Sunday, May 6, 2012

The New York State Court Should Not Sanction Pro Se Plaintiff, Christopher Earl Strunk, for His "Natural Born Citizen" Litigation

The New York State Court Should Not Sanction Pro Se Plaintiff, Christopher  
                     Earl Strunk, for His “Natural Born Citizen” Litigation


                                         By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                May 6, 2012

On Monday, May 7, 2012, at 2:30 p.m., pro se litigant, Christopher Earl Strunk, will have to show cause before Hon. Arthur M. Schack, at Part 27, in Room 479, 360 Adams Street, Brooklyn, New York 11201, why he should not be made to pay for the defendants’ attorneys’ fees in his case in which he claims that putative President Barack Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” because he was not born to citizen parents. There are many attorneys involved and one can just imagine the size of the bill that they will present to the Court.

Here are the facts that give rise to Strunk’s legal action. Pro se litigant, Christopher Earl Strunk, commenced his election challenge case in the Supreme Court of the State of New York by filing a complaint on March 22, 2011, in which he alleged “breach of state constitutional fiduciary duty by the NEW YORK( STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS and public officer defendants; denial of equal protection for voter expectation of a correct ballot; denial of substantive due process for voter expectation of a correct ballot; interference with the right to a republican form of government by the two Jesuit defendants and defendant F.A.O. SCHWARZ, JR., who were all members of the New York City Campaign Finance Board; interference with plaintiffs election franchise; a scheme to defraud plaintiff of a reasonable expectation of successful participation in the suffrage process; and, a scheme by all defendants for unjust enrichment.” Decision and Order, p. 3-4. He included as a defendant “Soebarkah (a.k.a. Barry Soetoro, a.k.a. Barack Hussein Obama, a.k.a. Steve Dunham.

The defendant filed motions with Hon. Arthur M. Schack to dismiss Strunk’s complaint with prejudice. Strunk along with defendants many attorneys had oral argument on the motions before Judge Schack in August 2011. Judge Schack includes in his Decision and Order parts of the transcript of that oral argument. Judge Schack reserved decision.

While his case was pending, it was brought to Strunk’s attention that the State of New York’s instructions for getting on the presidential ballot, rather than state that a presidential candidate has to be a “natural born Citizen” pursuant to Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, said that the President only had to be “Born a Citizen.” He wrote to the state election authorities and pointed out the error. He asked that a correction be made to state that a presidential candidate must be a “natural born Citizen” which is what Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of our Constitution clearly and plainly states.

The State of New Jersey also had the same type of error. At first, the Secretary of State’s instruction, using plain citizenship as the criteria for eligibility, did not state that the President had to be a “natural born Citizen.” A concerned citizen wrote to the Secretary of State and pointed out the error and she simply made the correction by stating that a presidential candidate must be a “natural born Citizen.” The correct New Jersey instructions can be viewed at http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/91538227-New-Jersey-SOS-Eligibility-Instructions-for-Presidential-Primary-2012 . Strunk was looking for the same type of relief which would have satisfied his concerns regarding the wording of the eligibility instructions. But the State of New York would have none of it.

Not receiving any satisfaction, in October 2011, Strunk filed an order to show cause, asking that the court issue an order to the New York State Board of Elections that it correct the eligibility instruction from “born a Citizen” to “natural born Citizen.” Judge Schack denied his application as premature. At the October 25, 2011, hearing on his order to show cause, Strunk stated to counsel for the New York State Board of Elections that he would be willing to settle his litigation if the New York State Board of Elections would change the ballot instruction from "Born a Citizen" to "Natural-born Citizen." The attorney told him that they could not do that. Strunk appealed Judge Schack’s denial order and was told by the appeals court that Judge Schack’s order was an interlocutory order (not a final order) and so that court dismissed his appeal. In the meantime, he was back before Judge Schack on his pending complaint.

Judge Schack finally decided the case on April 11, 2012, at which time he entered his Decision and Order. Judge Schack granted defendants’ motions and dismissed Strunk’s complete complaint with prejudice. Judge Schack also granted a motion to admit pro hac vice one of the defendant’s attorney, finding that he was in good standing. It should be known that the Georgia court denied Attorney Van Iron’s motion for pro hac vice admission and the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania denied my motion for pro hac vice admission, even thought we are both in good standing.

Judge Schack started his opinion by stating that “[i]f the complaint in this action was a movie script, it would be entitled The Manchurian Candidate Meets The Da Vinci Code.

He found that Strunk did not sufficiently allege an injury in fact and therefore does not have standing which causes the court not to have jurisdiction over his claims.

Judge Schack found that because it is not possible to easily gain notice from reading his complaint what his particular cause of action is, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action.

Judge Schack concluded that Strunk’s fraud claim also needed to be dismissed because he did not plead with particularity that he relied upon any of the defendants’ statement and did not plead that he suffered any pecuniary loss as a result of statement of any of the defendants.

Judge Schack found that the court has no jurisdiction because of the political question doctrine and because, while finding no problem with his service upon the other main defendants, Judge Schack found that Strunk did not properly serve Obama and McCain.

Judge Schack concluded that Strunk already litigated “many of the issues” in the instant action in federal court and in Strunk v. Paterson, Index No. 29642/08, where the issues were decided against him. He therefore found that under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, he could not re-litigate those same issues in the instant action.

Judge Schack also denied Strunk’s cross motion to consolidate the instant action with another New York state case, Strunk v. Paterson, and to transfer the case to Judge Schmidt because the Paterson case was already dismissed.

Judge Schack also dismissed Strunk’s complaint on the ground that it was both factually and legally frivolous.

Finally, Judge Schack also ordered that Strunk is precluded from relitigating the same claims against the same defendants in the New York state court without first obtaining prior written approval from an administrative justice or judge.

Judge Schack never ruled on Strunk’s application that the Board of Elections be made to correct the ballot instruction for election for the Office of President to say not “born a Citizen,” but rather “natural born Citizen.”

Judge Schack has now ordered that Strunk show cause why he should not be made to pay for the costs incurred by all the defendants in having to retain and pay for their attorneys to defend them against his action.

Judge Schack did state the correct standard for the court to apply when deciding a motion to dismiss the complaint on its face. He stated:

"When determining a motion to dismiss, the court must 'accept the facts as alleged in the complaint as true, accord plaintiffs the benefit of every possible favorable inference, and determine only whether the facts as alleged fit within any cognizable legal theory' (see Arnav Indus., Inc. Retirement Trust v Brown, Raysman, Milstein, Felder & Steiner, 96 NY2d 300, 303 [2001]; Leon v Martinez, 84 NY2d 83,87-88 [1994 ]) [Emphasis added]." (Goldman v Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 5 NY3d 561, 570-571 [2005]). Further, the Court, in Morris v Morris (306 AD2d 449, 451 [2d Dept 2003]), instructed that:

          In determining whether a complaint is sufficient to withstand a motion
          pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7), "the sole criterion is whether the pleading
          states a cause of action, and if from its four corners factual allegations are
          discerned which taken together manifest any cause of action cognizable at
          law a motion for dismissal will fail" (Guggenheimer v Ginsburg, 43 NY2d
          268, 275 [1977]. The court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint
          to be true and determine only whether the facts alleged fit within any
          cognizable legal theory (see Dye v Catholic Med. Ctr. of Brooklyn &
          Queens, 273 AD2d 193 [2000]). However, bare legal conclusions are not
          entitled to the benefit of the presumption of truth and are not accorded
          every favorable inference (seeDoria v Masucci, 230 AD2d 764 [2000]).
          [Emphasis added]

                   For a plaintiff to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a  
          cause of action, the factual allegations in the claim cannot be "merely
          conclusory and speculative in nature and not supported by any specific
          facts." (Residents for a More Beautiful Port Washington, Inc. v Town of
          North Hempstead, 153 AD3d 727,729 [2d Dept 1989]). "The allegations in
          the complaint cannot be vague and conclusory."  (Stoianoff v Gahona, 248
          AD2d 525 [2d Dept 1998], app dismissed 92 NY2d 844 [1998], cert
          denied by Stoianoff v New York Times, 525 US 953 [1998]). (See
         LoPresti v Massachusetts Mut. Life Ins. Co., 30 AD3d 474 [2d Dept 2006];
         Levin v Isayeu, 27 AD3d 425 [2d Dept 2006]; Hart v Scott, 8 AD3d 532
         [2d Dept 2004]) (all emphasis in the original).

                               FAILURE TO HAVE STANDING

The court found that Strunk did not sufficiently allege an injury in fact and therefore does not have standing. It found that the court therefore did not to have jurisdiction over his claims. Judge Schack applied federal court standing standards to a state election challenge case. Many states in the union have liberal standing standards when it comes to allowing voters of their states to file election ballot challenges, with just requiring that the person be a registered voter of the state. Pennsylvania at most, requires a voter who files a ballot challenge to be of the same party as the candidate of whom the challenger complains. New Jersey has no same party requirement. The federal court standing standards have no application in the state election law challenge. Strunk should be given standing to bring his ballot challenge.

                     FAILURE TO STATE A CAUSE OF ACTION

Judge Schack found that because it is not possible to easily gain notice from reading his complaint what his particular cause of action is, the complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action. But with pro se complaints, courts have an obligation to fully and in good faith search the complaint for a cause of action. As I will show below, Strunk more than adequately sets out a cause of action which can be discerned by an indulgent reading of the complaint.

