The Faux Claims of John Woodman Regarding the “Natural Born Citizen”
Clause
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 2, 2012
What is hilarious is how John Woodman, who claims to be a conservative Republican, is running around the internet proclaiming that he has saved the United States, its Constitution, and not only putative President Barack Obama, but also Republicans, Sen. Marco Rubio and Sen. Bobby Jindal (all three were not born to citizen parents, both of whom are citizens of the United States at the time of their birth) from the “Birthers.” He adds that he has proven that Attorney Leo Donofrio’s and my position on the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is nothing but “lies.”
There is plenty of historical evidence that I have provided which shows that John Woodman is nothing more than a creation of his own mind and rhetoric. I have shown that history and legal precedents do not support what he and some others maintain is the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., any child simply born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of the parents. I have shown that at the Founding, unlike the states which put in place statutes and state constitutions which retained the English common law on the state level except to the degree those laws were abrogated by the state legislature, the national government did not adopt the English common law for the needs of the national government, but rather the law of nations which was natural law applied to the affairs of nations. In fact, unlike the states, there is nothing in the Constitution or any Act of Congress which suggests that the English common law continued to have any effect on the national level. I have shown that in that connection, we adopted the definition of a “natural-born citizen” as provided by Emer de Vattel in his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758), where he tells us:
The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by
certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its
advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the
country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and
perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those
children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all
their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of
what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of
course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children
the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is
therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by
their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the
years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to
the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the
country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen;
for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth,
and not his country.
The definition that the law of nations provides, a definition that has been incorporated into American common law and recognized by Congress in 1790, 1795, 1802, and thereafter, is a child born in a country to citizen parents.
I have shown that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 makes a critical constitutional distinction between an Article I “Citizen of the United States” and an Article II “natural born Citizen.” I have shown that this distinction necessarily means that any U.S. citizen who is not a “natural born Citizen” is only a “Citizen of the United States,” a member of American society and nothing more. I have shown that the Founders and Framers gave us only one and only one definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” which is a child born in the country to parents, both of whom are citizens of the United States at the time of such birth. I have shown that the Founders and Framers sought to have a "strong check" on foreign and monarchial influence and to make sure that it stayed out of the administration of government and the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. I have shown that Congress, through the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, showed us through a process of elimination that only a child born in the country to citizen parents did not come within the naturalization reach of any of those laws which means that it was only that child which Congress deemed to be a “natural born Citizen.” I have shown that influential and highly respected Founders, David Ramsay and St. George Tucker, both limited birthright citizenship after July 4, 1776 to the children of citizens and that Tucker even maintained that the "civil right" to be elected president belonged only to the children of citizens. I have shown that throughout American history, there has been debate as to the doubtful meaning of a “citizen of the United States,” but never as to the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” whose meaning has never been in doubt.
This time-honored natural law/law of nations/American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen” has also been recognized and accepted by a Founder and member of our U.S. Supreme Court as early as 1814 in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Chief Justice John Marshall dissenting and concurring for other reasons). It was also again confirmed by Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830) and Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830). It was again confirmed by Justice Daniels in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). I have shown that the original American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen” was not changed by either the Fourteenth Amendment or U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649 (1898), which only deal with a “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the same original definition of a “natural born Citizen” was again expressly confirmed by the whole U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649 (1898), and a lower federal court in Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) and United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890). Finally, this same definition was implicitly confirmed by Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) and Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964).
My essays on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” can be found at this blog, http://puzo1.blogspot.com/. Additionally, I wrote a brief which Attorney Karen Keifer filed in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in the ballot challenge in the case of In Re: Barack Hussein Obama, II et al Objection of : Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. and Dale A. Laudenslager. That brief may be read at http://www.scribd.com/doc/83104811/Kerchner-Laudenslager-v-Obama-Ballot-Challenge-Brief-on-Behalf-of-Objectors-Filed-28Feb2012. That brief thoroughly presents the evidence showing that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the United States to citizen parents, both of whom are citizens of the United States at the time of such birth. Finally, on March 20, 2012, I filed a proposed amicus curiae brief in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Tisdale v. Obama, No. 3: 12-cv-00036-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012) (order dismissing complaint) (dismissing in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and holding that “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens” and that plaintiff’s contentions otherwise are “without merit”), which is currently pending in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia. That brief, which can be accessed at http://www.scribd.com/doc/86241834/Tisdale-v-Obama-4th-Cir-Appeal-2012-03-20-Apuzzo-Amicus-Brief , contains a shortened version of the evidence and my arguments showing that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the United States to citizen parents, both of whom are citizens of the United States at the time of such birth.
One of John Woodman’s latest attempts to discredit me and Mr. Donofrio is found in his article entitled, “Horace Binney Directly Refutes the Mario Apuzzo/ Leo Donofrio Lie that it Takes Two Citizen Parents to Make a Natural Born Citizen,” accessed at his blog http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/horace-binney-directly-refutes-the-mario-apuzzo-leo-donofrio-lie-that-it-takes-two-citizen-parents-to-make-a-natural-born-citizen/ . What John Woodman attempts to do is to say that I “lie” when I maintain that to not disturb the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” Wong Kim Ark distinguished between an Article II “natural born Citizen” and a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen.” Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark said, by quoting from a footnote included by Mr. Binney in his second edition of his paper:
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.
Id. at 665-66 (citing and quoting Horace Binney, The Alienigenae of the United States Under the Present Naturalization Laws (1853)). Later in his opinion when he provides his holding, Justice Gray again emphasized that 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.’” Id. at 693.
