President James Monroe and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 28, 2012
 |
| James Monroe Fifth President |
I received an email today regarding our fifth President, James Monroe. What struck me as being applicable today was the article that was attached to the email. The article was a little biography on President Monroe. In that article is contained a part that included President Monroe’s concern about possible usurpation in our government. Below is my reflection on this article.
Indeed, President James Monroe, in his First Inaugural Address of March 4, 1817, warned:
"What raised us to the present happy state?...The Government has been in the hands of the people. To the people, therefore...is the credit due...
It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty.
Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin...
President Monroe then stated on December 7, 1824, in his 8th Annual Message:
"For these blessings we owe to Almighty God...with profound reverence, our most grateful and unceasing acknowledgments....
Having commenced my service in early youth, and continued it since with few and short intervals, I have witnessed the great difficulties to which our Union has been exposed, and admired the virtue and intelligence with which they have been surmounted...
That these blessings may be preserved and perpetuated will be the object of my fervent and unceasing prayers to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe."
Source: Monroe, James. Dec. 2, 1817, First Annual Message. James D. Richardson (U.S. Representative from Tennessee), ed., A Compilation of the Messages & Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, 10 vols. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, published by Authority of Congress, 1897, 1899; Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Literature & Art, 1789-1902, 11 vols., 1907, 1910), Vol. II, p. 12, as found at http://www.americanminute.com/ .
President Monroe was most dedicated to preserving the great nation that the United States had become. He saw usurpation as a most serious threat to that preservation.
Why was President Monroe so concerned about usurpation? To whom could Monroe have been referring when he spoke about “an usurper?” How could such a person become “an usurper?” Actually, Monroe answered this question by telling us that it was when the people became “ignorant and corrupt” that an usurper will come to power which in the end would produce the “debasement and ruin” of those same people.
What would make some political leader “an usurper” in the eyes of President Monroe? If it was the President and Commander in Chief of the Military that concerned Monroe, was it lack of being at least 35 years of age, of having at least 14 years of residency in the United States, or not being a "natural born Citizen" (the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 eligibility requirements) that so worried him? Who else other than the President could be so important and powerful in our government to give Monroe such concern about “an usurper?” Given the structure and balance of power in our government, it could only have been the President to whom Monroe was referring. And would Monroe be so concerned about age and residency or was it lack of being a "natural born citizen" that so worried him? After all, is it not from being a “natural born Citizen” that sole allegiance to and love of only one country from birth come from? Such love and attachment to only one country from birth would surely have been something that Monroe thought was needed for the well-being, happiness, and preservation of the United States.
This concern by Monroe makes the point about how important it is for us as a nation to assure that the “natural born Citizen” clause is not only honored and protected today, but preserved for the well-being and happiness of future American generations. But for this to occur, the nation must make sure that ill-informed or corrupt people do not allow such an usurpation to occur or to continue.
Our current putative President, Barack Obama, does not meet the constitutional definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” That definition is a child born in the United States to two parents who at the time of the child’s birth were both either “citizens of the United States” or “natural born Citizens.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) ("all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners"); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (acknowledging and confirming Minor’s American common law definition of a “natural-born citizens” but adding based on the English common law that “‘[t]he 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 [birth in the country]’” (bracketed information supplied)). This American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” has never been changed, not even by the Fourteenth Amendment, and therefore still prevails today.
When Obama was born, wherever that may be, he was born to a father, Barack Obama Sr., who was a British citizen, and to a mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who was a “natural born Citizen.” Under both U.S. and British statutory and U.S. common law existing from the time the Constitution was adopted and to the present, Obama was born an English “natural born subject.” Being born an English “natural born subject,” the Founders and Framers and our early Congresses, as they expressed in the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, would not even have considered him to be a “citizen,” let alone an Article II “natural born Citizen.” If he was born in the United States, a fact that he has yet to conclusively show, he can be a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a), which as interpreted by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, granted constitutional birthright citizenship to persons born in the United States to one or two domiciled alien parents, just like a person can be a “citizen” under Congressional Acts which grant statutory birthright citizenship to persons born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents. But not being born to two U.S. citizen parents, Obama is not and can never be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”
Not being a “natural born Citizen, either because he was not born in the United States or because he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents or both, is Obama the usurper of whom President Monroe warned us?