               FAILURE TO PLEAD FRAUD WITH PARTICULARITY

Judge Schack found that Strunk’s fraud claim also needed to be dismissed because he did not plead with particularity that he relied upon any of the defendants’ statement and did not plead that he suffered any pecuniary loss as a result of statement of any of the defendants. Strunk’s fraud claim is not necessary for him to continue his claim that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen.”

         FAILURE TO SHOW THAT THE COURT HAS JURISDICTION

Judge Schack found that the court has no jurisdiction because of the political question doctrine. He found that the question of presidential eligibility and necessarily the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” are left by the Constitution to the Electoral College and Congress in joint session when it counts the Electoral College votes. He even cites and relies upon 3 U.S.C. Sec. 15 which only applies after the general election and when the Congress is in joint session counting the Electoral Votes. Without even acknowledging that Obama is currently a candidate in the 2012 presidential election, he relies on the Electoral College’s and Congress’s lack of objection to Obama’s eligibility in the 2008 presidential election.

But what is worse is that Judge Schack confounds and conflated candidates with incumbents. He states that Strunk challenges the eligibility of “President Obama.” He did not state that it is “Candidate Obama” that Strunk challenges. The court relies strictly upon the Electoral College and Congress to decide whether incumbents are eligible for presidential office. He states that the states have no role to play in that process.

But the meaning of any specific clause of the Constitution is a judicial question and one to be authoritatively decided by the United States Supreme Court. That decision under the supremacy clause is binding on the entire nation. 1 Story on the Constitution, sec. 387.

Also, states do have a critical responsibility to ensure that candidates on state ballots for federal office meet constitutional eligibility requirements. By cutting the states out of making sure that presidential candidates are eligible for the office they seek, the court has cut out the states play in properly vetting presidential candidate early in the election process so as to not allow any unqualified candidate to advance too far and even to the point where the general public is voting for an ineligible candidate.

The U.S. Constitution requires that the President be a natural born citizen, 35 years of age or older, and reside in the U.S. for 14 years prior to being elected. The issue of eligibility has come up on at least seven occasions with regard to past Presidents and Presidential candidates. As we have witness with the 2008 presidential election, there is considerable confusion over the issue of who vets candidates for their eligibility for federal office, including the Office of President. The Congressional Research Service (CRS) examined the issue of who is responsible for presidential vetting. In their report they opine that there is "no federal law, regulation, rule, guideline, or requirement that a candidate for federal office produce his or her original birth certificate, or a certified copy of the record of live birth, to any official of the United States Government; nor is there a requirement for federal candidates to publicly release such personal record or documentation." The CRS memo can be read here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/74176180/Qualifications-for-President-and-the-%E2%80%9CNatural-Born%E2%80%9D-Citizenship-Eligibility-Requirement (as I explain herein, I do not agree with Jack Maskell’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” which is any person who is a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth, regardless of to whom or where born). The CRS adds that ''there is no specific federal agency or office that 'vets' candidates for federal office as to qualifications or eligibility prior to elections."

Without any federal laws or guidelines on presidential vetting, the federal government has not precluded the states from doing so. Hence, the best time to resolve Strunk’s ballot challenge is at the primary level. At the primary level, it is candidate Obama himself who wants to appear on the ballot. Under the Constitution and state law, it is the candidate who has to prove that the candidate is eligible to be placed on that primary ballot. Strunk should not be made to challenge Obama’s eligibility only after the general election in November 2012. At that point, Obama can argue that the public votes for electors and not him and therefore only the eligibility of electors can be challenged. Plaintiffs should not be made to rely on the Electoral College or Congress for resolving their challenge to Obama’s eligibility to be elected President. At that point, Obama can argue that the courts do not have jurisdiction to tell the Electoral College or Congress how to do their jobs.

In The Federalist No. 68, Alexander Hamilton explained that the President was a “person to whom so important a trust was to be confided.” He advocated that the Electoral College “will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to so complicate an investigation.” He said that because the President was “so an important agency in the administration of the government,” “tumult and disorder” were to be avoided in selecting the President. What better way than for the states to aid in this complex investigation of that person who should want to run for that most important office. Surely by requiring any such candidate to produce documentary evidence of his or her identity and place of birth is a first step in producing that needed information which is so vital to such a complicated investigation. The states therefore serve a vital role in the beginning stages of the vetting of any presidential candidate. Such vetting should start as soon as possible so as to avoid parties becoming entrenched in their selections and wanting to win at all costs at the expense of the people and their Constitution.

Furthermore, to allow an ineligible candidate to advance to the Electoral College or even to Congress in joint session only brings with it tremendous cost, embarrassment for both political parties, political haggling, insults and ridicule, and finger pointing, all at the expense of the Constitution. It is best that presidential eligibility requirements are met prior to the election of a candidate in order to avoid the prospect of Congress being asked and having to invalidate national election results. What better way to secure liberty and support the Constitution than to allow all our political institutions, including those of the states, to have a role in presidential vetting.

Judge Schack found that the court has no jurisdiction because Strunk did not properly serve Obama and McCain. While finding no problem with his service upon the other main defendants, Judge Schack found that Strunk did not properly serve Obama and McCain. The court did not find that Obama and McCain were indispensable parties and that the action could not proceed without their presence in the action. Hence, service upon the other defendants is sufficient to give the court jurisdiction over his claims against the other defendants which concern both Obama and McCain.

                 THAT STRUNK’S COMPLAINT IS FRIVOLOUS

Judge Schack found that Strunk’s claim that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” is frivolous. The “natural born Citizen” issue is the heart and soul of Strunk’s action. Judge Schack states that " ‘[a] complaint containing as it does both factual allegations and legal conclusions, is frivolous where it lacks an arguable basis’ and ‘embraces not only the inarguable legal conclusion, but also the fanciful factual allegation.’ (Neitzke v Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 325 [1989]).” Hence, Judge Schack looked to both the alleged facts and legal claims made by Strunk relative to the “natural born Citizen” claim in order to determine whether his complaint was frivolous.

As to Strunk’s factual allegations, he has adequately pled in his complaint that Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama’s birth wherever that may be. As proof of this fact, he relies upon Obama’s admission in his book, Dreams from My Father, the INS (immigration) file on Obama’s father, the alleged Certificate of Live Birth that Obama released via the internet on April 27, 2011, and the Obama-Dunham divorce papers. While it could be argued that portions of Strunk’s complaint (references to the Vatican, Roman Catholic Church, and the Society of Jesus and inclusion of a long list of defendants) rise to the level of the “irrational,” the thrust of his legal argument, that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” as we shall see below is eminently reasonable. Whether or not Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen” citizen under the American common law standard that has been in place since the Founding is not a conspiracy theory or what Judge Schack pejoratively calls a “birther case.” There are some factual allegations in Strunk’s complaint that could raise some eyebrows. We can also understand Strunk’s frustration and his naming defendants who he believes have allowed Obama to proceed unchallenged and others who he believes should be “taking responsibility to enforce the law which has not been done” regarding the question of Obama’s eligibility to be President. Decision and Order, p. 20 (Strunk speaking at oral arguments). Strunk does add some questionable factual allegations in his complaint about the defendants’ religious motivations. He does express an “irrational anti-Catholic bias.” But those questionable factual allegations regarding defendants’ motivations are not relevant to the question of what is a “natural born Citizen” and whether Obama meets that definition. Those suspect factual allegations which he “weaves” into his complaint should therefore not trump the sound part of his complaint and be used as a means to create a circus-type atmosphere in the court and thereby to obfuscate the real argument that he makes which is that Obama does not meet the status quo American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen,” which definition as we can see below is adequately shown to exist by the historical record and case law of our United States Supreme Court.

As to Strunk’s legal arguments as to what is a “natural born Citizen,” Judge Schack did not correctly state Strunk’s legal position and by doing so actually created a straw man argument. He stated:

          Plaintiff STRUNK'S complaint, as well as his opposition to defendants'
          motions to dismiss, alleges that the correct interpretation of the natural born
          citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution requires a natural born citizen to
          have been born on United States soil and have two United States born
          parents. Despite plaintiff's assertions, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 does
          not state this. No legal authority has ever stated that the natural born citizen
          clause means what plaintiff STRUNK claims it states. "The phrase 'natural
          born Citizen' is not defined in the Constitution, see Minor v Happersett, 88
          US 162, 167 [1875]), nor does it appear anywhere else in the document, 
          see Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President a/the United States: An 
          Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 5 (1968)." (Hollander v McCain at
          65). Plaintiff STRUNK cannot wish into existence an interpretation that he
          chooses for the natural born citizen clause. There is no arguable legal basis
          for the proposition that both parents of the President must have been born
          on U.S. soil. This assertion is as frivolous as the multitude of alleged
          allegations outlined above.

          Moreover, President OBAMA is the sixth U. S. President to have had one
          or both of his parents not born on U.S. soil. Plaintiff STRUNK and his
          fellow "birthers" might not realize that both parents of President Andrew
          Jackson were born in what is now Northern Ireland; President James
          Buchanan's father was born in County Donegal, Ireland; President Chester
          A. Arthur's father was born in what is now Northern Ireland; President
          Woodrow Wilson's mother was born in Carlisle, England; and, President
          Herbert Hoover's mother was born in Norwich, Ontario, Canada.