In 1898, a wife upon marriage automatically acquired the citizenship of her husband. Hence, the Court recognized that only a child born “in the country” to citizen parents can be a “natural-born citizen.” The Court said that while a child “born in the country” to citizen parents and a child “born in the country” to alien parents are both “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.” In other words for children born in the country, one born to citizens is a “natural born” citizen and one born to aliens is a “citizen.” The Court, citing and quoting its definition of a “natural-born citizen,” confirmed the definition of a “natural-born citizen” as put forth by Minor v. Happersett, which based that definition on American “common-law” and said “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens” (emphasis supplied). Id. at 167-68. And on defining a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment and the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause of that amendment, Wong Kim Ark relied upon the English common law and did not disturb Minor’s law of nations/American “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen.”
Now John Woodman wants to show that I am a “liar” by having the public view the first and third editions of Mr. Binney’s papers, but keeping from them the second edition which contains the above quoted language in the footnote by Mr. Binney. Here is the first edition, http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/4393418?n=1&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25&printThumbnails=no , and here is the third edition http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3301752.pdf?acceptTC=true& , which are the only two editions that John Woodman presents on his blog. A reading of these editions shows that the footnote does not contain the language quoted above. He does not present the second edition which is the only edition which contains the quoted language as part of the footnote and which Justice Gray relied upon in his Wong decision. The second edition can be read at Mr. Donofrio’s blog at http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/binney-2d.pdf.
Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark included the quoted Binney additional language from the second edition of Mr. Binney’s paper, even though the passage does not appear in either the first (December 1, 1853) or the third (Feb. 1854) editions of that paper. Justice Gray explained: “This paper, without Mr. Binney's name and with the note in a less complete form and not containing the passage last cited, was published (perhaps from the first edition) in the American Law Register for February, 1854. 2 Amer.Law Reg.193, 203, 204.” Id. at 666. As we can see, Justice Gray acknowledged all three editions of the Binney paper and said that the footnote in the second edition was the more complete and is the one from which he quoted the Binney passage. As John Woodman knows, using either the first or third editions of the Binney paper is much better for anyone trying to morph a “citizen of the United States” into a “natural born Citizen” and thereby erase the constitutional distinction between the two classes of citizens. It is critical that Justice Gray did not attempt to do what John Woodman tries, for Justice Gray, in the spirit of Chief Justice John Marshall who in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 163 (1803), cautioned that we cannot simply ignore clauses that are written in the Constitution, did not obliterate a “natural born Citizen” by blending one into a “citizen of the United States.” Rather, Justice Gray left intact Mr. Binney’s full footnote and inserted the complete language into his decision and by so doing acknowledged that he recognized that there are “citizens,” who also include those born in the United States to alien parents, and there are “natural born Citizens,” who only include those born in the United States to citizen parents. Justice Gray acknowledged that while both classes of persons were “citizens,” only the latter, who were born “in the country” to citizen parents, could be “natural-born citizens.” At that time, there probably was no better authoritative source than the second edition of the Binney paper which drove this point clearly home the way that Mr. Binney did in his complete footnote.
By making the quoted Binney passage disappear by only publishing on his blog the first and third editions of the Binney paper, of course, John Woodman, does not have to address what that passage means. Rather than address what the Binney passage means, he would rather attempt to distract us by looking to what Mr. Binney said about French citizenship law in 1854. Still, he fails here, too. He says that Mr. Binney informed that France “rejects the principle of the English law, and of our own laws, that birth within the limits and jurisdiction of France, makes a Frenchman, or a natural born citizen or subject of France absolutely, and provides only for the acquisition of that character by the child so born,” if he or she fixes his or her domicile in France and makes a declaration of citizenship all within one year of arriving at the age of majority. Note that John Woodman does not tell us that France actually used the clause “natural born citizen” which Mr. Binney assumes it did when he says France would once those additional conditions were met give “that character” to a person born “within the limits and jurisdiction” of France. If France uses a class of “citizen” other than a “natural-born citizen” which describes the national character that attached to the person described by Mr. Binney (i.e., attached to a child simply born in France, regardless of the citizenship of his or her parents), then we can conclude that Mr. Binney meant to refer to that other class of “citizen” rather than to “natural-born citizen.”
Hence, until John Woodman adequately (1) addresses all the historical evidence and case law that I have provided on this blog and in my briefs to the courts which convincingly shows that the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” as a child born in the United States to citizen parents, both of whom are citizens of the United States at the time of such birth; (2) addresses the meaning of the missing passage which does exist in the second edition of Mr. Binney’s paper and which Justice Gray quotes in Wong Kim Ark; (3) reconciles the quoted passage with Mr. Binney’s statement regarding what the “principle of the English law, and of our own laws,” was; and (4) tells us exactly what in 1854 “that character” was that France gave a person who was simply born in its territory to alien parents, which Mr. Binney rightly or wrongly calls “natural-born citizen,” John Woodman’s comments and rhetoric add nothing to our correct understanding of the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 2, 2012
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####
Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
Clause
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 2, 2012
| Philadelphia Lawyer Horace Binney |
What is hilarious is how John Woodman, who claims to be a conservative Republican, is running around the internet proclaiming that he has saved the United States, its Constitution, and not only putative President Barack Obama, but also Republicans, Sen. Marco Rubio and Sen. Bobby Jindal (all three were not born to citizen parents, both of whom are citizens of the United States at the time of their birth) from the “Birthers.” He adds that he has proven that Attorney Leo Donofrio’s and my position on the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is nothing but “lies.”