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
April 28, 2012
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####
Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
25 comments:
Mr. Apuzzo,
McPherson v. Blacker (146 US 1) gives us guidance into the meaning of the opening clauses of the 14 Amendment, and the fact that it was solely a naturalization act w/in the function of A1S8C4:
"In the Slaughterhouse Cases, 16 Wall. 36, this court held that the first clause of the fourteenth amendment was primarily intended to confer citizenship on the negro race; and, secondly, to give definitions of citizenship of the United States, and citizenship of the states; and it recognized the distinction between citizenship of a state and citizenship of the United States by those definitions." 146 US 1,37
"The object of the fourteenth amendment in respect of citizenship was to preserve equality of rights and to prevent discrimination as between citizens, but not to radically change the whole theory of the relations of the state and federal governments to each other, and of both governments to the people". In re Kemmler, 136 U.S. 436 , 10 Sup. Ct. Rep. 930. 146 US 1, 39
Being that McPherson v. Blacker was about the election of the President, and the fact that it is never even hinted that the 14 A had amended or changed, or should be read in "tandem" with A2S1C5, it must be concluded that the argument that "born Citizens" of the 14A are the same as natural born Citizens is false.
The fact that those born in America of alien fathers were never even considered US Citizens in any of the early Naturalization Acts (1790, 1795, 1802, 1855), and the knowledge that A2S1C5 was never amended (it must be done explicitly) further dooms any argument that those born of foreign citizenship can be considered eligible for President. In 1790, anyone born of a foreign father was an alien, to be naturalized upon the naturalization of the father in the child's minority, therefore those born of foreign fathers today are not eligible.
I have filed a "contest of election or nomination" suit against Obama, the SOS of Fla, and the Fla. ECC, in accordance w/ Fl. ss. 102.168 as of Feb 15, 2012, in Leon Co. Circuit Court (#2012CA00467). An Amicus Brief would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Very interesting. Yes, if Obama is not a usurper, then there are no usurpers. I would add however that Obama, the vapid and shallow poseur that he is, is only a front man.
He is the public face of the machine, and that diabolical machine is the deadly, implacable enemy of every decent person on this planet.
And the Obama eligibility fraud is one of the machine's weak spots. As I see it, the Obama eligibility fraud is to the machine, what income tax evasion was to Al Capone. And that's why it has to be relentlessly pursued.
Bingo...
Mr. Apuzzo, from your post -
"To whom could Monroe have been referring when he spoke about “an usurper?”
" ... Monroe answered this question by telling us that it was when the people became “ignorant and corrupt” that an usurper will come to power which in the end would produce the “debasement and ruin” of those same people.
"What would make some political leader “an usurper” in the eyes of President Monroe?"
- - - - - - - - - -
" ... is Obama the usurper of whom President Monroe warned us?"
"... when the people became “ignorant and corrupt... .”
- - - - - - - - - -
Mr. Apuzzo, "ignorant and corrupt" is appropriate, in context...
... however, from my observation perch, it seems that the BIG Talker "thought leaders" of radio and tv and the BIG Writer "thought leaders" in print and on BIG Blogger blogs, while not "ignorant and corrupt," are definitely complicit in letting BHObama, the OCCUPIER-in-Chief in the Oval Office, aka THE "putshch(er)" Man, walk free and easy about his understanding of the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL "birther" document of our Republic, the U.S.Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.
The "BIG" guys mentioned above are also complicit in letting BHObama's "anti-birther" acolytes continue their obfuscation about the meaning of "natural born Citizen" in Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5.
When the
BIG Talkers...
BIG Writers...
BIG Bloggers...
and et al., get involved in protecting AND defending the ORIGINAL intent of the ORIGINAL words of the ORIGINAL "birther" document of our Republic, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, against ALL enemies, foreign AND domestic, THEN the next "usurper" will be exposed from the git go...
... or, it WILL happen again.
Art
According to Federalist #68, March 1788, Alexander Hamilton, a natural born Citizen is a "creature of our(sic)own", not the child of "an improper ascendant" (improper ancestor-- 1828 Websters dictionary).