But Strunk did not argue that a “natural born Citizen” child has to be born to “two United States born parents” or that “both parents . . . must have been born on U.S. soil.” This argument is strictly a creation of Judge Schack. Rather, Strunk argued that a "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the United States to "citizen" parents.

Strunk correctly argues that "born Citizen" is not the same as "natural born Citizen." The first step in constitutional interpretation is textual analysis of the clause in question. In that analysis, we have to look at each and every word of the clause which includes "natural" and define that word. By using “born Citizen” rather than “natural born Citizen,” would be saying that we do not need to consider and define "natural," that the Framers just threw that word in as surplusage.

On the contrary, the word "natural" is part and parcel of the full clause, "natural born Citizen." The clause as a whole is a word of art, an idiom. The historical record shows that it has always been used as such and that it has never been used in some expanded way as “born Citizen” suggests. Indeed, the clause is a unitary phrase with a unitary meaning. Hence, "natural" cannot be separated from the clause. Rather what needs to be done is to search for the meaning of the whole clause and not its parts.

In this textual analysis, we cannot simply take that idiom and say that it means some other manufactured definition of the clause. We cannot simply proclaim without evidence that the meaning of that idiom equates to the manner in which Congress and the Fourteenth Amendment allows persons to acquire the status of a “citizen of the United States” as of the moment of birth. No U.S. Supreme Court case or Justice has adopted such a manufactured definition or even said that such a meaning prevailed at the time of the Founding. That someone acquires his or her citizenship from the moment of birth simply does not equate to that person being a "natural born Citizen." Even Wong Kim Ark and Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) tell us that persons may be “naturalized” from the moment of birth. We accept that “naturalized” person are not “natural born Citizens.” Furthermore, that Wong Kim Ark included the clause “natural born subject” in the context of its discussion of what is a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” does not through some amazing feat of logic convert a “citizen of the United States” into a “natural born Citizen.” As Minor aptly explained, a “natural born Citizen” is neither created by the Constitution nor depended upon it. Hence, neither Fourteenth Amendment nor its debates on who shall be a “citizen of the United States” does not control who shall be “natural born Citizens.”

Hence, simply having a status of a “citizen” from the moment of birth does not necessarily equate to one being a “natural born Citizen.” The fact that the Framers included the word “natural” as an additional qualifier tells us that quite plainly, for if such an interpretation were correct the Framers would simply have said “born Citizen.” So, any person that is a “born Citizen” who claims to be a “natural born Citizen” still has to show that he or she satisfies the idiomatic meaning of the clause which the historical record and U.S. Supreme Court case law show to be a child born in the country to parents who are citizens of that country. This definition is exactly what our United States Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett in 1875 and Wong Kim Ark in 1898 confirmed is the correct American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

For this time-honored natural law/law of nations/American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen”, see Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162 (1875) (decided after the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868 and holding that "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners"). What Minor said about a “natural born Citizen” was confirmed in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (acknowledging and confirming Minor’s American common law definition of a “natural-born citizen” but adding based on the English common law that since “‘[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), a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States”). This American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” has never been changed, not even by the Fourteenth Amendment (only uses the clause "citizen of the United States" and does not mention "natural born Citizen") or Wong Kim Ark, and therefore still prevails today. Both those U.S. Supreme Court cases define a "natural born Citizen" as a child born in a country to parents who are citizens of that country.

This 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 Wong Kim Ark, 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 and Wong Kim Ark, 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).

Given the meaning of the clause since time immemorial; the enlightened intellectual mindset of the Founding period which focused on natural law and the law of nations as commented upon by Cicero, Pufendorf, Burlamaqui, John Locke, Rousseau, Emer de Vattel; the motivating spirit of the American Revolution; the Founders and Framers desire to preserve the constitutional republic for Posterity; the way that founding –era legal scholars such as Chief Justice John Marshall, David Ramsay, St. George Tucker, and James Wilson defined American citizenship; Congressional acts on naturalization; U.S. Supreme Court case law; and the historical record as a whole, this is the most natural interpretation of the clause.

Regarding the citizenship status of the parents of a “natural born Citizen,” the Constitution and Congressional Acts clearly and without question show that a “citizen” may be one either by being “natural born” or naturalized either at birth or after birth. Hence, what Strunk argued is that a child needs to be born in the country to parents who are both either “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States” by naturalization at birth or after birth. He did not argue that the parents needed to be born citizens or born on the soil of the United States. None of the legal actions filed against Obama on his eligibility have made such an argument and neither did Strunk. So it is totally irrelevant to Strunk’s claim that “Obama is the sixth U. S. President to have had one or both of his parents not born on U.S. soil,” for under his interpretation of the Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and his definition of a "natural born Citizen," those presidents, other than Chester A. Arthur who like Obama cannot benefit from Article II's grandfather clause and was not born to citizen parents, qualified to be President.   

Judge Schack has not decided the merits of the legal argument that Strunk made concerning what is a “natural born Citizen,” but rather a legal argument that he himself created regarding that clause. Hence, not having yet passed on the argument that Strunk made, he surely cannot reasonably conclude that Strunk’s argument is frivolous. Furthermore, in Tennessee, the Federal District Court just recently stated:

          “The Court finds that the federal question presented, the meaning of the
          phrase 'natural born citizen' as a qualification for the Presidency set out in
          Article II of the Constitution, is important and not trivial.” “The issue of
          whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the
          Presidency is certainly substantial.” “It is clear that the stated federal issue
          of President Obama’s qualifications for the office are ‘actually disputed
          and substantial.’” “It is also clear that there will be a legal dispute over the
          Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s
          decision in Minor.”

Liberty Legal Foundation et al v. National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc. et al, Case No. 12-2143-STA. So we can see that the federal court found the issue of whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” to be “important and not trivial,” “substantial,” and “disputed.”

Additionally, Judge Schack disagrees with Strunk’s definition of a “natural born Citizen,” although as I have shown above he states a definition which Strunk did not put forth, because the Constitution does not define the clause, citing “Hollander v. McCain at 65” which cited Minor and Charles Gordon, Who can be President of the United States: An Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L.Rev. 1, 5 (1968). If that were a valid reason for disagreeing with someone’s definition of a constitutional clause, we basically would have virtually no interpretation of the Constitution at all. As is often said, the Constitution is not a dictionary of legal terms. Its meaning has to be gleaned from its text, if possible, and when not possible, from sources outside the Constitution. For example, the Fourteenth Amendment does not tell us what “subject to the jurisdiction” means. Yet, our nation has arrived at a meaning of the clause by looking outside the Constitution. That the Constitution does not define a “natural born Citizen” is the only argument that Judge Schack makes to discount Strunk’s position as to what is the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” He offers no other authorities showing that Strunk is wrong. Also, we should know that Charles Gordon in the very same article cited by Judge Schack states that neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark’s holding defined a “natural born Citizen.”

Surely, all this shows that Strunk did allege a particular cause of action and gave sufficient notice of both the facts and the law that support his cause of action. All this also shows that it is not true that Strunk’s complaint presents no legitimate basis in law or fact which warrants sanctions. Even assuming arguendo that the Court is correct about standing, jurisdiction, and collateral estoppel, the Court did not say that these grounds of dismissal support the Court’s finding that the action is frivolous. Rather, the Court’s finding of frivolous concerns Strunk’s definition of a “natural born Citizen.” I have shown that his definition is more than reasonable to raise a genuine constitutional question. Hence, his complaint is not frivolous.

As Judge Schack correctly states, “all litigants have a right to impartial and considered justice.” Muka v. New York State Bar Association. 120 Misc. 2d 897 (Sup. Ct. Tompkins County 1983). But Judge Schack’s references to “ ‘birther’ cases” “ ‘birther’ action,” “ ‘birther’ movement,” “his fellow ‘birthers,’” is hardly any show of actually receiving that “impartial and considered” justice. “Birther” is a pejorative term that is used by Obama’s supporters. It is a quick way to dismiss through ridicule and ad hominem attack any argument that is made that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” As I have shown, whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” is not some conspiracy or “lunatic fringe” argument. Rather, it is, as even the federal court in Tennessee has confirmed, a legitimate and substantial constitutional issue which to date has escaped being address in any meaningful way.

Apart that there is no factual or legal basis for the Court to sanction Mr. Strunk, there are also public policy reasons for not doing so. Judge Schack states in his opinion that sanctions of the court are designed to punish in the present so as to deter what the court deems unacceptable behavior in the future. The court adds that such a policy is justified in that it works to save judicial resources. On the contrary, for the Court to sanction Mr. Strunk under the existing circumstances would not only save judicial resources by preventing him from filing further Article II eligibility actions in New York in the future, but would do a great disservice to our system of justice and republican form of government. With any such sanction, the public, not knowing the full details of this matter and after having been bombarded by manipulated and propagandist use of the court’s sanction decision by Obama’s supporters, will come away with the thought that Mr. Strunk was sanctioned by the “Supreme Court of the State of New York” because he filed a complaint in a court of law claiming that Mr. Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The public will therefore not only be made to think that there is no legitimate basis in filing any such legal actions against Mr. Obama, but also that if anyone so dare, he or she will be severely sanctioned by our courts. Additionally, because we follow the doctrine of stare decisis (to abide by or adhere to decided cases), other courts will be pressured to do the same should anyone file any such action. Hence, we can easily see the chilling effect that the Court’s sanction will have to not only people resorting to our court’s in search of what they deem to be justice, but also stifling the free exercise of political speech and discourse in all corners of America. This is especially grave given that Mr. Obama is now being more carefully publicly and privately vetted for his re-election.