There is plenty of historical evidence that I have provided which shows that John Woodman is nothing more than a creation of his own mind and rhetoric. I have shown that history and legal precedents do not support what he and some others maintain is the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., any child simply born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of the parents. I have shown that at the Founding, unlike the states which put in place statutes and state constitutions which retained the English common law on the state level except to the degree those laws were abrogated by the state legislature, the national government did not adopt the English common law for the needs of the national government, but rather the law of nations which was natural law applied to the affairs of nations. In fact, unlike the states, there is nothing in the Constitution or any Act of Congress which suggests that the English common law continued to have any effect on the national level. I have shown that in that connection, we adopted the definition of a “natural-born citizen” as provided by Emer de Vattel in his The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758), where he tells us:
The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by
certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its
advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the
country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and
perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those
children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all
their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of
what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of
course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children
the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is
therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by
their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the
years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to
the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the
country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen;
for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth,
and not his country.
The definition that the law of nations provides, a definition that has been incorporated into American common law and recognized by Congress in 1790, 1795, 1802, and thereafter, is a child born in a country to citizen parents.
I have shown that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 makes a critical constitutional distinction between an Article I “Citizen of the United States” and an Article II “natural born Citizen.” I have shown that this distinction necessarily means that any U.S. citizen who is not a “natural born Citizen” is only a “Citizen of the United States,” a member of American society and nothing more. I have shown that the Founders and Framers gave us only one and only one definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” which is a child born in the country to parents, both of whom are citizens of the United States at the time of such birth. I have shown that the Founders and Framers sought to have a "strong check" on foreign and monarchial influence and to make sure that it stayed out of the administration of government and the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. I have shown that Congress, through the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, showed us through a process of elimination that only a child born in the country to citizen parents did not come within the naturalization reach of any of those laws which means that it was only that child which Congress deemed to be a “natural born Citizen.” I have shown that influential and highly respected Founders, David Ramsay and St. George Tucker, both limited birthright citizenship after July 4, 1776 to the children of citizens and that Tucker even maintained that the "civil right" to be elected president belonged only to the children of citizens. I have shown that throughout American history, there has been debate as to the doubtful meaning of a “citizen of the United States,” but never as to the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” whose meaning has never been in doubt.
This time-honored natural law/law of nations/American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen” has also been recognized and accepted by a Founder and member of our U.S. Supreme Court as early as 1814 in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Chief Justice John Marshall dissenting and concurring for other reasons). It was also again confirmed by Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830) and Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830). It was again confirmed by Justice Daniels in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). I have shown that the original American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen” was not changed by either the Fourteenth Amendment or U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649 (1898), which only deal with a “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the same original definition of a “natural born Citizen” was again expressly confirmed by the whole U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U.S. 649 (1898), and a lower federal court in Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) and United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890). Finally, this same definition was implicitly confirmed by Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872), Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94 (1884), Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) and Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964).
My essays on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” can be found at this blog, http://puzo1.blogspot.com/. Additionally, I wrote a brief which Attorney Karen Keifer filed in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in the ballot challenge in the case of In Re: Barack Hussein Obama, II et al Objection of : Charles F. Kerchner, Jr. and Dale A. Laudenslager. That brief may be read at http://www.scribd.com/doc/83104811/Kerchner-Laudenslager-v-Obama-Ballot-Challenge-Brief-on-Behalf-of-Objectors-Filed-28Feb2012. That brief thoroughly presents the evidence showing that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the United States to citizen parents, both of whom are citizens of the United States at the time of such birth. Finally, on March 20, 2012, I filed a proposed amicus curiae brief in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in the case of Tisdale v. Obama, No. 3: 12-cv-00036-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012) (order dismissing complaint) (dismissing in forma pauperis complaint pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii) and holding that “It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens” and that plaintiff’s contentions otherwise are “without merit”), which is currently pending in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Virginia. That brief, which can be accessed at http://www.scribd.com/doc/86241834/Tisdale-v-Obama-4th-Cir-Appeal-2012-03-20-Apuzzo-Amicus-Brief , contains a shortened version of the evidence and my arguments showing that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the United States to citizen parents, both of whom are citizens of the United States at the time of such birth.
One of John Woodman’s latest attempts to discredit me and Mr. Donofrio is found in his article entitled, “Horace Binney Directly Refutes the Mario Apuzzo/ Leo Donofrio Lie that it Takes Two Citizen Parents to Make a Natural Born Citizen,” accessed at his blog http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/horace-binney-directly-refutes-the-mario-apuzzo-leo-donofrio-lie-that-it-takes-two-citizen-parents-to-make-a-natural-born-citizen/ . What John Woodman attempts to do is to say that I “lie” when I maintain that to not disturb the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” Wong Kim Ark distinguished between an Article II “natural born Citizen” and a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen.” Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark said, by quoting from a footnote included by Mr. Binney in his second edition of his paper:
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.
Id. at 665-66 (citing and quoting Horace Binney, The Alienigenae of the United States Under the Present Naturalization Laws (1853)). Later in his opinion when he provides his holding, Justice Gray again emphasized that 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.’” Id. at 693.