Of course if a "creature of our own" is a natural born Citizen, which prevents foreign influence by way of an "improper ancestor", then a natural born Citizen must be born from within the citizenry (members of the nation).
George Washington also warned of foreign influence, and did so explicitly in his farewell speech, warning not to make "change by Usurpation".
John Jay, from whom the suggestion for the requirement of nbC came, wrote 5 Federalist papers on the subject of the dangers of foreign influence (#2-#6).
If the purpose of the requirement of nbC is to seal off every avenue of foreign influence, then it is not possible that those born of foreign citizenship are eligible.
Barack Obama Sr. is "an improper ascendant".
At John Woodman's blog, I gave a challenge. Mr. Woodman maintains that I am a "liar" in arguing that U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) acknowledged and confirmed the definition of a "natural-born citizen" put forth by Minor v. Happersett (1875), i.e., a child born in a country to parents who are citizens of that country. I challenged Mr. Woodman or any one at his blog to quote part of the Wong Kim Ark holding that even just said that Wong was "natural born," let alone a "natural born Citizen."
No one at his blog including John Woodman has been able to meet my challenge, i.e., produce any part of the Wong Kim Ark holding which shows the the Court ruled that Wong was “natural born.” Given their failure, they leave me no choice but to declare victory as to my position that Wong Kim Ark acknowledged and confirmed the Minor definition of a "natural-born citizen."
to Mario Apuzzo:
This blog has a lot of details and a lot of hair splitting (particularly the 'other side'), but a very telling broad point is that The Founders were very concerned, extremely concerned, about foreign influence and usurpation. CLEARLY they meant the NBC condition to be as restrictive as it could possibly be. This alone is a fatal blow to the quacks who try to sell the inclusive version of NBC.
to Harold Smith:
"only a front man"
You are SO right. But yet it is far from clear just who his handlers are. I believe the release of suppressed documents would be very informative in that regard. To me, that is a bigger National Security issue than the fact of his birth circumstances.
Mr. Apuzzo...please give me your thoughts on this...Mr. Woodman whom you were debating believes so much that all it takes is for someone to be born in this country to be considered a natural born citizen and eligible to run for president and the citizenship of the parents doesn't matter. So I asked him if he thinks the child of an illegal immigrant born in the US is natural born citizen and eligible to run for president. He admitted he doesn't like anchor babies but dodged the question by saying he doesn't know how what the Supreme Court would say instead of giving me his opinion as to how he would feel about an anchor baby running for president.
Part 1
RE: The Minor court's saying .....
"At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."
Comment: The Framers recognized that "common law" held that TWO qualities were required to make a "natural born".
By saying "in a country", the Minor court was not being specific to US, but may will have been generalizing with the US being inclusive of "a country".
I suggest the Framers were speaking of English common law and American common law as "common law", the court saying that it was common across both nations for the TWO qualities to be the criteria for making a "natural born" subject or citizen.
The minor court goes on to say .........
"These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Comment: The subjects of this speech are "children", and it distinguishes the children who are "natives or natural born citizens" from other alien or foreign children.
Therefore the Minor court recognized that children were being born native, and yet were alien or foreign.
The Minor court continues .....
"Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parent."
Comment: The court notes and reports that some "authorities" include native-born children of aliens as "citizens", but it is notable that the "authorities" do not include in their reckoning that native-born children of aliens are "natural born citizens", only extend the inclusion to include the children of aliens as "citizens".
Somehow these "authorities" stopped short of reckoning that the native-born children to alien parents were "natural born citizens".
The Minor court does not report any other notions of what makes a "citizen" or a "natural born citizen".
To the court, no other notions are recognized or exist or that are worthy of any mention.
So far we have NO ONE who thinks that the native-born children of aliens are "natural born Citizen"s and only "some authorities" who think they are "citizens", but the court favorably recognizes there are doubts that they are even "citizens".
Part 2
The Minor court continues to say .....
"As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first."
Comment: The court, with reference to the native-born children of aliens, reports doubts whether the "authorities" notion that native-born children of aliens is correct.
If the court was of the belief or held that native-born children to aliens were included in the USC Article II POTUS eligibility clause as "natural born Citizen"s, then there can be no doubt that the courts would have quickly dispelled the "doubts", stating that all native-born children were in fact "natural born citizen".
