally inconsistent with what Charles said. He wrote:

"[The Supreme Court of the Philippines] confirmed that a natural born Citizen is one born in the country to two citizens (born or naturalized citizens) of that country."

You, on the other hand, point out that the court held that Poe was a natural born Citizen because ONE parent was a Filipino citizen. Not TWO.

John Woodman said...

I have now responded to MichaelN's post accusing me of "silly ABSURDITY."

Puzo1 said...

Responding to John Woodman's article:

John Woodman provides no evidence that supports his position that a “natural born citizen” includes a child born in the U.S. to alien parents.

Here are the sources that he cites:

(1) Lynch v. Clark. But this is a New York state case that was so badly decided that the New York State Legislature overruled it. Lynch provides no American sources that support its position.

(2) Wong Kim Ark. But the holding of Wong Kim Ark only defines a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen,” not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

(3) Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana. I have already shown in the main article here how poorly this case was decided and how it misapplied Wong, saying that Wong’s holding defined a “natural born Citizen.”

(4) Tisdale v. Obama. This decision consists of an Order of 2 and ½ pages, a good part of which addresses the standard to be applied on a motion to dismiss and for the pro se plaintiff to qualify as a pauper. Woodman fails to tell us that the court cited Wong Kim Ark to support its statement: “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.” Again, Wong’s holding is not about a “natural born Citizen” so I have no idea how the court finds what is says to be “well settled.” Tisdale did not engage in any reasoned and thoughtful legal and historical analysis of the “natural born Citizen” issue. Furthermore, none of the other cases cited by the Tisdale court support its position that a “natural born Citizen” includes a child born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his or her parents.

Note that Woodman provides us with no historical sources from the Founding that support his position.

Running out of authorities for his position, Woodman then tries to prove his point with poor logic. Here is John Woodman trying to convince us that a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” is the equivalent of an Article II “natural born citizen.” Woodman says in his cited article: “No court has ever held that the 14th Amendment, in calling people born in the United States ‘citizens,’ meant that it intended in any way to exclude any such persons from being ‘natural born’” (emphasis in the original).

This is what Woodman is saying with this statement: Because no court ever said that a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” is excluded as being an Article II “natural born Citizen,” no such court ever intended to do so. Hence, a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” is included as an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

You know that people like Woodman are really desperate when they attempt to prove that a court included a person in its definition of a term only because it did not expressly exclude that person from that definition. Here is Woodman’s logic seen more plainly: I like pizza. I did not say I do not like ice cream. Therefore, I also like ice cream.

To bad that Woodman does not provide us with some real evidence of his position other than trying to prove his point with cases that do not help him and with little word games that make no logical sense.

MichaelN said...

MichaelN said .....

"Poe was ruled a natural born citizen, due to his FATHER being recognized as a citizen."

Loren said .............
That's swell...and totally inconsistent with what Charles said. He wrote:

"[The Supreme Court of the Philippines] confirmed that a natural born Citizen is one born in the country to two citizens (born or naturalized citizens) of that country."

You, on the other hand, point out that the court held that Poe was a natural born Citizen because ONE parent was a Filipino citizen. Not TWO.
-------------------

Response-

Loren, that particular case was decided in light of the child being born "illegitimate".
Had the mother been married to the Phillipino citizen father, she may well have been a citizen also.

But we are not here to discuss Charles.

Now let's get this straight, the "one parent" happened to be the FATHER and what is more, the "natural born" citizenship was due by DESCENT from the FATHER.

In the framing period of the USC, and only three years later in 1790, this is what was THE MOST ESSENTIAL quality in the recognition of "natural born".

DESCENT was THE paramount quality in the minds and intentions of the founding fathers and the framers, it was also THE PARAMOUNT element in what "natural born" described.

i.e. In the minds of the framers the word and meaning of "natural" was all about DESCENT.

The proof can be seen, not only because the framers CHOSE "natural" RATHER THAN "native" to describe eligibility for POTUS, but also by the fact that the US Congress and Senate, only three years after the adoption of the USC in 1787, first used the term "natural born" to describe a child born off-shore to US citizen parents, thus stating that "natural born" was due PRIMARILY by DESCENT, then in 1795 the Congress and the Senate dropped the wording "natural born" not because the DESCENT principle was dropped, as they still made the child born off-shore to US citizen parents a "citizen" BY DESCENT.

The only possible reason the wording was dropped and did not appear in the Naturalization Act of 1795, must have been that "natural born Citizen" MEANT MORE THAN being being "natural" by DESCENT and thus native birth was also required to meet with the common-sense high standard for security and protection of the office of POTUS from any foreign influence, allegiance or claim that was set by the framers in their great wisdom.

The notion that the framers were so slack and derelict in their duty and imperative to aim at a lower standard of security, is absolutely ABSURD and only lives in the minds of the politically biased who have no real respect for the US Constitution and it's inherent wealth of wisdom.

Ergo: to the framers, "natural" meant by descent and nothing more, and Article II "natural born Citizen" meant by natural descent AND by native birth.

The highest possible allegiance and thus the most secure US citizen for eligibility for the office of POTUS and commander in chief.