For these reasons, the Supreme Court of the State of New York should not sanction or otherwise discipline pro se litigant, Chris Shrunk, and should discharge its show cause order.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 6, 2012
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

116 comments:

Mick said...

The SCOTUS has said, in McPherson v. Blacker (1892), that the State election officials have to do ministerial duty w/ discretion to A2 in Presidential elections:

“Congress is empowered to determine the time of choosing the electors and the day on which they are to give their votes, which is required to be the same daythroughout the United States; but otherwise the power and jurisdiction of the state is exclusive, with the exception of the provisions as to the number of electors and the ineligibility of certain persons, so framed that congressional and federal
influence might be excluded.”

McPherson v. Blacker, 146 US 1, 35 (1892)

Included in the category of those ineligible persons listed in A2 are:

1)“but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trustor Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."(A2S1c2)

2)“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of theAdoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President." (A2S1C5)

This was a case about the States' power to legislate their statutory scheme of choosing electors, so #1 applies. But the court certainly would not say to pay attention to the exclusion of 1 group and not the others pertaining to A2 in Presidential elections--- those who were not natural born Citizens. If the states must not pick officers of state and federal government as electors on it's ballot, then it surely cannot pick those who are NOT natural born Citizens to be on the ballot. So says the SCOTUS.

"Likewise, in Anderson v Celebrezze, 460 U. S. 780,794795 (1983) (footnoteomitted), we said: "[I]n the context of a Presidential election, state-imposed restrictions implicate a uniquely important national interest. For the Presidentand the Vice President of the United States are the only elected officials whorepresent all the voters in the Nation." Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98, 112

Also McPherson v. Blacker clearly says that:

“It is argued that the subject-matter of the controversy is not of judicialcognizance, because it is said that all questions connected with the electionof a presidential elector are political in their nature; that the court has nopower finally to dispose of them; and that its decision would be subject toreview by political officers and agencies, as the state board of canvassers,the legislature in joint convention, and the governor, or, finally, thecongress.
But the judicial power of the United States extends to all cases in law orequity arising under the constitution and laws of the United States, and thisis a case so arising, since the validity of the state law was drawn in questionas repugnant to such constitution and laws, and its validity was sustained”
McPherson v. Blacker, 146 US 1, 23 (1892).

Mick said...

In Federalist #68, a natural born Citizen is described as a "creature of their own". The purpose of choosing a "Creature of their own", according to Federalist #68 was the prevention of foreign influence.

To guard against the choosing of one not a "creature of their own", we were to guard against "an improper ascendant". An "improper ascendant", according to the 1813 and 1828 Webster's Dictionary, is "an improper ANCESTOR".

Could a "creature of their own be the scion of a foreigner, who was never a US Citizen? Could the most provident and judicious method of choosing a "creature of their own" in order to avoid foreign influence, be the choosing of one born British, of a British subject father, who held foreign citizenship at least until age 23, and possibly is still a British subject today?

Barack Obama Sr. is AN IMPROPER ANCESTOR.

lsimm48 said...

I woud like to call the court to give my opinion on this totatly unconstitutional decision that the court made...What is the phone number??? Thank you Leslie

jayjay said...

Puzo1:

A solid analysis from top to bottom and it, unfortunately, shows how the pro-Obama portion of the Judcial Branch takes grave and unjustified license in re-stating (or actually mis-stating) things that were said in the action.

Would it not be more correct and more helpful to jurisprudence to take these actions seriously, review the evidence, the pertinent precedents and laws involved and THEN make a reasoned ruling citing all points of fact and law considered and which back the opinion issued. In other words, hear the cases on merit rather than dismiss by saying (in effect) "no one else has ever found anything wrong in court so we can't either".

Or is it, perhaps, that stare decises applies rather than to SCOTUS precedents (Minor, WKA, etc) but instead to massively flawed and falacious arguments put forth by the court itself in earlier cases as an excuse to rid itself of a case it views as politically charged or harmful of it's preferred "politician du jour".

Several courts have used the hugely flawed CRS Memo(s) by Maskell that are filled with mis- and dis- information and actually have been shown to warp and misquote some learned writings to try to prove the opposite of what they actually say.

Stare decises based upon clear lies and/or fraud, perhaps?

Unknown said...

The judiciary is just one of the many corrupted institutions in America. I can not think of one profession that has not given its soul to the devil so to speak. As as a psychotherapist I have to deal with the psychiatric drug scandal. The drugs prevent the person from ever recovering. They destroy lives. There is abundant evidence of this just as there is in the Obama matter--but the powers ignore it and protect their money and status. At least the Europeans are now starting to fight back.
Obviously these various judges know from experience what they can get away with and probably laugh about it among those who know the score. I would hope there were some attorneys in New York who would come forth and assist this person who is attempting to do his duty as a good citizen.
Are we in that situation that other nations have found themselves where only after it is way too late people finally wake up?

Andy said...

You argument that "natural born citizen" requires two parents isn't accepted by the courts through their interpretation of common law, statute, and precedent.

There are really only two options here:

Either:
1) The entire US Judiciary is wrong

or

2) You are wrong.

Which is most likely?

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

We are not in a law court here. This is the court of public opinion, where the courts have told us the issue of Obama's eligibility belongs. Make your case here.

bdwilcox said...

You know things are bad when judges blatantly make **** up to threaten people.

Justin said...

@Andy

The highest court in the land DOES agree.

Minor v Happersett

"it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

MichaelN said...

Justice Antonin Scalia delivered the following remarks at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington, D.C., on March 14, 2005.

http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm

"Now, in asserting that originalism used to be orthodoxy, I do not mean to imply that judges did not distort the Constitution now and then, of course they did.

We had willful judges then, and we will have willful judges until the end of time.

But the difference is that prior to the last 50 years or so, prior to the advent of the “Living Constitution,” judges did their distortions the good old fashioned way, the honest way — they lied about it.

They said the Constitution means such and such, when it never meant such and such.

It’s a big difference that you now no longer have to lie about it, because we are in the era of the evolving Constitution.

And the judge can simply say, “Oh yes, the Constitution didn’t used to mean that, but it does now.”

We are in the age in which not only judges, not only lawyers, but even school children have come to learn the Constitution changes.

I have grammar school students come into the Court now and then, and they recite very proudly what they have been taught: “The Constitution is a living document.” You know, it morphs.

Well, let me first tell you how we got to the “Living Constitution.” You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand it. The road is not that complicated.

Initially, the Court began giving terms in the text of the Constitution a meaning they didn’t have when they were adopted."

MichaelN said...

@ Andy who said ......

"You argument that "natural born citizen" requires two parents isn't accepted by the courts through their interpretation of common law, statute, and precedent."

Then, explain how come the Minor court recognized and acknowledged doubts as to whether a native-born child, born to alien parents, was even a citizen, given it were true that the Minor court was referring to the English "common law" in the paragraph of text these doubts were mentioned, and also given that English common law maintained that native-birth sufficed to make a "natural born subject" and given also that "citizen" and "subject" were considered to be analogous???

Andy said...

Mario:

I just did. And by logic, you lose.

Mick said...

Andy said...
"Mario:

I just did. And by logic, you lose".


Try this logic on for size. A2S1C5 has never been amended. In 1790 a child born to an alien, in America was considered an alien, until his father naturalized during that child's minority. Thus Obama, born of a foreign father, supposedly in Hawaii, is not a natural born Citizen today.

Or this one. If the purpose of the natural born Citizen clause wis the prevention of foreign influence, then it is not possible that Obama, who was born British, then attained Kenyan citizenship until age 23, is a natural born Citizen.

Or this one. If those who are "US Citizens at birth" are natural born Citizens, then congress could amend A2S1C5 at will by changing naturalization law.

Puzo1 said...

Here is a comment that I just posted for suranis at GOPUSA at http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2012/05/01/natural-born-citizen-requirements/comment-page-3/#comment-13285

suranis,

1. From Wong Kim Ark: “The same rule [jus soli] was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.” The issue is not what the law of England was. The issue is what was the law of the United States after July 4, 1776 and at the adoption of the Constitution in 1787. Neither you nor Justice Gray has produced any evidence from the Founding period that the English jus soli rule “continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.” If you have such evidence, maybe you can help Justice Gray out. Please produce it here.

2. You said: “And the most holy Minor V Happersett agrees ‘At common law, to which the Framers were familiar...’" Why do you attempt to mislead the public. You know quite well that the “common law” that Minor referred to said that a “natural-born citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who were citizens of that country. That, my friend, is not jus soli English common law. Rather, that is jus sanguinis American common law.

3. You said: “[T]he Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark also approvingly quoted Justice Gaston of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, in his statement that the term ‘citizen’ is ‘PRECISELY ANALOGOUS’ to the term ‘subject:’ ‘Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term ‘citizen,’ as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term ‘subject’ in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before was a ‘subject of the king’ is now ‘a citizen of the State.’”