It is because the court introduced the doubts to the record and recognized that the doubts had merit by not overruling or dispelling the doubts immediately, proposing that the doubts were still to be resolved, that it is IMPOSSIBLE that the SCOTUS's opinion or holding was that native-born children were included in USC Article II "natural born Citizen" POTUS eligibility clause.
The Minor court closes the relevant passage by stating that the doubts as to whether native-born children to aliens, have merit and are yet to be solved.
"For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts."
Comment: By recognizing the "doubts" still needed to be solved, the Minor court held that natural descent from citizen parents was THE essential quality which was absent in determining exclusion of native-born children of aliens from being "citizens" or "natural born Citizen"s.
There were "never any doubts" as to the two essential qualities which were required to make a "natural born Citizen", therefore there was never a need to "solve" anything to do with "natural born Citizen".
Mario,
Again, the number of times for which I cannot count, you have hit the proverbial nail on the head. The points made here by you and those offering comments are on the mark indeed.
As I listen to the current blather by those 'objective' media types about the potential candidacy of Marco Rubio for VPOTUS, I wonder how these people would justify Rubio as being eligible. Of course, there is no such discussion because Obama has removed not only the NBC requirement, but even any reasonable discussion thereof. That being said, I wonder....how do these media bobble heads and political operatives on both sides (Rubio is now the Republicans' Obama) distinguish between a mere citizen and NBC? It is abundantly clear that the constitution makes a distinction, but if Rubio is NBC (as some have argued) then how do they define a mere citizen - what could be the difference. This same question applies to those who say Obama is NBC, but of course the question cannot be posed since it is not politically correct to consider constitutional eligibility a reasonable concern.
kanbun,
I just left this comment for John Woodman and ehancock at Woodman's blog:
*********
John Woodman and ehancock,
A commentator by the name of kanbun has left this comment at my blog under my latest article on James Monroe and the "natural born Citizen" clause:
"As I listen to the current blather by those 'objective' media types about the potential candidacy of Marco Rubio for VPOTUS, I wonder how these people would justify Rubio as being eligible. Of course, there is no such discussion because Obama has removed not only the NBC requirement, but even any reasonable discussion thereof. That being said, I wonder....how do these media bobble heads and political operatives on both sides (Rubio is now the Republicans' Obama) distinguish between a mere citizen and NBC? It is abundantly clear that the constitution makes a distinction, but if Rubio is NBC (as some have argued) then how do they define a mere citizen - what could be the difference. This same question applies to those who say Obama is NBC, but of course the question cannot be posed since it is not politically correct to consider constitutional eligibility a reasonable concern."
Keeping in mind that the Founders and Framers in Article I, II, and throughout the Constitution and Congress in all its naturalization acts distinguished between a "natural born Citizen" and a "Citizen of the United States," and given your expansive definition of a "natural born Citizen," how do you define a "citizen of the United States?"
John Woodman wants me to answer some questions at his blog at http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/mario-apuzzo-natural-born-citizenship/#comment-1627 . Now he says: “At this point, I’d even settle for you producing that quote from St George Tucker that you’ve been asked for something more than half a dozen times now, that supposedly backs up your bogus claims. But you can’t seem to locate that right now, can you?”
My response:
John Woodman,
I’ll get that St. George Tucker quote for you. I thought that you would have been able to find it by now. I have written on St. George Tucker enough for you to find it. I have not published my full article on Tucker yet. I will tell you that Tucker, America’s Blackstone, informs us that only the child of citizen parents has the right to be elected President. That excludes Barack Obama and anyone else not born to citizen parents.
Edward,
Ask Mr. Woodman how will a court case come before the Supreme Ct for the child of an illegal alien?
The Supreme Ct doesn't have to rule on this issue, remember? sarcasm off
GOOGLE SEARCH "St. George Tucker natural born citizen" 1st hit;
Natural Born Citizen requirement per St. George Tucker, Tucker's Blackstone(1803)
"That provision in the constitution which requires that the presidentshall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the UnitedStates when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admissionof foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too muchguarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreignnations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power,sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the mostconsummate policy and wisdom. It was by means of foreignconnections that the stadtholder of Holland, whose powers at firstwere probably not equal to those of a president of the United States, became a sovereign hereditary prince before the late revolution in thatcountry. Nor is it with levity that I remark, that the very title of ourfirst magistrate, in some measure exempts us from the danger of thosecalamities by which European nations are almost perpetually visited.