In 1898, a wife upon marriage automatically acquired the citizenship of her husband. Hence, the Court recognized that only a child born “in the country” to citizen parents can be a “natural-born citizen.” The Court said that while a child “born in the country” to citizen parents and a child “born in the country” to alien parents are both “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.” In other words for children born in the country, one born to citizens is a “natural born” citizen and one born to aliens is a “citizen.” The Court, citing and quoting its definition of a “natural-born citizen,” confirmed the definition of a “natural-born citizen” as put forth by Minor v. Happersett, which based that definition on American “common-law” and said “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens” (emphasis supplied). Id. at 167-68. And on defining a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment and the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause of that amendment, Wong Kim Ark relied upon the English common law and did not disturb Minor’s law of nations/American “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen.”
Now John Woodman wants to show that I am a “liar” by having the public view the first and third editions of Mr. Binney’s papers, but keeping from them the second edition which contains the above quoted language in the footnote by Mr. Binney. Here is the first edition, http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/4393418?n=1&imagesize=1200&jp2Res=.25&printThumbnails=no , and here is the third edition http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/3301752.pdf?acceptTC=true& , which are the only two editions that John Woodman presents on his blog. A reading of these editions shows that the footnote does not contain the language quoted above. He does not present the second edition which is the only edition which contains the quoted language as part of the footnote and which Justice Gray relied upon in his Wong decision. The second edition can be read at Mr. Donofrio’s blog at http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/binney-2d.pdf.
Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark included the quoted Binney additional language from the second edition of Mr. Binney’s paper, even though the passage does not appear in either the first (December 1, 1853) or the third (Feb. 1854) editions of that paper. Justice Gray explained: “This paper, without Mr. Binney's name and with the note in a less complete form and not containing the passage last cited, was published (perhaps from the first edition) in the American Law Register for February, 1854. 2 Amer.Law Reg.193, 203, 204.” Id. at 666. As we can see, Justice Gray acknowledged all three editions of the Binney paper and said that the footnote in the second edition was the more complete and is the one from which he quoted the Binney passage. As John Woodman knows, using either the first or third editions of the Binney paper is much better for anyone trying to morph a “citizen of the United States” into a “natural born Citizen” and thereby erase the constitutional distinction between the two classes of citizens. It is critical that Justice Gray did not attempt to do what John Woodman tries, for Justice Gray, in the spirit of Chief Justice John Marshall who in Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 163 (1803), cautioned that we cannot simply ignore clauses that are written in the Constitution, did not obliterate a “natural born Citizen” by blending one into a “citizen of the United States.” Rather, Justice Gray left intact Mr. Binney’s full footnote and inserted the complete language into his decision and by so doing acknowledged that he recognized that there are “citizens,” who also include those born in the United States to alien parents, and there are “natural born Citizens,” who only include those born in the United States to citizen parents. Justice Gray acknowledged that while both classes of persons were “citizens,” only the latter, who were born “in the country” to citizen parents, could be “natural-born citizens.” At that time, there probably was no better authoritative source than the second edition of the Binney paper which drove this point clearly home the way that Mr. Binney did in his complete footnote.
By making the quoted Binney passage disappear by only publishing on his blog the first and third editions of the Binney paper, of course, John Woodman, does not have to address what that passage means. Rather than address what the Binney passage means, he would rather attempt to distract us by looking to what Mr. Binney said about French citizenship law in 1854. Still, he fails here, too. He says that Mr. Binney informed that France “rejects the principle of the English law, and of our own laws, that birth within the limits and jurisdiction of France, makes a Frenchman, or a natural born citizen or subject of France absolutely, and provides only for the acquisition of that character by the child so born,” if he or she fixes his or her domicile in France and makes a declaration of citizenship all within one year of arriving at the age of majority. Note that John Woodman does not tell us that France actually used the clause “natural born citizen” which Mr. Binney assumes it did when he says France would once those additional conditions were met give “that character” to a person born “within the limits and jurisdiction” of France. If France uses a class of “citizen” other than a “natural-born citizen” which describes the national character that attached to the person described by Mr. Binney (i.e., attached to a child simply born in France, regardless of the citizenship of his or her parents), then we can conclude that Mr. Binney meant to refer to that other class of “citizen” rather than to “natural-born citizen.”
Hence, until John Woodman adequately (1) addresses all the historical evidence and case law that I have provided on this blog and in my briefs to the courts which convincingly shows that the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” as a child born in the United States to citizen parents, both of whom are citizens of the United States at the time of such birth; (2) addresses the meaning of the missing passage which does exist in the second edition of Mr. Binney’s paper and which Justice Gray quotes in Wong Kim Ark; (3) reconciles the quoted passage with Mr. Binney’s statement regarding what the “principle of the English law, and of our own laws,” was; and (4) tells us exactly what in 1854 “that character” was that France gave a person who was simply born in its territory to alien parents, which Mr. Binney rightly or wrongly calls “natural-born citizen,” John Woodman’s comments and rhetoric add nothing to our correct understanding of the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 2, 2012
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####
Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
John Woodman can't face the truth.
ReplyDeleteWhenever he is confronted with truth, he runs and hides.
John Woodman, who claims that Article II "natural born" means native-born, has still yet to come out of hiding to explain why the US Congress and Senate in 1790 (some of whom were party to the construction of the US Constitution) defined a child born NON-NATIVE to US citizen parents as a "natural born citizen".
Johnny come home.
.
To argue that the terms "citizen", "naturalized citizen", and "natural born citizen" are the same is to deny that adjectives have meanings.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Mr. Woodman would argue that the terms "ball", "basketball" and "regulation basketball" have the same meanings, too. If he's right we could have a problem developing in the NBA.