That A is analogous to B does not mean that A and B are equivalent in meaning. Rather, it only means that A is similar to B in some respects but not all. Hence, what the South Carolina court was saying is that members of colonial America were called “subjects” and members of America after July 4, 1776 were called “citizens.” The two terms are analogous because they provide the name for the membership of the people of those societies. That is it and no more. To read into what the Court said that the two had the same definition is adding more to what the court said.

In short, Obama, Rubio, and Jindal are not “natural born Citizens.”

jayjay said...

Andy:

Clearly you are the loser on the matter of the nbC issue and its meaning. The precedential case in law is Minor in addition to others that have upheld that ruling in one way or another.

Perhaps you have not read many of the white papers that Mario has written and posted here and the clear import of those is that American Common Law IS NOT, never was, and never will be English Common Law. Some elements of ECL are still applicable and patterned from that in various parts of ACL (contracts, torts, etc.) but not in the eligibility or citizenship matters.

Subjects and citizens are quite different things unless, perhaps, you believe Mr. Obama is a royal personage inhereting his throne rather than being an elected politician. You might not be faulted for such a belief since the man himself clearly believes that also.

MichaelN above cited some comments by Justice Scalia that are applicable to your ill-founded beliefs. To cite Justice Scalia is the epitome of irony since it was Scalia's opinion in Lujan v Defenders of Wildlife that is the bedrock basis for the misused concept of "standing" and other procedura excuses that many judges ave erroneously used to dismiss-without-hearing-of-evidence many of the eligibility actrions. That is ironic because Scalia's opinion in Lujan related specifically to a narrow sort of regulatory action and NOT to any sort of action having the broad Constitutional purview of the eligibility actions such as Kerchner et al or the more recent PA Ballot Challenge.

These cases being dismissed using such flimsy procedural excuses are a prime example of what Scalia was speaking about and are a gross misapplication of a SCOTUS decision on a quite different matter.

More to the point is Cohens v. Virginia which clearly was instructing the Supreme Court - if not others - that Constitutional matters MUST be heard fully and in earnest. Doing otherwise (as has been done in the many currect eligibility summarily rejected) cases is (as John Marshall in his Cohens opinion said) "... treason to the Constitution ...".

Andy said...

@Mick:

The courts hold that Minor is not ruling precedent. Many courts have agreed on this, including the Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark.

@jayjay:

I have read Mario's papers. So have the courts. And they have disagreed in every instance.

And to quote Scalia myself, I would think he agrees with me:

Justice Scalia: … I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?

They did not want that.

They wanted natural born Americans.

[Ms.]. Davis: Yes, by the same token…

Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?

[Ms.] Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.

Justice Scalia: Well, maybe.

I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.

I don’t think you’re disagreeing.

It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?

-During oral argument for Nguyen v. INS

Mick said...

Typical of the ilk, Andy does not respond to the logic posted for him to digest, and just spouts off more inane nonsense. Respond to the logic, and then I'll respond to your easily refuted BS. (for instance Scalia didn't say it ONLY included jus soli).

MichaelN said...

@ Andy who said ......

"You argument that "natural born citizen" requires two parents isn't accepted by the courts through their interpretation of common law, statute, and precedent."

Then, explain how come the Minor court recognized and acknowledged doubts as to whether a native-born child, born to alien parents, was even a citizen, given it were true that the Minor court was referring to the English "common law" in the paragraph of text these doubts were mentioned, and also given that English common law maintained that native-birth sufficed to make a "natural born subject" and given also that "citizen" and "subject" were considered to be analogous???

Andy said...

Okay, here is my response to your "logic."

You're right, the clause has never been amended, primarily because it hasn't needed amending. "Natural born citizen" has meant the same thing since it's inception: those born on American soil.

You fail to show any evidence that in 1790 someone born of an alien father was not considered a citizen. The Naturalization Act of 1790 doesn't mention those BORN in the United States because it didn't need to. Those were already natural born citizens. It only mentions those who are residing with an alien parent (the children would receive citizenship when the parent did), and those born OUTSIDE of the United States. So your logic fails when compared to the text of the statute.

And as for foreign influence - the purported purpose of the clause was to keep those who had not allegiance to our great nation from taking control. Who better than those born here?

Moreover, this argument fails because there is no test to determine allegiance in our constitution. This would be like saying that Mr. McVeigh was a patriot for bombing the Federal Courthouse in Oklahoma city simply because his parents were citizens when he was born. He had no more allegiance to our great nation than the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. Allegiance flows not from parents - it flows from your heart.


Changing the constitution with naturalization laws already happened - they defined those born abroad as natural born citizens in the very same Naturalization Act of 1790.

The Constitution only recognizes two forms of citizenship - acquired at birth, and acquired via naturalization. Case law, statute, and the Constitution itself back me up on that.

(The reason why I didn't answer your logic test earlier is because in each case, your logic was flawed. I was hoping you'd realize that before I had to correct you.)

jayjay said...

Andy:

You lose again despite the attempt at perverting what was being said.

Your interpretation of what the WKA decision "said" about nbC (Minor) is very far off base and in fact WKA actually reinforces the definition in Minor but I'm certainly waiting with bated breath to have you delineate the exact case cititions where you claim it is specified that Minor is not ruling precedent. Just be explicit in giving the exact chapters and verses to save us all time in disputing you.

So it seems your claims that you have both read "Marios papers" I referenced fall well short of the mark since clearly you have not - nor have you taken up any real debate points with those papers.

In fact were you being more intgellectually honest you'd admit that your sentences:
"I have read Mario's papers. So have the courts. And they have disagreed in every instance."

... are, in fact, nonsense. Not only have most of the eligiility courts he has been before not only not read most of his papers since only the case briefs were before them containing in some cases only a subset of the entire corpus I'm speaking of. In fact the courts in the instances I'm aware of with his pleadings have merely ducked the issue using the procedural "out" of standing that I mentioned with reference to Scalia. And my comments relating to that Justice related only to the opinon he wrote for the majority in Lujan and its later perversion of meaning by other courts on the standing issue. Nowhere did I ever touch upon any casual ruminations by Scalia about any nbC discussions formal or informal that have appeared.

My subject was about his opinon on "standing" and if you read Lujan you will observe that that comment was directed at a particular sort of standing - not the general misuse with respect to Constitutional matters that the Obama flacks seem to so love. Let's not have this all-too-common trick attempted of trying to divert the subject to something else.

You need to back away and take a long hard look at what you are saying since you seem to not know the import of your comments. On this blog many readers are much better informed than you suppose.

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

You said: "I have read Mario's papers. So have the courts. And they have disagreed in every instance."

Please provide for us any analysis from any court which shows that the court disagreed with every instance of my argument on what is a "natural born Citizen."

Andy said...

@JayJay

Well, let's look at recent rulings. How many of those cite Minor, and how many of those cite WKA?

Precedent is, by definition, the example of the general thoughts on law. Since WKA is cited for citizenship law, while Minor is only occasionally cited, it bears to mind that WKA would be the precedent.

And I've read Mario's work, and found it wanting. He seems to create out of thin air an "American" common-law completely distinct from English Common law, even while admitting that we used English Common law in the Constitution. That's ludicrous, and without support by any legal standard. (Some might even go as far as to say frivolous.)

What you believe standing is or is not, and what Scalia believes it is or is not isn't a matter of discussion - only a majority of the Supreme Court can change how the law is interpreted, not a single justice. (My point in using Scalia is to point out that very fact - one person's assumptions of the meaning matters little in law - it's all in the general understanding.)

As for Mr. Apuzzo's request, he is misreading my statement - in every instance you've put your theories out there, they've been rebuffed. (Take for example New Jersey, most recently, and the Tisdale decision, which speaks specifically against your theories.)

You may be informed, but without the correction information being supplied to you, you have been mis-informed. Mr. Apuzzo can theorize all he wants on his blog - that is his right - but he must also accept the fact that his ideas are far outside the mainstream of legal thought, and as such, have been dismissed by several courts to this point.

MichaelN said...

Andy said .........
"And I've read Mario's work, and found it wanting. He seems to create out of thin air an "American" common-law completely distinct from English Common law, even while admitting that we used English Common law in the Constitution. That's ludicrous, and without support by any legal standard. (Some might even go as far as to say frivolous.)"
-----------------------

Andy, explain how come the Minor court recognized and acknowledged doubts as to whether a native-born child, born to alien parents, was even a citizen, given it were true that the Minor court was referring to the English "common law" in the paragraph of text these doubts were mentioned, and also given it were true that English common law maintained that native-birth alone sufficed to make a "natural born subject" and given also that "citizen" and "subject" were considered to be analogous???

Jo said...

What is the valid fact the mainstream legal thought maintained? Are they following the US Constitution, if not are they usurping the US Constitution to suit their own interpretation?

4zoltan said...

Andy,

"we used English Common law in the Constitution."

The Bill of Rights which was drafted by James Madison as a compromise to get the Constitution ratified include the Rules of English Common Law in the Seventh Amendment.

Justin said...

@Andy

WKA is precedent. It shows that the children of aliens are "citizens" and not "natural born citizens". WKA supports the Birther argument, not the Obots. Thank you for continually bringing it up.