You know this makes sense and is TRUE!

Stranger said...

Stranger/AR Nash @ February 8, 2012 2:27 AM, Everything in this post that you assume I believe and have argued is false. Everything that you've argued is what I have also argued. The 14th Amendment comment that you misconstued was in regard to statutory citizenship vs constitutional citizenship, not naturalization citizenship vs natural citizenship.

"McCain, because he was born in Panama to parents serving our national defense, is under Vattel Section 217 reputed born in the United States" In a dream world in which Vattel is U.S. law. How can an intelligent person such as yourself make a connection that like when it does not exist? I know you're not guilty of obfuscation but it seems you're a victim of drinking the Kool-Aid of self-asserted certainly, even in the absence of fact and logic.
You proclaim that "one must be born in the United States to citizen parents in order to be a "natural born Citizen" and yet you have offered not a sinlge paper to justify such a view based on natural law, while I have penned tens of thousands of words proving your groundless view to be incorrect. The ball is in your court to prove by logic, common sense, and principles of natural law that my conclusions and assertions are incorrect and yours are completely valid. I won't ask you to do that because I know that it's an impossible task, like trying to prove that the Earth is the center of the solar system.

"How can the government in the grand sense exercise jurisdition over itself?" I didn't speak in "the grand sense" so why insert that? The judiciary exerts authority over congressional law, the Executive branch exerts authority over the administration of law, including that mandated by both the Congress and the Court. The Congress exerts authority via legislation over the administration of it's laws, including naturalization legislation. Why am I having to tell you this when you already know it? Because your thinking is defensive in nature and not logical. I have nothing in this race but you have much, having formulated a definition that does not truly exist but must be defended nevertheless regardless of its revealed logic error.

And Huntsman suffers from a similar ailment of making presumptuous assertions based on nothing but the misguided opinions of some of the flawed men that sat on the Supreme Court duing the Wong case. Their opinions change nothing in regard to what the fundamental truth is. It is what it is even if authorities are not aware of what it is. Anyone who calls a child of foreign parents a natural citizen of any country other than his parents' country is a complete fool and is oblivious to the meaning of the word "natural".

SEVEN LIES that perpetuate Obama’s illegitimacy.

Lie #1. Anyone born in the U.S. is a citizen from birth.
Lie #2 Anyone who’s a citizen from birth and can prove it is a natural born citizen.
Lie #3. Anyone with “proof” of a U.S. birth is “officially” eligible for any elected office.
Lie #4. Any citizen born in the U.S. is eligible to be President.
Lie#5. Natural citizenship is the same as constitutional citizenship
Lie#6. All born citizens are alike, whether born to foreigners or Americans.
Lie#7. Foreigners can be President if they’re born in the United States.
Gullible? Ignorant? Stupid? A combination of the three?
http://obama--nation.com DISSECTING THE “DEFINITION” OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

MichaelN said...

Basically, "natural born Citizen" in the context of USC Article II, means BOTH by descent and by native birth.

It is impossible for the word "natural", as it is used in Article II, to mean solely native born, due to the fact that only three years after the adoption of the USC, "natural born" was used in the first Naturalization Act of 1790 to describe a child born NON-NATIVE, such a child who was born outside the limits of the US was termed "natural born" solely based on DESCENT.

The entire argument that the framers, in Article II of the USC, meant for "natural" to mean "native" without any regard for the citizenship of the parents dissolves.

Now I suggest all you silly Obama-worshipping fools go home and swallow the truth, muster some patriotism, then come back and join-in to figure a way to get this lying criminal out of the White House at least for the sake of your descendants.

Puzo1 said...

Starnger/A.R. Nash,

You keep repeating your points over and over again, even adjusting your arguments and words based on what you learn here.

I repeat, both Minor and Wong Kim Ark, two U.S. Supreme Court cases, tell us that a child must be "born in the country" to citizen parents be a "natural born Citizen."

Loren said...

@MichaelN

"But we are not here to discuss Charles."

No, that's *exactly* the reason I'm here.

Charles said the Supreme Court of the Philippines said that a natural-born citizen MUST have two citizen parents.

I cited a case, from just a few years ago, where that court came to a very different conclusion, and held that ONE citizen parent was sufficient. Even if the parents weren't married.

So I was interested in knowing what Supreme Court case Charles was referring to.

And if you'd like to help him out and share such a case that ruled the way he described, feel free to do so.

Stranger said...

"After the adoption of the Constitution, only the former (nbc) was eligible to be President." Sometimes we are tired and get confused. But still I can't comprehend how you could say that, tired or not. After the adoption of the Constitution, BOTH were eligible until all of the Citizens of the United States who were not natural-born had died. That is part of the Constitution. Why am I having to tell you this? I assume that simply slipped your mind. No big deal. But I also don't get how you don't get that all Natural Born Citizens are also Citizens of the United States, though the reverse certainly is not true. Do you disagree? I don't think that's possible.