I must dissent and say I find most of Mr. Woodmouse's writing to be downright Shakespearean. More precisely:
ReplyDeleteit is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.
(Macbeth, Act 5, Scene 5)
Apuzzo,
ReplyDeleteWill you consider filing an Amicus Brief in favor of Montgomery Blair Sibley's U.S. Supreme Court Petition for Certiorari challenging Obama's eligibility?
http://www.montgomeryblairsibley.com/library/SCOTUSPetition.pdf
U.S. Supreme Court Docket 11-1185
http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/11-1185.htm
It is a fact that A2S1C5 gas NEVER been amended. Likewise, it is also a fact that in 1790, 1795, 1802, 1835 and 1855, those born to an alien father, and US citizen mother, in America, were considered Aliens, until the father naturalized during the child's minority. Therefore Obama, born of a foreign father, can never be a natural born Citizen today--- LOGIC was never a strong suit of the Obama apologists.
ReplyDeleteMario, excellent as always! Looking forward to you again being on America's Web Radio in the very near future as we all continue to strive for the truth! And, rid the country of an "illegal" resident in Our White House.
ReplyDeleteRe: The Amicus Brief in Tisdale v. Obama
ReplyDeleteIn a footnote on page 18 you write:
"The pre-1797 editions used the words “natives, or indigenes.” The 1797 edition replaced those words with “natives, or natural-born citizens,” as did all other subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as Dred Scott, 60U.S. at 476, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875), and U.S. v.Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 680 (1898). This is strong evidence that even after the Constitution was adopted in 1787 the definition of an Article II“natural born Citizen” was thought to come from Vattel"
In point of fact, it is untrue that "all other subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions" quote the anachronistic 1797 translation. Specifically The Venus - 12 U.S. 253 (1814) does not.
Further, Minor v. Happersett does not appear to cite Vattel at all, though in this footnote you appear to assert otherwise.
HistorianDude,
ReplyDeleteI did not say that The Venus used "natural born Citizen."
Your Vattel "translation" argument is frivilous given that so many of the Founders and Framers read and understood French and the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly established that the definition of a "natural born Citizen" came from Vattel. Even Minor and Wong Kim Ark, while not citing Vattel, quoted Vattel almost word for word when telling us how the "common-law" defined a "natural-born citizen."
I have been interested in this point you make about the national government abandoning the English common law. I have recently seen this clearly demonstrated in how the delegates to the Constitutional Convention changed Hamilton's definition of a natural born Citizen i.e. Qualification for President:
ReplyDelete“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now
a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”
The Convention simply took out any state qualifying statutes, since they were based on English common law practices, leaving only,"... or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” which is another way of saying "natural born Citizen.
ex animo
davidfarrar
Just thinking, any comments welcomed........
ReplyDeleteIn the founding and framing period of US Constitution, the minor children of the "citizens" (i.e. self declared citizens as participants of the revolution)may or may not have been native-born.
The Framers chose the term "natural born Citizen" to describe a class of "citizens" of the US that must have existed at the time.
These "natural born Citizen"s must have been the children to yet be born to the self-declared "citizens" and included also those children already born who were in their minority; otherwise the minor children that were already born of the self declared "citizens", would have been stateless, without any citizenship at all.
There was no 14th Amendment at the time and there was no standard practice that gave native birth-right citizenship.
At the time, the only "citizens" that existed were the self-declared and "natural born Citizen"s.
The native-born children of the non-citizens could not possibly have been considered by the Framers or anyone else to be "natural born Citizen"s, even if native-born, as they would have been the children of loyalists, Tories, itinerants, fence-sitters, i.e. the native-born children of NON-citizens.
Ergo: native-birth alone could not possibly have sufficed to make a USC Article II "natural born Citizen"
I think the Obots include as NBC's anyone who is born a citizen regardless of the circumstances, not just native born. I guess if a law was passed declaring everyone born in France after a certain date was a US citizen they'd consider them NBC's too.
ReplyDeleteJohn Woodman says it all doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteIf simply being born in the country were enough to be considered a natural born Citizen, the current Dauphine of France would then be Commander in Chief eligible.
ReplyDeletePrince Louis, Duke of Burgundy was born in New York City in 2010. He is the Legitimist Dauphin of France, will succeed his father as Head of the French Royal House.
He could litterally be the King of France (if the House of Bourbon is restored, again) and the President of the U.S.
Pretty sure this is not a situation the framers had in mind when they put in the NBC requirement for the President and CinC.
I of II
ReplyDeleteUnknown,
Excellent find on your part. Here is more follow up.