Puzo1 said...

I of II

Andy,

It sounds like all the good little Obots go to the same thought school. You all read from the same play book. I even like the secret Obots, who do not tell us from where they read.

You said: "And I've read Mario's work, and found it wanting. He seems to create out of thin air an "American" common-law completely distinct from English Common law, even while admitting that we used English Common law in the Constitution. That's ludicrous, and without support by any legal standard. (Some might even go as far as to say frivolous.)"

Your comment is absurd. I have said that the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments) which was ratified in 1791 contains rights that existed in English common law. That does not mean that the English common law necessarily created them. These amendments were passed after the Constitution was adopted in 1787.

I also said that the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with who shall be members of the new republic and its citizens. The historical record and case law show that the Founders and Framers turned to natural law and the law of nations to answer this question. That law was incorporated into American common law and made a part of the "Laws of the United States" in Article III which under the Supremacy Clause of Article VI became binding on the nation.

Defining our national citizenship has nothing to do with the states selectively adopting English common law until abrogated by statute and our turning to the principles of the English common law to interpret the rights given to the People under the Bill of Rights.

Furthermore, our right to a jury trial is guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment. This right in a general way existed in the English common law. To argue that U.S. citizenship necessarily copies principles of the English common law is as absurd as arguing that our jury trial, the role and function of the jury, juror qualifications, and rules of evidence copy the English common law which itself continued to change over time on these subjects.

Unshakable evidence that the English common law no longer prevailed on the national level in matters of citizenship are the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, 1804, and 1855, which adopted sus sanguinis citizenship for any child born in and out of the United States. Simply stated, if the parents were not citizens, neither were the children. For those born in the United States, as soon as the parents naturalized and if the children were dwelling in the United States, the minor children became "citizens of the United States." For those born out of the United States to citizen parents, the First Congress was also willing to go as far as to retroactively “consider” them as though they were “natural born Citizen.” Not having been born in the country, Congress in 1795 then changed their status to just “citizens of the United States,” which has been their status ever since and to the present.

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of II

Even Thomas Jefferson in his 1779 citizenship laws for Virginia provided that “infants” could be citizens of Virginia “wheresoever born” only if their father (which meant also mother under the rule that the wife by choice took on the citizenship of her husband) was a citizen. This rule was consistent with the Founders’ view of infants, that they really had no capacity to take on political obligations or rights and rather inherited them from their parents until their age of majority at which time they could decide for themselves how to proceed in life. This philosophy was heavily rooted in John Locke. America’s Blackstone, St. George Tucker, expressed the same rule, i.e., only children born to citizen parents could be natural born citizens and they were the only ones who inherited the “civil right” to be elected President. You will note that Congress adopted the same concept, providing all children whether born in the United States or out of it had to be born to citizen parents in order to be citizens themselves. And the only person whom Congress did not legislate upon under its naturalization powers were those persons who were born in the United States to citizen parents, for these were the “natural born Citizens.”

This result is consistent with the correct definition of a “natural born Citizen,” which is not only a product of natural law but also positive law. That definition is a child born in a country to parents who are citizens of that country. See Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

What is quite amazing is that the Obots have had four years to prove me wrong. To date, they have produced nothing but repetitious lies, ridicule, personal attacks on people’s characters and reputations, political and legal intimidation, suppression of speech, obstruction of justice, vitriolic rhetoric, and manipulation and distortion of speech and case law. Indeed, they have come up quite short on reason and logic.

Pagina sobre el padre von Wernich said...

Mr. Apuzzo have you seen this?

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=XkJkAAAAIBAJ&sjid=T2MNAAAAIBAJ&pg=6281,3237388&dq=natural+born+citizen+supreme+court&hl=en

http://img239.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=489600278_naturalborn_122_103lo.jpg


The Providence Evening Press - Mar 3, 1881

Andy said...

Mr. Apuzzo:

Can you show me where the founders cited Vattel for the "natural born citizen" clause, or where they used anything from Vattel that wasn't already in the Common Law? You keep making this assertion, but you haven't based it on evidence as far as I can see in any of your papers.

Moreover, can you show where in the Naturalization acts of 1790, etc, that those children born here of aliens were not considered citizens at birth? (I've checked the statutes, and they are silent on the subject. Maybe you can clarify.)


Is there a citation for the Tucker bit? I can't seem to find it, and it would be helpful if you could point me in the right direction, so I can verify if you are correct.


And for clarification - the common law didn't trump anything written in the constitution or in statute, but what it did do is to fill in the gaps in areas where the law was well established. There was no need to change that, as it was adequate.

Andy said...

@Justin

If you actually read the reasoning of WKA, you'll find very much the natural born citizen = citizen at birth logic. In fact, every court since has agreed with that reasoning.

MichaelN said...

4zoltan said...

Andy,

"we used English Common law in the Constitution."

The Bill of Rights which was drafted by James Madison as a compromise to get the Constitution ratified include the Rules of English Common Law in the Seventh Amendment.

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

The "Rules of English Common Law" contain no definition, no language or description, nor provide, for any eligibility requirements for an electable president of a republic.

Puzo1 said...

I of II

Here is living proof of how intellectually dishonest the Obots are. Over at RC Radio Blog, run by Reality Check, we learn that a “reporter” was at the Chris Strunk hearing before Judge Schack in the New York State Supreme Court in Brooklyn, N.Y., on May 7, 2012, at 2:30 PM EDT. The reporter’s report may be read here:
http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/07/report-from-the-strunk-sanctions-hearing-in-brooklyn-ny/

The only real issue before the Court was for Chris Strunk to show cause why he should not be sanctioned for filing what the Court said was a frivolous argument regarding his definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Strunk argued in his case that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to parents who are “citizens” of that country.

I stated in my article in defense of Mr. Strunk: “As to Strunk’s legal arguments as to what is a “natural born Citizen,” Judge Schack did not correctly state Strunk’s legal position and by doing so actually created a straw man argument. He stated. . .

“Plaintiff STRUNK'S complaint, as well as his opposition to defendants'
motions to dismiss, alleges that the correct interpretation of the natural born citizen clause of the U.S. Constitution requires a natural born citizen to have been born on United States soil and have two United States born parents. . . . There is no arguable legal basis for the proposition that both parents of the President must have been born on U.S. soil. This assertion is as frivolous as the multitude of alleged allegations outlined above.”

I wrote the above article because I could not just back and see such injustice carried out against Mr. Strunk. At his show cause hearing, Mr. Strunk took my article and provided a copy to all of the parties’ attorneys and even had it admitted into the Court record as an amicus brief on his behalf.

I stated in my article that Strunk did not argue that a “natural born Citizen” child has to be born to “two United States born parents” or that “both parents . . . must have been born on U.S. soil.” This argument is strictly a creation of Judge Schack. Rather, I explained that Strunk argued that a "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the United States to "citizen" parents. I explained that “citizen” parents means “natural born Citizen” or “citizen of the United States” by naturalization at birth or after birth. This definition of a “citizen” does not mean that the child’s parents have to be born in the United States, for it includes as “citizen” parents persons who are not born in the United States but naturalize to become U.S. citizens after their birth. At the hearing, Strunk again told Judge Schack that he misstated his definition of a “natural born Citizen.” But it all fell on deaf ears, with Judge Schack continuing to talk about the six presidents whose parents were not born in the United States.

There is no mention in the Obot report of how Judge Schack did not define Strunk's “citizen parent” properly and that Strunk never said that it meant that the parent had to be born in the United States. Rather, what the report does is just give some words that are part of the argument but not the actual argument. The reporter states:

“Strunk began an elaborate and mainly indecipherable diatribe about ‘strawman arguments’ Judge Schack supposedly made in his Decision and Order. Something about ‘you took x argument and made it y argument when my main argument was x argument.’ Yes, he was saying ‘x argument and y argument.’”

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of II

The reporter adds more:

“The Judge wanted to wrap this up in the next 15 minutes.He started off ‘About your argument of two citizen parents..’” Strunk yelled, ‘That’s not my argument, it’s yours! I have nothing else to say.’ He was so angry that when he sat down again, the keys hanging from his belt actually jingled on the chair.”

The reporter presents these smatterings of Strunk’s argument before Judge Schack without actually stating what the issue is to make it look like he covered the issue when in truth he did not and not to give away what Strunk’s argument is. Notice how the reporter feigns not to know what Strunk was talking about. The Obots know quite well that the “birthers” do not maintain that the parents of the child have to be born in the United States, but rather they maintain that the parents can be either “natural born Citizens,” born “citizens of the United States,” or even “citizens of the United States” by naturalization after birth.

All this shows that Strunk’s argument was absolutely not frivolous and that he should not be sanctioned for making his “natural born Citizen” argument. But yet, the Obots feign that they just do not understand what Strunk is talking about. Hopefully, Judge Schack will read my "amicus brief" before he gives his final decision. There is still time for the Court to do justice for Mr. Strunk.

Puzo1 said...

I of II

Andy,

1. You said: “Can you show me where the founders cited Vattel for the "natural born citizen" clause, or where they used anything from Vattel that wasn't already in the Common Law? You keep making this assertion, but you haven't based it on evidence as far as I can see in any of your papers.