The title of king, prince, emperor, or czar, without the smallest addition to his powers, would have rendered him a member of thefraternity of crowned heads: their common cause has more than oncethreatened the desolation of Europe. To have added a member to this sacred family in America, would have invited and perpetuated amongus all the evils of Pandora's Box."
This taken from St. George Tucker,View of the Constitution,with SelectedWritings, Liberty Fund, Inc., (1999), p. 260
As far as Woodman and the other 'bots are concerned, it wouldn't matter if someone tomorrow discovered the original personal diaries of the Founders and Framers, there to be found within, written in their own hand, the precise, unambiguous definition of "natural born citizen" and a comprehensive explanation of the rationale behind its inclusion into the Constitution.
Why wouldn't it matter? Because their "job" is to defend the machine at all costs. (In a sense they couldn't care less about Obama. He's far from indispensable).
Whereas the "Birthers'" task is to take away all the wiggle room from the opportunists and the moral cowards; i.e., to tape their eyelids open, force them to look straight ahead, and then rip down the curtain that hides the machine,
the 'bots' task is to churn out an endless stream of propaganda; pabulum for those masses of moral cowards.
And when someone is so desperate to deceive himself (as much of our society seems to be), almost any excuse will do, no matter how laughably absurd it is on its face. Thus given this sad state of affairs, there will always be a "job" for Woodman et al., as it requires no specific knowledge or skills. All it apparently requires is an endless supply of contempt for the truth, and for the ideals upon which America was founded.
Since you're writing about President Monroe, perhaps you will find some grist for your mill in this letter that he wrote about Mr. Eldred who was born in the United States, but not considered by Monroe to be a citizen.
You have so little to work with, I thought I would try to help.
The Monroe Doctrine should clarify pretty much the view of the Framers of the Constitution concerning Liberal international interventionist interpretations of the 'natural born Citizen' clause.
Copied from Wikipedia -- 'The Monroe Doctrine' is a policy of the United States introduced on December 2, 1823. It stated that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression requiring U.S. intervention.
Mario,
Just wanted to share a presidential eligibility success story. In my home country of Guatemala the former First lady wanted to run for president last year even though as the wife of the former president she was ineligible. Article 186 of the Guatemalan constitution prohibits the re-election of the current or former presidents...their relatives (spouses, parents, siblings, cousins, grandparents, aunts, uncles, granduncles/aunts) also are ineligible. The former First Lady tried to bypass the constitutional prohibition by divorcing her husband. The Guatemalan Supreme Court actually had the guts to take the case and stopped her. See more below
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandra_Torres_(politician)
Mr. Apuzzo,
Over at Mr. Woodman's site, they say you admitted that NBC and NBS were used interchangably by the Massachusetts legislature.
How does that impact your theory on the derivation of the term?
I of III
4zoltan,
That is a lie like everything else they say about me at John Woodman’s blog. Here is what I said regarding the Massachusetts naturalization statutes:
John Woodman and gorefan,
I thought that you would have presented something out of Wong Kim Ark which would have provided the evidential link between a “natural born Citizen” and a “natural born subject” but I see that you did not find anything in that opinion to help you but rather you have resorted to looking to Massachusetts naturalization acts. Your Massachusetts naturalization acts do not prove that a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen” derived their meaning from an English “natural born subject.”
Let us first define an English “natural born subject.” Blackstone told us that any child born in the King’s dominions and under his allegiance, with the exception of one born to foreign diplomats or foreign alien invaders, was a “natural born subject,” regardless of the citizenship of the parents. Hence, the citizenship of the parents played no role in making a child born within the King’s dominions an English “natural born subject.”