Prince Louis Alphonse of Bourbon, Duke of Anjou[1][2] (French: Louis Alphonse Gonzalve Victor Emmanuel Marc de Bourbon; but "Louis" (Luis) was not originally among his given names Spanish: Alfonso Jaime Marcelino Manuel Víctor Maria de Borbón y Martínez-Bordiú;[3][4][5] born 25 April 1974, Madrid) is a member of the Royal House of Bourbon, and one of the current pretenders to the defunct French throne. As the senior male heir of Hugh Capet[6], being the senior descendant of King Louis XIV of France (ruled 1643–1715) through his grandson King Philip V of Spain, he is recognized as the Head of the House of Bourbon and rightful claimant to the French crown by the Legitimist faction of French royalists. Louis Alphonse is a great-grandson of King Alfonso XIII of Spain and first cousin once removed of King Juan Carlos I of Spain. Through his mother, he is also a great-grandson of Spain's former dictator Francisco Franco.[3]
***
On 30 January 1989, his father died in a skiing accident near Vail, Colorado (in 1994 Louis Alphonse would receive 150 million pesetas following a lawsuit against Vail Associated, which owned the ski resort where the accident occurred).[9] Louis Alphonse was recognised by some members of the Capetian dynasty as Chef de la Maison de Bourbon (Head of the House of Bourbon)[10][9] and took the title Duke of Anjou, but not his father's Spanish dukedom. He is considered the rightful pretender to the French throne by adherents of the Legitimist movement.[9]
Louis’ father was elected by the French Society of the Cincinnati to be the representative of Louis XVI (leading to the resignation of the Count of Paris, who had represented the Admiral d'Orléans). Since 16 June 1994, Louis Alphonse was elected to succeed his father as the Representative of Louis XVI[11], whose military aid was instrumental to the independence of the United States of America. In accordance to the statutes of this Society, he represents the French king as the eldest male of the senior collateral line.
Louis Alphonse possesses French, as well as Spanish citizenship, in right of his paternal grandmother, Emmanuelle de Dampierre, also a French citizen.[9] He attended the Lycėe Français de Madrid, obtaining his COU in June 1992.[9] He studied economics. He worked several years for BNP Paribas, a French bank in Madrid. Although he regularly visited France, where his mother lived for several years, he continued to live in Spain.
His engagement to marry Venezuelan heiress María Margarita Vargas Santaella was announced in November 2003. They were married civilly in Caracas on 5 November 2004 and religiously on 6 November 2004 in La Romana, Dominican Republic. None of the members of the Spanish Royal Family attended the wedding. Though no official reason was given, it is not a secret that the King of Spain does not approve his cousin's claim to the French throne and the fact that Louis Alphonse issued the wedding invitations as "Duke of Anjou" did not sit well with the king.[12] The couple lived in Venezuela beginning 2005, where he worked at Banco Occidental de Descuento, before moving to the United States. They currently reside in New York.
Continued …
II of II
ReplyDelete***
Louis Alphonse and Maria Margarita had their first child, a daughter, named Eugénie on 5 March 2007 at Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami, Florida. She was baptised at the papal nunciature in Paris in June 2007. Legitimists recognise her as Princess Eugénie (in Spain her name is Doña Eugenia de Borbón y Vargas). The couple had twin sons, Louis and Alphonse on 28 May 2010.[14] Louis has been given the title of Duke of Burgundy (duc de Bourgogne), and Alphonse the title of Duke of Berry (duc de Berry). Prince Louis, as Legitimist Dauphin of France, will succeed his father as Head of the French Royal House in Legitimist reckoning (in Spain, the twins are Don Luis and Don Alfonso de Borbón y Vargas).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Alphonse,_Duke_of_Anjou#cite_ref-13.
The Roman Republic was the period of the ancient Roman civilization where the government operated as a republic. It began with the overthrow of the Roman monarchy, traditionally dated around 508 BC, and its replacement by a government headed by two consuls, elected annually by the citizens and advised by a senate. A complex constitution gradually developed, centered on the principles of a separation of powers and checks and balances. Except in times of dire national emergency, public offices were limited to one year, so in theory at least, no single individual could dominate his fellow citizens.
***
The final victor in these civil wars, Octavian (later Augustus), reformed the Republic as a Principate, with himself as Rome's "first citizen" (princeps). The Senate continued to sit and debate. Annual magistrates were elected as before, but final decisions on matters of policy, warfare, diplomacy and appointments were privileged to the princeps as "first among equals" (or imperator due to the holding of imperium, from which the term emperor is derived). His powers were monarchic in all but name, and he held them for his lifetime, on behalf of the Senate and people of Rome. The Roman Republic was never restored, but neither was it abolished, so the event that signaled its transition to Roman Empire is a matter of interpretation. Historians have variously proposed the appointment of Julius Caesar as perpetual dictator in 44 BC, the defeat of Mark Antony at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, and the Roman Senate's grant of extraordinary powers to Octavian (Augustus) under the first settlement in 27 BC, as candidates for the defining pivotal event ending the Republic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic.
The Founders and Framers were wise in including the “natural born Citizen” clause. They studied the history of the Roman Republic and knew it went from monarchy, to republic, and back to monarchy. The “natural born Citizen” clause assured them the best they could that the new republic would not only be protected from foreign influence, but also not be taken over internally by monarchial power, for a “natural born Citizen” could only be born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents (the original citizens and their descendents had renounced any titles of nobility and naturalized citizens must do the same). Hence, there could be no legitimate title of nobility inherited at birth from any source and no future presidents could have any such titles. Louis Alphonse and Maria Margarita had three children, Princess Eugénie, Prince Louis, Duke of Burgundy, Prince Alphonse, Duke of Berry. Under just jus soli, U.S.-born Eugénie, Louis, and Alphonse, would be considered “natural born Citizens” and eligible to be President. But at the same time, they are not only Spanish and French citizens but also direct heirs to the French monarchy. Under a liberal interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, they are “citizens of the United States.” But under the correct definition of a “natural born Citizen,” born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents, they would not be Article II “natural born Citizens” and not eligible to be President.