Response: Like a typical Obot, you set up standards for other that you yourself cannot meet. Would you be so kind as to “show me where the founders cited [the English common law] for the ‘natural born citizen clause?” And do not tell me that you get some free pass in proving anything because of our “English heritage.”

Also, I never said that the founders “cited” Vattel for the “natural born citizen” clause. As to what I said, see my brief filed in the Kerchner-Laudenslager v. Obama Ballot Access Challenge with the Commowealth Court of Pennsylvania, accessed at http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/92921415-Brief-on-Behalf-of-Objectors-in-Kerchern-Laudenslager-v-Obama-Pennsylvania-Ballot-Challenge-FILED-2-28-12 , and my amicus curie brief filed in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Tisadal v. Obama, accessed at http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/92918965-Tisdale-Amicus-Brief-to-4th-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals-FILED-3-20-12.

2. You said: “Moreover, can you show where in the Naturalization acts of 1790, etc, that those children born here of aliens were not considered citizens at birth? (I've checked the statutes, and they are silent on the subject. Maybe you can clarify.).”

Response: Here is the Natualization Act of 1790 in pertinent part:
“That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court. . . and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”

Congress wrote this statute in three logical parts. First, it addressed adults who were not citizens and provided for their citizenship. Second, it covered children who were born in the United States and provided for their citizenship. Third, it provided for children who were born out of the United States and gave the conditions under which they would become citizens. This three-part logical division shows that the requirement that children born to alien parents needed to naturalize either derivatively or on their own did not apply only to children born out of the United States. The plain text of the statute simply does not contain such a limitation. Rather, what Congress conveyed is that a child that was not born to citizen parents could not be a “citizen of the United States,” even if born in the United States. Only when the parents of such a child naturalized, would that child also become a “citizen of the United States.” Congress also said that a child born to citizen parents was to be considered as “natural born Citizen” whether born in or out of the United States. We know that in 1795, Congress took away the “natural born citizen” status that it had granted only retroactively and provided that any child born out of the United States to citizen parents was to be considered a “citizen of the United States.”

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of II

3. You said: “Is there a citation for the Tucker bit?
Response: First, that would be St. George Tucker’s writings, not his “bit.” But then I know that you, being a typical Obot, have contempt for anything that shows you are wrong. Second, I will be publishing a full article on Tucker. I have it almost done.

4. You said: “And for clarification - the common law didn't trump anything written in the constitution or in statute, but what it did do is to fill in the gaps in areas where the law was well established. There was no need to change that, as it was adequate.”
Response: Yes, American common law filled in the gaps by adopting the law of nations which was well established on many matters in the early years of the Republic including but not limited to matters on national citizenship.

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

"The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.'" Wong Kim Ark, at 169-70 (citing and quoting Horace Binney, The Alienigenae of the United States Under the Present Naturalization Laws (1853).

Hence, Wong cleary distinguished between a child born in the U.S. to alien parents and one born in the U.S. to citizen parents. While both were born citizens, only that child born to citizen parents could be a "natural born Citizen."

Andy said...

Regardless of whether it was "two United States born citizen" or "two citizen" parents in the argument, either one is frivolous, as there is no basis for such an argument by either existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law.

WKA again destroys your ideas.

Andy said...

Mario,

I hope you don't mind if I skip the long quotes. I will try my best to not mischaracterize your arguments. I simply don't want huge blocks of text (and have to break comments.)

1. Citations of Vattel vs. Common Law:

You're correct in my characterization that the Founding Fathers wouldn't need to cite the Common Law, as it is the law with which the attorneys and courts at the outset of our nation were familiar. They didn't need definitions for terms like fraud, contempt, habeas corpus, as they were already very familiar terms. As such familiar terms, there is no reason to think that other common law terms, or derivations such, needed explanation, either. So I will stand by my belief that the term natural born citizen was used in the context (as a derivation of "natural born subject") until such time as someone can point to any evidence that the Founders were changing the term.

2. The Naturalization Act

This act doesn't mention, not even once, children BORN to aliens living in the United States. It does speak of the children of aliens living in the United States, but considering the very short time-frame, and the fact that jus soli has been recognized, this law doesn't speak for or against those being born here as natural born citizens.

What it does clearly do is grant citizenship to those who are the living children of aliens. (They even specifically use the phrase "dwelling in the United States" again, but not "born in the United States."

This law does not preclude jus soli citizenship of those born here of alien children. By leaving that open, it could very easily be argued that it was understood they would be citizens by nature of their birth on U.S. soil.

3. St. George Tucker Bit

There was no slight intended, though your constant reference to me as an Obot doesn't speak well to your impartiality: I simply asked a question, to which you resorted to name-calling.

I am looking forward to the article, though I'm not sure why you can't provide the citation so I can read the uninterpreted version and draw my own conclusions.

4. Common Law

I'm glad we can agree that common law filled in the gaps before statutes of Congress and/or State legislatures could be passed. Unfortunately, I'm still not sure where you have the assumption that Citizenship law came from a different cannon of Common Law, especially considering that early cases in all matters of law were decided on the English Common Law.

5. As a bonus, the Wong Kim Ark quote:

So if "[a] 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," and a child born to a citizen can run for president, why could not the child of an alien?

It doesn't say "the child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen of the natural-born child of a citizen except for the Presidential eligibility clause." Where do you find that distinction without it being written?

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

The only thing getting destroyed around here is you.

First, Judge Schack said not such thing, especially more so in light of his example of the six presidents who had parents not born in the United States.

Second, the Federal Court in Tennessee does not agree with you:

“The Court finds that the federal question presented, the meaning of the phrase 'natural born citizen' as a qualification for the Presidency set out in Article II of the Constitution, is important and not trivial.” “The issue of whether President Obama is constitutionally qualified to run for the Presidency is certainly substantial.” “It is clear that the stated federal issue
of President Obama’s qualifications for the office are ‘actually disputed and substantial.’” “It is also clear that there will be a legal dispute over the Constitution’s definition of ‘natural born citizen’ and the Supreme Court’s decision in Minor.”

Liberty Legal Foundation et al v. National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc. et al, Case No. 12-2143-STA.

Third, you are really at the bottom of the barrell now. In the future, please provide more valuable contribution here.

Andy said...

@Mario

RE: Citation of the Federal Case in Tennessee

First, you do realize what the court wrote was in response to the Plaintiff's argument that this should be a state case, right?

Second, you do realize that the quotes, while in context, speak only to the justification to keep the case in a Federal court, correct?

Third, you do realize that they don't speak to directly to the merits of the argument in the underlying case, only to the merits of the motion to remand the case to the state court, yes?

While all of what the court wrote is true, in context of the tests for whether this should be a Federal case as opposed to a state case, they don't provide any evidence that the court will, in fact, rule in the plaintiff's favor.

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

1. Citations of Vattel vs. Common Law

You said: "You're correct in my characterization that the Founding Fathers wouldn't need to cite the Common Law, as it is the law with which the attorneys and courts at the outset of our nation were familiar." I told you that I did not want you to tell me that you get a free pass because of our "English heritage."

2. The Naturalization Act

All your spin, like the Lynch court, will not help you. What do you not understand about "And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as a Citizen of the United States." If a child was born in the U.S. and his father was not a citizen, then that child became a citizen derivatively during his minority when his father naturalized. Thereafter, the child had to naturalize on his own.

3. St. George Tucker "Bit"

Do not lecture me about what does not speak well. I have had a fill of your kind going on four years now.

4. Common Law

“I'm glad we can agree that common law filled in the gaps before statutes of Congress and/or State legislatures could be passed. Unfortunately, I'm still not sure where you have the assumption that Citizenship law came from a different cannon of Common Law, especially considering that early cases in all matters of law were decided on the English Common Law.” This is a ridiculous statement. Without getting into all the other cases and evidence, Minor alone tells us that our U.S. Supreme Court was no longer using English common law to define our national citizenship.

Why have you not been able to cite one case from our U.S. Supreme Court other than Wong Kim Ark that used the English common law to define U.S. citizen?

5. As a bonus, the Wong Kim Ark quote:

You ask: “So if "[a] 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," and a child born to a citizen can run for president, why could not the child of an alien?” Because Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 tells us that today being a “citizen” is not enough to be President. Rather, one has to be a “natural born Citizen.”

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

My main point is this and you did not address it just like that Reality Check report:

"First, Judge Schack said not such thing, especially more so in light of his example of the six presidents who had parents not born in the United States." I guess you have nothing to say for yourself on how the judge mistated the issue and wants to sanction Strunk for his own error.

The Tennessee quote speaks for itself.

Andy said...

Mario:

1. Citations of Vattel vs. Common Law

I didn't give anyone a pass. I simply looked at two options:

A) That Vattel was the source, even though there isn't any mention of Vattel being the source, and that there isn't anything else from him in the Constitution, yet somehow he is still the source

B) That the Constitution, which already includes common law terms, might be referring to the common law definition of another term

2. Naturalization Act

You assume that the child would not be a citizen by nature of birth in the United States, but supply no justification for that aside from your assertion that that was the case.

My argument simply pointed out that the law doesn't mention birth, so doesn't preclude the idea that citizenship could be recognized at birth by alien parents. (My argument is assuming that the children were already alive before the two year period, since the law doesn't mention birth of children to alien parents.)