"For you to suggest that when Congress wrote "citizen of the United States" in the Naturalization Act of 1795 or any Act for that matter, they also secretly meant "natural born Citizen" is utter nonsense. "

I don't suggest such nonsense. I suggest and assert that they meant "citizen of the United States" only, but you are making a huge logic error in labeling that description as something other than a description that only means what the words mean, and nothing more. All natural Americans are also Americans. All natural citizens are also citizens. This isn't some arcane legal-priesthood language that has only a legal meaning. It's common English that everyone can understand. And I do understand it. Are you suggesting I don't?
It's a mistake to ever confuse the dichotomy of ~Citizen vs Foreigner~ with ~Citizen vs Natural Citizen~. The 14th Amendment dealt with Citizen vs Non-Citizen. It had no connection to presidential eligibility. Citizenship via the automatic naturalization of the 14th A. is Constitutional citizenship and not Natural citizenship regardless of whether or not it is secured by the Constitution. No one's opinion can make it natural, whether it be that of Congress, the President, the SCOTUS, or the Pope. Take that fact and use it as a hammer. Skip the irrelevant detour of the jus soli-plus-jus sanguinis citizenship theory because there's no U.S. authority, nor human authority, to "prove" it. Only jus sanguinis is natural. regardless of the obsequious sycophants of the King of England who labeled everyone born in His Royal Highness' domain to be his "natural subjects" (bs!) even if born to visiting foreigners.

MichaelN said...

@ Loren.

It's moot pursuing what the Phillipinos do or don't, since I have shown you that in the US, where it MATTERS, it is IMPOSSIBLE for "natural" in the context of Article II to mean solely native.

It can only mean both by natural descent and by native birth, but never did or does it mean solely native.

MichaelN said...

MichaelN

"But we are not here to discuss Charles."
----------------------

Loren said...

No, that's *exactly* the reason I'm here.

Charles said the Supreme Court of the Philippines said that a natural-born citizen MUST have two citizen parents.
------------------------

Response:

Maybe Charles was mistaken.

Frankly I don't give a damn.

I have shown you that it was by DESCENT that one is a "natural born" in the Phillipines.

This should be enough to illustrate what Charles was alluding to, i.e. that native birth just ain't good enough either in US and the Phillipines and that in BOTH nations the FATHER'S citizen status is ESSENTIAL.

Stranger said...

"But you fail to understand that positive law can change natural law." That is impossible. Natural law is immutable like the law of gravity. Humans can't alter the laws of nature nor the principles derived from nature. All they can do is conform to Natural Law or violate it, -they can not alter it. You seem to think that the power to legislate is a power far greater than it actually is. Government has no legitimate authority to violate the Laws of Nature and Nature's God, but they can and do sometimes, especially if they sit on the Supreme Court.
"Wong Kim Ark has confirmed that any child "born out the country" can only be a "citizen" by satisfying a Congressional naturalization statute."
Again, no authority and none expressed. "Confirmed"? How? There is no authority on earth that can "confirm" an abstract philosophical construct. All humans can do is confirm what their eyes see. That is not theoretical. Citizenship is. Without the principle of the law of natural membership there is no basis for citizenship. But who understands that law today? Do you? It appears that you do not. If you wished to educate yourself in regard to it, you could start by reading: http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2011/08/origins-of-citizenship.pdf It's title sounds like a good place to start but I've written so many treatises on the subject that I can't remember what each is focused on. The latest one was recently published by the PatriotPost.us
A Man Called Horse & A Man Called President http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2011/12/29/man-called-president/
It would serve to inform and educate you regarding things that you already know but have never put together.
"any child "born out the country" can only be a "citizen" by satisfying a Congressional naturalization statute." The error of that statement is in the use of the word "any" which is all-inclusive, including children of aliens and children of Americans, and therefore ambiguous because it lacks sufficiently definitive language. The statement is 100% true regarding the former, and 100% false regarding the latter.
Congress has no Constitutional authority to legislate anything in regard to the citizenship of natural American. Their authority only covers foreigners and their children. Foreign born Americans ARE NOT FOREIGNERS! They are Americans! All Congress can do is include language aimed at the INS and State Dept. to protect their rights. After you experience your wife bringing a son into this world on the Canadian side of Niagara Falls, then you can tell us how you view him as not being a natural American like his siblings because he is tainted with foreign alienage. Understand this; Alienage does not come from foreign soil, but from foreign parents. Wake up! Similarly, American patriotism does not come from American borders but from American parents, and what they teach their young.

Stranger said...

"On whether Minor gave us a definition of a “natural-born citizen,” when a court decision or a statute provides a definition of a thing, the elements of the definition given are not provided with an additional statement that they are each necessary and sufficient conditions comprising the thing defined."
Being an attorney, your perspective is skewed by thinking only in terms of the Court's practice rather than in terms of the real world. In the real world, what the court does in regard to a definition is irrelevant. It can follow the rules or make up its own rules, yet the rules remain the rules. From "A Dissection of the "Definition" of Natural Born Citizen" " Logic argues that being "almost" something is not the same as being totally authentic, -being gold is not the same as being pure gold. Qualifiers provide that which every definition requires, and that is specificity. Without specificity a description is not a definitive definition. Qualifiers are what make the difference between a general description and a true definition. The two qualifiers of foremost importance are "All" and "Only" Definitions are harmed by redundancy, but they are harmed more by ambiguity. Example without qualifiers:
Pregnant persons are females. Conclusion: females are defined as pregnant persons.
Example with qualifiers:
Only females can be pregnant persons, Conclusion: pregnant persons can only be female.