Now let us briefly examine the American experience with citizenship. Remember that some states retained the English common law through their constitutions and statutes until abrogated by the legislatures. Massachusetts was one of these states. As you have pointed out, some states like Massachusetts in the early years continued to use the clause “natural born subject.” But Massachusetts did so because it had retained the English common law on the state level. For example, Massachusetts adopted the following statute:
Reception Provision of Massachusetts Constitution, 1780, ch. vi, art. vi.:
“All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used, and approved in the Province, Colony, or State of Massachusetts Bay, and usually practiced on in the courts of law, shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the legislature; such parts only excepted as are repugnant to the rights and liberties contained in this constitution.”
The English common law continued in those states until abrogated by the state legislature through statutes. Hence, it is not unexpected that Massachusetts in its early years still referred to its naturalized citizens as “natural born subjects.” This is especially true given that an English “natural born subject” included naturalized subjects.
But that the states in the early years of the republic may have continued to use the clause “natural born subject” does not mean anything for citizenship on the national level. The Founders and Framers did not adopt the English common law for the national level. In fact, they did no rely upon the English common law to define the new national citizenship.
The Founders and Framers were well aware of a “subject” and a “natural born subject” as is evidenced by the use of the clause “natural born subject” by the Massachusetts legislature in 1785 to 1791. But the Founders and Framers did not choose the clauses for the Constitution. In the new republic, they replaced “natural born subject” with “citizen” and added “natural born Citizen” to signify the children of the “citizens.” After July 4, 1776, on the national level, never was the clause “natural born subject” used again. They had a reason for specifically rejecting the clause and accepting instead a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” Indeed, these membership terms were suited for describing membership in an enlightened republic and not in a feudally-based monarchy. The meaning of these terms was already well established and generally understood.
Continued …
II of III
We have direct evidence from the Founding and later which shows that the Founders and Framers adopted neither the clauses “subject” and “natural born subject” nor their meaning for the new republic, but rather selected “citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” Historical evidence of this change which applied to the national government may be found, among other sources, in the Declaration of Independence (Jefferson obliterated “subject” and replaced it with “citizen”); Thomas Jefferson’s 1776 draft constitution for Virginia (uses “persons natural born”); the Treaty of Peace of 1783 (distinguishes between English “subjects” and American “citizens”); the original U.S. Constitution (only uses “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” in referring members of the U.S.); all the Acts of Congress on naturalization (e.g. Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, 1804, 1855, and all other acts that followed) (all use “natural born citizen” [only the 1790 Act] or “citizen”); the Fourteenth Amendment (only uses “citizen”); and case law from the United States Supreme Court (all use “citizen” or “natural-born citizen”).
Furthermore, how a particular state decided to define its citizens did not nor could it determine how the federal government defined the new national citizenship. The original “citizens of the United States” became so by naturalization by condition, i.e., the Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution. Once the Constitution was adopted in 1787, the states no longer were to legislate on who may be a “citizen of the United States” in the future. This new status was a national one and the power to decide it was given only to Congress. Note that the Constitution in Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 gave the power to naturalize exclusively to Congress. This power did not include the power to make “natural born Citizens” who were defined under American common law (the law of nations) as the children born in the country to “citizen” parents. Hence, as it pertained to national citizenship, it did not matter anymore what the states said about citizenship extending beyond their borders. Congress now decided who could be “citizens of the United States.”
Furthermore, not all the states even used the concept of “natural born subject” within their own states. For example, let us examine what Justice James Wilson wrote in 1791. Needless to say, Justice Wilson was a highly influential Founder and Framers. Pennsylvania also passed an English common law reception statute but it treated the citizenship question differently. We know from Justice James Wilson that the Founders and Framers intentionally did not select an unknown term to describe the new membership in the republic. Justice Wilson also informs us that they also decided not to use the well-known clause, “subject” or “natural born subject,” because they would have had to be used with a different meaning. They decided upon “citizen” because the people were already using that term the way that the term was meant to be used and they knew that it did not mean what subjecthood had meant under English common law. For Wilson, the meaning of a “citizen” went back to ancient Greece. He said that one could become a “citizen” of Pennsylvania by residing in the state for two years and in that time paying a state or county tax or if he was between the ages of twenty one and twenty two years and the son of a citizen, he would also become a “citizen” of Pennsylvania.
Continued . . .