Dear Mr Apuzzo,
ReplyDeleteI had hope that I would be a larger contributor of this cause financially and more. I regret to say the economy has taken my business my life to a crossroad that I never thought I would see. I thank you and all that fight for our Country and Nations hope. As we all know the United States of America is at a crossroad and only the people that care about the founding principles will push back against the groups that seek to control us the individuals of truth,justice,compassion and human rights for the world.
They seek our destruction and demise in hopes to obtain power over this great Nation. Without you and others who fight for the truth we will surely fall. As we all can see we are being divided as a people by using race,gender,rich,middle class,poor,religion what ever it takes to divide us. We must stand together as one as Americans. I have fallen as a business after the past three years of fighting to stay afloat but have not fallen as an American. I will lead a charge a new beginning for freedom for all. Financially I am broken but my spirit stays strong.
Good luck to all and prayers for most.
Stockrock50 a spiritual ghost.
Dear Mr Apuzzo,
ReplyDeleteI had hope that I would be a larger contributor of this cause financially and more. I regret to say the economy has taken my business my life to a crossroad that I never thought I would see. I thank you and all that fight for our Country and Nations hope. As we all know the United States of America is at a crossroad and only the people that care about the founding principles will push back against the groups that seek to control us the individuals of truth,justice,compassion and human rights for the world.
They seek our destruction and demise in hopes to obtain power over this great Nation. Without you and others who fight for the truth we will surely fall. As we all can see we are being divided as a people by using race,gender,rich,middle class,poor,religion what ever it takes to divide us. We must stand together as one as Americans. I have fallen as a business after the past three years of fighting to stay afloat but have not fallen as an American. I will lead a charge a new beginning for freedom for all. Financially I am broken but my spirit stays strong.
Good luck to all and prayers for most.
Stockrock50 a spiritual ghost.
Stockrock50,
ReplyDeleteI sincerely hope that you will be able to overcome your financial hardship and bounce back to economic health. Keep fighting to make things happen.
Concerning your comments about U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark -- How do you explain Chief Justice Fuller's dissent in Wong, where he indicates that the majority decision will allow those like Wong (born of two non citizen parents) to be elected POTUS?
ReplyDeleteSeems like a devastating observation -- any by a contemporary Chief Justice of the United States.
"any by" should have been "and by". Sorry for the typo.
ReplyDeletePart One of Two
ReplyDeleteSTepper said ......
"How do you explain Chief Justice Fuller's dissent in Wong, where he indicates that the majority decision will allow those like Wong (born of two non citizen parents) to be elected POTUS?"
Response:
STepper, it seems you have your wires crossed.
Fuller (Wong Kim Ark)
Quote:
"Obviously, where the Constitution deals with common law rights and uses common law phraseology, its language should be read in the light of the common law; but when the question arises as to what constitutes citizenship of the nation, involving as it does international relations, and political, as contradistinguished from civil, status, international principles must be considered, and, unless the municipal law of England appears to have been affirmatively accepted, it cannot be allowed to control in the matter of construction."
and
"Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:
The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation, and it is presumed as matter of course that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent."
Part Two of Two
ReplyDeleteand
"The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage. . . . The place of birth produces no change in the rule that children follow the condition of their fathers, for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction.
And to the same effect are the modern writers, as for instance, [p709] Bar, who says:
To what nation a person belongs is by the laws of all nations closely dependent on descent; it is almost an universal rule that the citizenship of the parents determines it -- that of the father where children are lawful, and, where they are bastards, that of their mother, without regard to the place of their birth, and that must necessarily be recognized as the correct canon, since nationality is, in its essence, dependent on descent."
"Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes provides that children so born
are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.
Thus, a limitation is prescribed on the passage of citizenship by descent beyond the second generation if then surrendered by permanent nonresidence, and this limitation was contained in all the acts from 1790 down. Section 217 provides that such children shall "be considered as citizens thereof."
The language of the statute of 7 Anne, c. 5, is quite different in providing that
the children of all natural-born subjects born out of the ligeance of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be natural-born subjects of this kingdom to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever.
In my judgment, the children of our citizens born abroad were always natural-born citizens from the standpoint of this Government."
"Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."
"Greisser was born in the State of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German subject and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned. After quoting the act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment, Mr. Secretary Bayard said:
Richard Greisser was no doubt born in the United States, but he was on his birth "subject to a foreign power," and "not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." He was not, therefore, under the statute and the Constitution a citizen of the United States by birth, and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship."
And the list goes on.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html
MichaelN has not found the correct passage. I'd prefer for Mr. Apuzzo to respond since he is a lawyer and MichaelN obviously isn't.
ReplyDeleteThe paragraph to which I'm referring is this one:
"Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."
Mr. Apuzzo -- Chief Justice Fuller (who I think agrees with YOUR analysis of the natural born Citizenship clause generally), seems to disagree with your analysis of Wong Kim Ark, which he believes changed the law.
Please comment.
STepper.
ReplyDeleteHow do you explain, with all the discussion and concern about "natural born Citizen" in the WKA court, that Wong Kim Ark ONLY got ruled as a "citizen" and not a "natural born Citizen"?
Seems like a devastating ruling -- and by the Supreme Court of the United States.
How do you explain the US Citizenship & Immigration Service recognizing TWO types of born citizens, i.e. native born and natural born?
Quote:
"(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.
The words "shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922", as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of NATIVE-BORN OR NATUTAL BORN CITIZEN (WHICHEVER existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired. "
AND
"The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to THE STATUS IF naturalized, NATIVE, OR NATURAL BORN citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss."