-Some females sometimes are pregnant persons. Conclusion: pregnant persons are a subset of females and they are not always pregnant.

False logic: Pregnant persons sometimes are female and sometimes not.
cont...http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/dissection-of-nb/

Stranger said...

You wrote: "But you fail to understand that positive law can change natural law. Our Congress since 1795 has determined that any child born abroad to "citizen" parents is only a "citizen," and not a "natural born Citizen."

I, like you, missed the implications of this statement the first go-round. What it is unintentionally implying is that natural citizenship is not an unalienable natural right but is something granted by government, as it seemed to do in the 1790 Naturalization Act which required in effect the executive branch to consider foreign-born Americans to be natural born citizens. But with the dropping of "natural born" in later versions, you've made the horrible chess move of describing the power of Congress as including the power to make and unmake natural citizens! So by your ill-considered conclusion, you've told us that Congress has more authority than Nature's God and the Constitution. 1790...Congress "creates" foreign-born natural citizens. 1795...Congress strips such children of their natural-born status. So natural citizenship is within the authority of Congress to grant or rescind. Wow! That's a new one no one saw coming. And here I've been believing that it's beyond the power of government to grant or rescind, like the right to life, liberty, and property. Gee, I guess I was wrong and you were right.

Stranger said...

Mario wrote: "Congress has no constitutional power to change the constitutional definition of a “natural born citizen”
Whatever you're smoking, don't get it near me. But seriously, I'm bold enough to assert that what you meant to say was "the SCOTUS definition of a..." I wouldn't bet for a minute that you don't know that there is no "constitutional definition"

Stranger said...

MichaelN said...
"Basically, "natural born Citizen" in the context of USC Article II, means BOTH by descent and by native birth."

You offer some quality logic for believing that native birth is required for nbc status. But there's a problem,..it doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny. If you are willing to look deeper and find the not-so-obvious truth, read some of the essays that I written in regard to that topic and related ones. You won't come away still believing in what seems reasonable on the surface though its logic is seriously flawed. http://obama--nation.com

HOW MARCO RUBIO COULD DESTROY THE APPLE CART re-edited

New: ~DISSECTING THE “DEFINITION” OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

A TALE OF A DEAD PRESIDENT & HIS TWIN BROTHER’S CHARADE

~AN ERRONEOUS “DEFINITION” OF NATURAL BORN CITIZEN

THE MISCONSTRUENCE OF MINOR V HAPPERSETT

OPEN LETTER TO LEO DONOFRIO, Esq.

NATURAL CITIZENSHIP vs CITIZENSHIP BY SUBSTITUTION re-edited

~ WHO IS A NATURAL AMERICAN and WHO IS NOT?

The Audacity of Fraud; An Unnatural American President

~Obama: A Citizen by Grace & President by Fraud

The Constitutional Truth About An Unconstitutional President

The End of Eden & The Rise of Obama

A Citizenship Primer

A Man Called Horse & A Man Called President

A Natural Born Native
A.R.Nash

Stranger said...

Regarding Obama's purely British nationality at birth due to his mother's possible expatriation by marriage, there isn't any question about what the law was nor what the view of the Supreme Court was. What those who've actually read what I discovered know is that it's a matter of what the declared policy of the Attorney General, INS and State Dept was. Did they or did they not follow the law or did they follow only their tradition of naturalization by marriage for foreign women, and expatriation by marriage for American women. The statement clearly given by the Attorney General in 1969 was that it was not the policy of the government to follow the clear implications of the Supreme Court rulings and the national law. It seemed that as with Wong Kim Ark, they would have to be sued to change their policy. No one has read what it says there and offered any opinion yet, thus ignoring the biggest issue of all. Was Obama even a U.S. citizen at birth by the official policy of the executive branch which administered such issues? What question is more loaded than that? How could one be a born citizen, much less a natural born citizen if they were not even a citizen at all?
The question isn't the constitutional one. Instead it is: How did the Attorney General view a child such as Obama in 1961, -as an American or as a Britain? Only the AG's view would determine his citizenship status, not the 14th Amendment or the SCOTUS view.
Obama would not have been a 14th Amendment citizen during any period in which the executive-branch services followed expatriation by marriage. He would have been purely a British subject. That includes the period when the 14th A. was passed. When it was passed, Obama would not have been born as an American because his father was not an immigrant, and his mother would have been a British subject. Citizenship only passed by descent from the father in 1868. No one who would not have even been a citizen in any epoch of U.S. history can be a natural American citizen today. That would require magic.

Stranger said...

Dear Mario, you wrote:You should read all the words that I write. Those born before the Constitution was adopted and who were “Citizens of the United States” at the time the Constitution was adopted, were eligible to be President.