III of III
Virginia had also passed an English common law reception statute. But as I have already explained, Thomas Jefferson in his citizenship law of 1779 in order to give citizenship in Virginia to infants required that they be born to citizen parents. Jefferson also did not use the word “subject” or “natural born subject” in Virginia. Jefferson’s infants followed the condition of their parents. This was not the English common law, but rather natural law and the law of nations which on matters of citizenship became part of American common law. See Minor v. Happersett (1875) (said “common-law” defined a “natural-born citizen” as a child born in a country to parents who were citizens of that country).
Eventually, all the other states which had not yet done so, pursuant to new statutes, all started to use “citizen” in place of “natural born subject.” Not only did these states reject the old “subject” and “natural born subject,” but they even wrote citizenship laws that rejected how subjecthood was defined under English common law. For example, see the 1860 New York state citizenship statute which said that all persons born and domiciled in the state, except children of transient aliens and of public ministers and consuls, were citizens of New York. Here is the statute:
Political Code of the State of New York (1860) Sec. 5. The citizens of the state are:
1. All persons born in this state and domiciled within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls;
2 All persons born out of this state who are citizens of the United States and domiciled within this state.
The State of New York thus rejected the English common and Lynch v. Clark, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583 (1844), a state decision which had held by relying on the English common law that a child born in New York of aliens parents who were subjects and domiciliaries of Ireland during their temporary sojourn in that city, returning with them the same year to their native country and always residing there afterwards was a “citizen of the United States.” Note that Minor in 1875 also put into serious doubt the validity of the Lynch decision and even U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) included “domicile” in its holding on the meaning of a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment. There are many problems and errors with the Lynch decision which I will not discuss at this moment.
All this, along with other evidence that I have presented, shows that a “natural born Citizen” did not take its meaning from a “natural born subject,” but rather had a meaning all of its own which I have shown came from antiquity and was handed down through the ages as part of natural law and the law of nations which we adopted at the Founding as part of American common law. Under that American common law which was acknowledged and confirmed in Minor and Wong Kim Ark, the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” was a child born in a country to citizen parents. So we can see that the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” (not to be conflated and confounded with a Wong Kim Ark Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” from birth) does not come from the English common law “natural born subject.”
Hello Mr. Apuzzo,
Although the way the full truth has been kept hidden dishonestly especially by the courts, I still hope that the full truth will one day be revealed!!
See "Obama regime is in default on Obama’s fraudulent use of CT Social Security number. More tampering by the clerk of the court" at http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/?p=51160
I have the feeling that with Obama, the forged long form birth certificate is only the tip of the iceberg!!
Stolen social security number used by Obama, forged selective service card, and more to come if only we would do a full discovery on ALL the documents related to Obama!!!!
One thing is sure, you, Orly Taitz, and others, you must fight until the truth is fully confirmed legally. No matter the amount of efforts that you will need to give to see this result.
NEVER GIVE UP FIGHTING TO PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA AND THE EVIL OBAMA, THE USUPER!
Mr. Apuzzo,
This summaries what Mr. Woodman has presented for the Massachusetts' naturalization Acts:
Feb., 1785 - NBC
Feb., 1786 - NBC
July, 1786 - NBC
March, 1787 - NBS
May, 1787 - NBS
Oct., 1787 - NBC
Nov., 1787 - NBS
Jan., 1788 - NBS
Nov., 1788 - NBC
Feb., 1789 - NBS
June, 1789 - NBS
March, 1790 - NBS
March, 1791 - NBS
So why did they switch back and forth between natural born citizen and natural born subject?
dr-conspiracy said...
You have so little to work with, I thought I would try to help.
Dr. C, I am most sad to see you here picking on Mr. Apuzzo. From my visits to your web site you gave to me the impression that being a gentleman was what you wanted and tried to be. I have not forgotten the occasions when you stepped in to defend those who made great fun of me. Many Americans know that as they say the "climate" at your web site is so thick with meanness and darkness and attack but I was happy to think that the way your visitors behaved was no reflection on your own soul.
May be that the ugly in the hearts of your visitors has found its way in to your heart? I most sincerely hope this is not so. We on this side have held hope for a leader on Mr. Obama's side who could and would discuss all issues as Mr. Obama has boasted "with civility". Can not this man be you, Dr. C?
Post a Comment