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html
Seems rather devastating coming from a US Government service which specializes in citizenship.
STepper.
ReplyDeleteWhat say you about Justice Fuller, when dissenting in the Wong Kim Ark court he said this?
Quote:
"Did the Fourteenth Amendment impose the original English common law rule as a rigid rule on this country?
Did the amendment operate to abridge the treaty-making power, or the power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization?
I insist that it cannot be maintained that this Government is unable, through the action of the President, concurred in by the Senate, to make a treaty with a foreign government providing that the subjects of that government, although allowed to enter the United States, shall not be made citizens thereof, and that their children shall not become such citizens by reason of being born therein.
A treaty couched in those precise terms would not be incompatible with the Fourteenth Amendment unless it be held that that amendment has abridged the treaty-making power."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.html
Here is more on losing republics:
ReplyDelete"The Republic of China, established in mainland China in 1912, governed most of mainland China prior to the outbreak of the Chinese Civil War; it received Taiwan and associated islands from the Empire of Japan due to its surrender at the end of World War II in late 1945. However, after four more years of continuous civil war, the ROC lost mainland China to Communist forces who founded the People's Republic of China (PRC) on that territory in 1949, and the ROC relocated its government to Taipei. The ROC government officially claims to represent all of China (in a definition including Taiwan) via its constitution,[17] but has not made retaking the mainland a political goal since 1992.[18] Meanwhile, the PRC, commonly known as "China", also officially asserts to be the sole legal representation of China, and actively claims Taiwan to be under its sovereignty, denying the status of the existing Republic of China as a sovereign state, and threatens military action against ROC/Taiwan if Taiwan becomes constitutionally independent from China, i.e. changing its name to 'Republic of Taiwan.'"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taiwan
STepper said...
ReplyDeleteMichaelN has not found the correct passage. I'd prefer for Mr. Apuzzo to respond since he is a lawyer and MichaelN obviously isn't.
The paragraph to which I'm referring is this one:
"Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."
Mr. Apuzzo -- Chief Justice Fuller (who I think agrees with YOUR analysis of the natural born Citizenship clause generally), seems to disagree with your analysis of Wong Kim Ark, which he believes changed the law.
Please comment.
April 7, 2012 1:59 PM
-------------------------
But I did find the correct passage.
And it is of little if any significance.
Fuller making a statement such as this, was in my opinion merely for the sake of those who might have misinterpreted the ruling that WKA was a birth-right "citizen" (ONLY),like those who might misunderstand or MIS-USE the ruling, especially with all the discussion that took place in the WKA court about "natural born" and birth-right citizenship.
It is OBVIOUS that Fuller himself didn't think the WKA decision changed the law.
STepper, you are clutching at straws.
.
FINALLY
ReplyDeleteSomebody is tackling this hot issue.
Folks, we need to jump on this with equal vigor as with the Obama disability. Otherwise we will have no credibility as constitutionalists. We will be simply regarded as opportunists looking for technicalities to score a political victory.
It further has the advantage that the headwind on this will be much less - we can do this! Then, it will open the nation's eyes and we can direct them to the Usurper In Chief.
At his web site John Woodman says:
ReplyDeleteBy the way, you really have gotten desperate. I’m not the person whose claims have been shown to be false again and again and again.
I’m not the one against whose basic position at least 10 federal and state courts have ruled, and for whose basic position no court has ever ruled.
And I’m not the one whose painted himself into a corner with falsehood after falsehood and now sees no way out.
Do you not realize "Mr. Wood Man" that using yet an other fake identity you spill out the words and feelings of Bari, your true person? Bari M. Shabazz, remember him or have you had the need to keep him way packed down in your mind so that you never ever slip out his name, Bari, which is of course your real true name?
Anyway, Bari, it is time for you to stand back and count how many people you pretend to be. My cousin in New York's Harlem neighborhood told me to tell you this, that this is what any good therapist would advise you, that is any therapist who is not your crazy Uncle Fred - if the therapist saw you running all over the internet posting the same stuff but using many different names. Have you not stopped to ask yourself why you do this? Why, I am sure that America would love to know why a man with your success does such a thing, that's what my husband tells me when ever your name comes up. But to be fair by this time it may be too much accounting to do for a man in your high position, besides there are all those photo ops and speeches that must sound impressive and of course the big money you are needing to charm out of people who have not yet caught on to your scam.
But we must get back to you, Bari, which of course is the reason for this friendly message - by your harsh words as "Wood Man" you reveal that the person in the corner is you, Bari, you, not Mr. Apuzzo and this corner has only one view, that is of the bars of the jail cell that is being prepped for you as we speak.
As for the courts so called rulings what fool lives in America who does not now know of you posting as Unknown here at Mr. Apuzzo's blog bragging about your "first rate criminal intrigue". And also of your scam called Black Mail Incorporated aka Black Male Incorporated. Is this what you like to boast about yourself that you are a one man crime company? What is it with you and no friends? We all need friends, even you, no man is an island, Bari, no man or did not your mother teach you this?
As wise people say in Saipan you are so smart Bari you have out smarted yourself, your first rate intrigue has led you straight in to first rate trouble and if I were you I would be respectful to Mr. Apuzzo there is fast coming the day that you will need his legal assistance.
A. "These were natives or natural-born citizens."
ReplyDeleteB. "These were natives, or natural-born citizens."
1. Which version did Justice Grey actually write (with or without the comma)? I have seen it written both ways.
ex animo
davidfarrar