Semantics is sometimes everything. So I'll toss your own words back at you and say *you* should read what you've written before ignoring your own quote, which is:
"After the adoption of the Constitution, only the former (nbc) was eligible to be President." which I knew that you knew was not a correctly worded statement and that's why I corrected it. Wasn't it about 10-11 who served as President who were not nbc? The way you restated the facts is of course correct but the quote that I referred to wasn't. So the one who misread your words was not me.
"In the United States, through a combination of natural law and positive law, it has been long established that the constitutional definition of a “natural born Citizen” is..."
That sounds so smooth and facilely true, but unfortunately most of it is inaccurate. First, there's no such thing as a combination of natural law and positive law. They are totally different natures and can't be combined, any more than sky and land can be combined. Positive law is just that 100%.
"..it has been long established.." Nothing has been established or else we could all switch to playing video games and watching TV. That which you believe has been "defined" wasn't until 1875, but it can't conceivably be called a "constitutional definition", yet you persist in using that term. Where in the Constitution is this "definition" found? An individual legal opinion doesn't constitute a "constitutional definition". Bluster and blather do not amount to concrete truth.
Please religiously adhere to accurate statements because anything less can be an Achilles heal sometime, someplace down the road.
Mere observations and descriptions do not constitute fundamental law regardless of who quotes them. Only direct Supreme Court rulings do that. They seek to apply principles and they make those principles known. They then become the law of the land. Those principles can be identified, but a combination of opposing principles does not constitute a principle but instead a mish-mash hybrid that has no basis in logic or nature. [I've penned tens of 1000s of words revealing the absurdity of jus soli, -but it's a zombie that will never die] A.R.Nash

Ray said...

** My apologies if this is a duplicate post, I am having difficulties with the word verification function - it always issues a rejection error. I have tried openid (nativeversusnatural.wordpress.com) and will now try google account. **


Stranger @February 10, 2012 4:03 AM

What you are describing would be true in a state of nature. The child, by nature, belongs to the parents.

When families coalesce into tribes/nations they form governments to protect their natural rights. The individuals of that nation are its citizens.

The necessary element for the existence of citizenship is a government.

Conversly, without a government there is a collection of persons existing in a state of nature.

"Nature doesn't care where an off-spring enters this world. It is a natural off-spring regardless. Same with natural citizens." - Yes, nature does not care, but governments do and government is a requisite condition for citizenship to exist.

"Natural born citizen" is dependant upon both place and blood.

"Natural born" by blood, "citizen" by government.

Sometimes approaching things as successive building blocks is useful. The following may help:

http://nativeversusnatural.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/natural-rights-natural-law-and-natural-born/

Puzo1 said...

Stranger/A.R. Nash,

You should read all the words that I write. Those born before the Constitution was adopted and who were “Citizens of the United States” at the time the Constitution was adopted, were eligible to be President. Those born after the adoption of the Constitution have to be not only “Citizens of the United States,” but also “natural born Citizens” to be eligible to be President. If a person born after the adoption of the Constitution is only a “Citizen of the United States” and not also a “natural born Citizen,” then that person is not eligible to be President.

Hence, today, with the Article II grandfather clause having long expired, to be eligible to be President, one must not only show that he or she is a “Citizen of the United States.” Rather, one must also show that he or she is a “natural born Citizen.” Under this clause, any person who is just a “Citizen of the United States” and also not a “natural born Citizen” is not eligible to be President. And only a person who is born in the country to citizen parents can be a “natural born Citizen.” So if a person is not born in the country to citizen parents, that person is not eligible to be President.

You do not need to lecture me about “automatic naturalization of the 14th Amendment.” I wrote about that on this blog a long time ago.

You said “[o]nly jus sanguinis is natural.” But natural law gives a government the right to make positive law for the safety and happiness of the people it serves which can abrogate that natural law. For example, in natural law, the strongest survive and take possession of all they can. But not so under positive law, which factors in other elements such as laws that protect life, liberty, and property which affect whether and how a person should survive and what a person can possess.

thalightguy said...

AGREEMENT AMONG THE STATES TO ELECT THE PRESIDENT BY NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE

Nine States have already made it law.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/about.php

The Electoral College was put in place as the final check and balance for electing the U.S. President.

Maybe someone can explain how it is Constitutional for a State to pass a law telling their elector how to vote?

Puzo1 said...

Stranger/A.R. Nash @February 10, 2012 11:25 PM,

You have a view of natural law and government with which I do not agree.

To talk about citizenship only from the standpoint of natural law is to tell only part of the story.

Pure natural law only exists in a state of nature.

Citizenship is not, as you propose, in and of itself a natural law construct, for citizenship does not exist in a state of nature.

Citizenship as we know it, comes into being from the nation state.

When man joins together for his advantage, he creates civil society. All those who chose to become part of that society and who are welcomed to join are its members. To further their advantage, they create government. To keep things fair and balanced in the distribution of limited resources and to appropriately assign obligations, to protect their life, liberty, and property, and to promote their happiness, they also through chosen government institutions make laws. It is the people themselves who create that society, who become its members, and who give their government the authority to make those laws. In this socialization process, it goes without saying that the people’s positive laws change the laws of nature. And what the members of that society create through those positive laws is the organized nation state.

Two of the earliest societies that incorporated notions of citizenship into their nation states were the Greek and Roman. There may be more nation states before the Greek and Romans that used citizenship. Maybe someone may want to add to this on this point.

In the Western World civil society’s members have been called either citizens or subjects, depending on what form of government the civil society has imposed upon it by a select few or selects by consent of the governed.

So, we have seen that the nation state does not exist in a state of nature. Rather, it is a construct of positive law. Indeed, as Vattel instructs, natural law applied to the affairs of nations is the law of nations.

Hence, citizenship existing only at the behest of the nation state as a means to identify membership in and allegiance to that nation, and needing the comity of nations to be so recognized and often the subject of treaties between nations, it is the law of nations that initially defines citizenship. Starting with the notion of citizenship as provided by the law of nations, a sovereign nation has the power and authority to determine through its positive or municipal laws who shall be its members. Consistent with this sovereign right, Congress has always treated children born in foreign nations to U.S. citizen parents differently than it does children born in the United States to alien parents. And as we can see from Vattel, Section 212, that law of nations has combined natural law and positive law to define what is a “natural born Citizen.” This time-honored natural law/law of nations/American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” has been recognized and accepted by our U.S. Supreme Court. Two of these cases are Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).
You comment about me saying “‘any child born out the country can only be a citizen by satisfying a Congressional naturalization statute’" is baseless. I said “satisfying a Congressional naturalization statue.” Therefore, anyone who can read can see that “any child” is qualified by and must satisfy any applicable “Congressional naturalization statue.”

MichaelN said...

Reality Check's comfort-blanket & haven of traitors and generally nasty character assassins.

http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/mario-time-to-putz-up-or-shut-up/#comment-707

Jack said...

I know this isn't a legal argument but its interesting trivia.

I routinely post links to the constitution @ www.archives.gov and noticed they hyerlink all changes made by amendments, A2,S1,C5 is not linked to the 14th.

Again just some interesting to me trivia.

Puzo1 said...

Stranger/A.R. Nash @February 11, 2012 12:10 AM,

The Framers wrote a constitution, not a documents that needs to be dissected by a book on logic. It needs to be read with common sense.

Only if someone is a "natural born Citizen," at least 35 years old, and at least a 14-year U.S. resident may he/she be eligible to be President.

There is only one definition of a "natural born Citizen," like there is only one definition of 35 years old and 14 years residency.

The definition of a "natural born Citizen" does not keep changing with time. It is fixed.

That definition is a child born in the country to citizen parents.

Puzo1 said...

Stranger/A.R. Nash @February 11, 2012 12:34 AM,

You do not have the correct understanding of the power of Congress to affect the meaning of a "natural born Citizen."

If a person is born in the country to citizen parents, Congress has no power to change that "natural born Citizen" status.

If someone is either not born in the country or not born to citizen parents, then Congress has naturalization power over the citizenship status of that person because that person in either case was born with alienage upon which Congress can act.

Puzo1 said...

Stranger/A.R. Nash @February 11, 2012 12:42 AM,

The Constitution is based on common sense. It is not a document to be read through the lense of Obotic logical manipulation asserted for the purpose of achieving a political objective.

Puzo1 said...

Stranger/A.R. Nash,

You said that natural law and positive law cannot be combined. That really makes no sense and your error is staring you right in the face. Do you not think that the "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen" comes from positive law? It really is silly for you to argue that a "citizen" existed in a state of nature.

You go on and on with your personal opinions about natural law. You are going to have to cite some authority for your opinions.

By the way, you continue with your rants but I am not yet aware of your definition of a "natural born Citizen." Why do you not share your definition with us. Hopefully it is not Obotic.

Stranger said...

Ray said...
""Natural born citizen" is dependent upon both place and blood.
"Natural born" by blood, "citizen" by government."

That sound logical, but it also seemed logical that the world was flat.
Unperceived facts must be recognized to determine the truth.
NBC is a concept base solely on Natural Law and not the legislated acts of government, nor on the Constitution. Those are the rules of men.
A citizen by natural law is not a citizen by the rules of government. Men have no authority to make rules regarding natural citizenship, and that is why none exist.
It is and always will be an unalienable right, -a natural right of membership in the group to which one's parents belong.
The government does not grant citizenship to natural citizens, rather they grant the authority for the government to exist. They do not exist for it, it exists for them.

All outsiders need the permission of the government of the native members in order to join their society. All membership which requires permission is via naturalization, not via natural principle.
No naturalization law pertains to natural citizens.
No law pertains to providing citizenship to natural citizens. They are born into it. It can't be given by men nor rescinded. It can only be abandoned, all the government can do is to acknowledge that abandonment.
A.R.Nash http://obama--nation.com

Stranger said...

Mario said: "But natural law gives a government the right to make positive law" Apparently we have very different ideas about what constitutes natural law because in my universal natural law does not "give" anything any more than the laws of physics give anything. Principles do not makes grants. They simply exist,immutable, unchanging. It is the wisdom of intelligent men to make extrapolations from nature and incorporate natural principles as the natural basis for the conventions and rules of society. But I don't know anything about any concept that natural law can grant permission to man-made government to ignore the principles of nature. You'll have to explain that one to me.

Stranger said...

Your description of the formation of societies and governments was very clearly and logically presented. A keeper. But from my different perspective I perceive things that are missing.
Mario wrote: "You have a view of natural law and government with which I do not agree. " True, but eventually I believe you will realize the truth about America and it isn't the same as what's true for other societies or governments. The place to begin is with the all-pervasive presence of the consciousness of Divine Law, the Laws of God and Christ, and second to them the law of natural principles. This consciousness is what was behind the Declaration of Independence referring to the Laws of Nature and Nature's God.
Atheist societies, and pagan societies lacked such a high spiritual plane of thinking about human value, human responsibility, and human rights.
Among those rights are certain unalienable rights, among which is the natural right of membership. In animal and human societies, the off-spring are born into the group. The group possess no right to reject them and never does. They don't need the groups permission to be members because they are members by birth, by parentage, by descent. No society, from the tribal to the organized, ever asserts any right to grant membership to its natural members. That would be an unthinkable thought because their membership is unalienable. Any who wish to join to a group of natural members requires their consent, and that consent is given in the form of naturalization rules. Read: A Man Called Horse and A Man Called President, or read "Obama & Jesus, Two UnNatural Hybrids" for an interesting lesson in group membership.

"So, we have seen that the nation state does not exist in a state of nature. Rather, it is a construct of positive law."
Also, we have seen that positive law is a construct derived from natural law which in the Christian Protestant universe includes Natural Rights. Positive law does not exist in a vacuum devoid of natural principles and biblical law. Most western law has strong roots in the Church Law, which is another vast expanse of law which has been mostly forgotten. a.r. nash

Stranger said...

Mario wrote: "If someone is either not born in the country or not born to citizen parents, then Congress has naturalization power over the citizenship status of that person because that person in either case was born with alienage upon which Congress can act."

Allow me to correct the flawed logic in that statement. Alienage is something derived solely from alien parentage, NOT from alien soil. Only an alien father can produce alienage in the United States throughout most of its history because of naturalization by marriage.
As for the naturalization power of Congress, it extends only over those who need naturalizing, which is foreigners and those born to them. It has no legitimate authority over the citizenship of anyone outside of the United States unless one of the parents is a foreigner. If neither are foreigners, but are Americans, then Congress has no authority to regulate their citizenship because they are natural Americans just like all the rest and do not require any form of naturalization.
The Congress has no authority over the citizenship of anyone "not born to citizen parents,".

Think about that one. The reason is because they are either not in America, or are here but not subject to U.S. jurisdiction, or were born here and therefore are not subject to Congress because their citizenship is not per the Civil Rights Act of 1866 but per the 14th Amendment, and Congress has no say in 14thAmendment constitutional citizenship. Do you agree? I assume you do.

Stranger said...

Regarding my previous statement about Congress not having authority to legislate as to the citizenship of those not born to U.S. parents, I wasn't contemplating the foreign born to non-citizens but only the domestically born to non-citizens.

Mario said: "The Constitution is based on common sense. It is not a document to be read through the lense of Obotic logical manipulation asserted for the purpose of achieving a political objective." Amen to that brother. That is what I've been asserting. I gather from that out-of-the-blue comment that you still have not read anything that I've written and pointed to you but chose to guessimate what it must say and gamble that you'd be correct. You weren't. And your were wrong.
But I've argued that contortions of logic resorted to in order to manipulate the meaning of a general observation is a case of error in logic. But that error is not ascribed to political manipulation but to the blind spot that results from subjectivity rather than Vulcan-like totally objective clarity.

"The definition of a "natural born Citizen" does not keep changing with time. It is fixed."
I'd agree if I agreed that a definition even exists. I do believe one does exist but you think of it as something pronounced by the sterling august authority of wise men while I argue that it is only definable via natural law and not opinion or observation of the common place reality everywhere on earth.

Stranger said...

Mario wrote: "Do you not think that the "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen" comes from positive law? It really is silly for you to argue that a "citizen" existed in a state of nature."

Citizenship is an abstract idea until you connect it to something real.
I'll refer you to natural law which is what Vattel referred to for many of his observations. If you recall he stated that citizenship is nothing more than membership in a group. I've written more about group membership and its relationship to citizens than anyone ever. Before Obama arose there wasn't much point to doing so but since then there's been a huge point in doing so. Because by the law of group membership he is shown to not be a natural citizen since no one with an outsider for a father will be born as a natural member of any group but will be allowed to be part of the group only by its permission, not by natural right.

"You go on and on with your personal opinions about natural law. You are going to have to cite some authority for your opinions."
Dear Mario, you've cut straight to the heart of the matter. The reason I've come to speak with authority is that I've come to recognize the fact that there is no authority except Reason itself. No human is an authority that can alter natural law, we can only observe it and describe it. Anyone with eyes and a brain can speak and write with the authority of what they've seen, learned, and surmised from that. Citing to the authority of flawed, imperfect men with legal backgrounds isn't much removed from citing to the authority of the mobster who asks: Who you gonna believe, me? or your lying eyes? We all should prefer our own lying eyes. They see things as they really are.

"I am not yet aware of your definition of a "natural born Citizen."
Simple. The off-spring of citizens. Eskimos give birth to Eskimos, Jews give birth to Jews, Americans give birth to Americans. That's the primary lesson of membership that one can draw from natural law. Anything else is an added appendage.

Today I wrote my final word on the nature of the dispute between us. I would have shared it tonight but had so much to reply to that I'm postponing it until tomorrow sometime. Then I won't be back until you write a new article and post it as a new blog page. My interest in the issue of Obama's ineligibility will remain as high as ever but I've reached the point where I've said everything there is to say to explain that which is so simple that any child can understand it. Now it's up to others to read and comprehend or read and not comprehend. I for one cannot comprehend not comprehending something so plain and clear.
A.R. Nash http://obama--nation.com

MichaelN said...

MichaelN said...
"Basically, "natural born Citizen" in the context of USC Article II, means BOTH by descent and by native birth."
------------------------------
Stranger replied .........
You offer some quality logic for believing that native birth is required for nbc status. But there's a problem,..it doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny.
------------------------------
Response:
In the framing period, it is obvious that the POTUS would have to be a citizen.

The additionally that citizen was required to be "natural born".

In 1790 the US Congress and Senate, with some of their sitting members, being the very same people who were responsible for the US Constitution, termed a child born off-shore, to US citizen parents, a "natural born citizen" by natural descent in the absence of native US birth.

In the subsequent naturalization act of 1795 they termed a child born in the same circumstances, a "citizen", omitting the term "natural born", but still the child gained their "citizen" status by natural descent.

What do you suppose the reason was for the change?............. discuss.

Carlyle said...

@ thalightguy said...

Maybe someone can explain how it is Constitutional for a State to pass a law telling their elector how to vote?

=======================================

You hit on a VERY sore point and a VERY important one. But unfortunately that train left the station decades ago. I too believe it is an EXTREME perversion of the constitution, but what are you going to do about it?

Clearly the Founding Fathers intended the Electors to come together as a committee with no bias and no preconceived disposition and debate and then select the President.

But modern practice has the Electors to be pre-committed -- or at least pre-conditioned -- to vote a certain way. Once you get over that hurdle, the amount of pre-conditioning or the mechanism (or scoring) for the bias is immaterial.

I strongly believe the Republic cannot be restored until proper constitutional voting is done and Senators are elected by States, not People. I don't believe a Republic can be made to work otherwise. We end up being just a Popular Democracy (i.e. a Mob).

But that's just me.

Puzo1 said...

Stranger/A.R. Nash,

You will soon have my answer in a new essay that I will publish shortly.

Jack said...

I often ask people who state Congress has the power to change the definitions of words, terms, phrases, clauses in the Constitution by Acts of Congress and not Amendments;

What would you do if Congress changed the definition of the words, slave, person, elections, citizen, state, meeting, bill, science, useful arts, warrants, search, seizure, exercise, crime, public, involuntary, servitude, and trial?

Because a few decades of poor instruction in law schools that are now designed to separate American Law from the Constitution and replace it with judicial precedent doesn't change the definition of NBC.

I always wonder why the Obama is a NBC crowd doesn't recognize A1,S8,C10 as meaning the Law of Nations authored by Vattel as just as likely as being Laws between Nations?

Since there was no convening authority for trial against claims made by other nations, and according to Al Gore that precludes any actionable claims [statement made during Clinton election funding crimes], then it's just as likely A1,S8,C10 means Vattel’s Law of Nations.

Puzo1 said...

Below you will find a comment that MichaelN left for Supreme Obot, Reality Check, at his Obamaton Den where he and his lapping buddies are actively trashing me. Read and enjoy:

"What is it about the fact that the framers of the USC didn't use Black's Law Dictionary that you don't get? What is it about the fact that the term 'natural born Citizen' was a unique construct of the framers without ANY precedent, that you don't get? What is it about the fact that in and around the framing period, as far as the framers, the US Congress & Senate were concerned, the term "natural born" primarily meant by natural decent and by looking into the first two naturalization acts in proves that 'natural born' could not have possible have meant solely native to the exclusion of natural descent, that you don't get? What is it about the fact that the framers, who had a extremely high level of education, chose to use the term 'natural born' rather than 'native born' in the Article POTUS eligibility clause of the USC, that you don't get? What is it about the fact that Vattel was very popular and a huge influence on the framers in and about the framing period, that you don't get? What is it about the fact that the framers had an imperative to ensure only those with the least or no foreign allegiance, loyalty and claim should be eligible for the office of POTUS, that you don't get? What is it about the fact that the SCOTUS didn't rule WKA to be a 'natural born Citizen', that you don't get? What is it about the 14th Amendment not stating that all native born children were 'natural born Citizens', that you don't get? On second thought, don't bother answering, you do get it, your are just too deep into your commitment to political bias, too deep in denial and too damn dishonest to admit to the truth. But you have to live with that."

MichaleN February 12, 2012

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 218   Newer› Newest»