3. St. George Tucker Bit

My type? I'm sorry if you've had a bad run in with someone. I've dealt with a lot of people over my time as well, but I always greet someone new without carrying over feelings from someone else. I try not to generalize people too much, as everyone is unique, and there is something to appreciate about every individual.

4. Cases with Common Law

Well, there aren't many cases involving citizenship, are there? But the one that comes to mind would be:

A) Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor
This refers specifically to the common law principle of citizenship at birth.

"With these principles in view, let us now come to the consideration of the question of alienage in the present case. That the father and mother of the demandant were British born subjects is admitted. If he was born before 4 July, 1776, it is as clear that he was born a British subject. If he was born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September, 1776, he was born an American citizen, whether his parents were at the time of his birth British subjects or American citizens. Nothing is better settled at the common law than the doctrine that the children even of aliens born in a country while the parents are resident there under the protection of the government and owing a temporary allegiance thereto are subjects by birth."

5. WKA Quote

You argue that they would be as much a citizen except for eligibility for the presidency. The court didn't make that distinction. Is it your opinion that they should, or simply that they did make the distinction but forgot to include it in the opinion?

Andy said...

Mario:

"My main point is this and you did not address..."

I see what you complaint is, and I apologize for not directly addressing it. (I don't think I recognized the biggest issue at first.)

I don't think the judge is declaring that specific argument invalid (that it has to be two US born parents), but more the general argument that citizen parents are even required. The rest of his writing indicates he's ruling against the general principle, not the specific argument.

I will agree that the judge misstated the argument, and should clarify that. But I don't agree that he's wrong in ruling it frivolous when you account for the numerous other suits brought on the same question, and the several that were struck down on the merits.

Puzo1 said...

I of II

Andy,

1. Citations of Vattel vs. Common Law
You said: “A) That Vattel was the source, even though there isn't any mention of Vattel being the source, and that there isn't anything else from him in the Constitution, yet somehow he is still the source.”

It is what Vattel said that was adopted by the Founders and Framers. There is plenty of evidence of that. We do not need to hear from the Founders’ and Framers’ mouths that they relied specifically on Vattel for the “natural born Citizen” clause. As early as 1814, we have Founder Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus cite and quote Vattel’s “natural born Citizen” definition. Also, how do you explain that as late as 1875 the Minor Court paraphrases Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born Citizen.” Clearly, the Court did not rely on the English common law and I do not know how you and other Obots can tell people that Minor relied upon the English common law.

You said: “B) That the Constitution, which already includes common law terms, might be referring to the common law definition of another term.”

I do not know why you insist that the English common law defined our national citizenship. First, for example, Madison in Federalist No. 42said that the English common law was a “dishonorable and illegitimate” guide to use for defining Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 “piracies” and “felonies” which are terms that are stated in the Constitution. After saying something like that, do you really think that Madison would have used the English common law to define a “natural born Citizen?”
Also, I have cited many sources and U.S. Supreme Court cases that show you are wrong. If you want me to convince me of your thesis, then cite one U.S. Supreme Court case before Wong Kim Ark that says that we defined our national citizenship under the English common law.

2. Naturalization Act

You said: ”You assume that the child would not be a citizen by nature of birth in the United States, but supply no justification for that aside from your assertion that that was the case.”

I am assuming nothing. I am only reading the plain and clear text of the statute. "And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as a Citizen of the United States." Simply, children followed the citizenship of the father (and mother by unification). What you do not understand is that the Founders and Framers did not see infants as having the capacity to have a citizenship that was different from the parents. They “infant” years prevented them from such a capacity. Rather, they just followed the condition of their parents until their years of majority at which time they could decide what citizenship they wanted either by tacitly accepting the one they inherited from their parents or chosing another one by naturalization.

The John McClure citzenship case is solid evidence on what Congress meant when they wrote the statute. Publius (probably James Madison) and then Secretary of State James Monroe (under President James Madison) and their administration confirm that one could not simply be born in the United States to be a citizen. Rather, the historical record of the McClure case without doubt shows that one needed a citizen father to be himself/herself a citizen and with an alien father, when the father naturalized so did the minor children.

3. St. George Tucker Bit

You said: “My type?” and that you are different from the Obots. I do not buy it. Your arguments here are typical Obot arguments.

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of II

4. Cases with Common Law
You said: “A) Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor
This refers specifically to the common law principle of citizenship at birth.”

This is the only U.S. Supreme Court case that you have been able to find that as you believe supports your position. But guess what, it does not. I cannot believe that you have not yet read my memo on Inglis. The quote that you and Justice Gray in Wong provided is the minority opinon of Justice Story which was rejected by the majority. Why not try reading the case. You will learn that the majority, which included Chief Justice Marshall, said that if the damandant was born after July 4, 1776 in New York when New York was American to British parents, he was British and not American. Justice Story’s minority opinion has been used and abused by the Obots and you continue to do so here.

Additionally, Justice Story had a change of heart in Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830), which was decided after Inglis but in the same year (1830). Justice Story provided the same Vattelian definition without citing Vattel, and stated: “If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country.” As you can see, he said that a child followed the citizenship of the father (and the mother under unification of citizenship). This was the correct rule. The Founders and Framers did not believe that an infant had the capacity to take on a citizenship different from his or her parents. They accepted that an infant followed the citizenhip of the parents until the infant’s age of majority at which time the infant could tacitly accept the citizenship he or she inherited from the parents or by free will acquire another one by naturalization.

5. WKA Quote

You said: “You argue that they would be as much a citizen except for eligibility for the presidency. The court didn't make that distinction. Is it your opinion that they should, or simply that they did make the distinction but forgot to include it in the opinion?”

The Court also did not say that what the price of bread was on Tuesday. This is just more Obot nonsense just like the typical Obot argument that Minor did NOT say that there could be other definitions of a “natural born Citizen.”

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

You have confirmed for me even more that you are an Obot. Look at the liberties that you take with Judge Schack's ruling only for the sake of saying that you are right and that Chris Strunk should be sanctioned.

I know that you are a full-blooded Obot. The two favorite words in an Obot's vocabulary are "frivolous" and "sanctions."

MichaelN said...

Andy said ......
"So I will stand by my belief that the term natural born citizen was used in the context (as a derivation of "natural born subject") until such time as someone can point to any evidence that the Founders were changing the term."
-------------------------

Andy,

Pointing to the evidence....

The Minor court, (in the very same paragraph of making mention of the "common law", and also mention of native-birth AND natural descent as requisite to make a "natural born citizen"), recognized and acknowledged doubts as to whether a native-born child, born to alien parents, was even a citizen.

The Minor court also acknowledged that the doubts were still not solved. (i.e. the doubts still existed at the time of the Minor case)

How can it possibly be that the Minor court was referring to the English common law, given it were true that English common law maintained that native-birth alone sufficed to make a "natural born subject" and given also that "citizen" and "subject" were considered to be analogous?

Well there's the evidence Andy.

What have you to say?

Reality Check said...

So if the Minor case was such a momentous decision that defined natural born citizen where are the newspaper and law review articles from the period extolling that fact? Why did the author of the opinion, Justice Morrison Waite, not speak up when Chester Arthur was elected VP and why did he swear him in as President just 6 years later? (Arthur held dual citizenship and his father was not naturalized to be a citizen until Chester was 14 years old.)

Yesterday, I published at John Woodman's blog quotes from two treatises written within 7 years after the Wong Kim Ark decision that explained that the opinion said that WKA and anyone born in his circumstances was a natural born citizen and eligible to serve as president. People at the time clearly understood what you chose to ignore. Modern judges like Judge Schack undertand too and that is why they are not taking claims to the contrary seriously.

(I will write a longer reply to your false accusations of my "intellectual dishonesty" about the Strunk case on my blog later.)

Mick said...

Andy,

Of course you are lying, but you already know that. The text of NA 1790 means what it says, not what you infer. It says the children residing with those naturalized who are under 21 will be naturalized--- that's what it means, nothing more. If they had to be naturalized then they weren't citizens to begin with. To make the statement that those born here are nbCs is your inference and assumption, not logic w/ respect to the purpose of the requirement. That is exactly like the assumption that "nbC equals born a Citizen"-- that is a leap of logic that accepts your assumption as fact without the underlying fact being established.

You said,

"And as for foreign influence - the purported purpose of the clause was to keep those who had not allegiance to our great nation from taking control. Who better than those born here?

Moreover, this argument fails because there is no test to determine allegiance in our constitution. This would be like saying that Mr. McVeigh was a patriot for bombing the Federal Courthouse in Oklahoma city simply because his parents were citizens when he was born. He had no more allegiance to our great nation than the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks. Allegiance flows not from parents - it flows from your heart."

Of course more assumptions, and not logic. "Who better than those born here" is not logic. "It flows from your heart" is not logic.

A child has allegiance first to its parents, DUH. And then that allegiance flows through the parents to the parents' country. It is not a hard fast rule, but an educated calculation that when the parents are fully allegiant to America, then the child will also be. Of course there are exceptions, and Obots like you are fond of citing the exception as the rule. Obama has allegiance to his British Kenyan Marxist father, and it shows.

Federalist #68 says a nbC is a "creature of our own" to be assured by avoidance of an "improper ancestor" (improper ascendant). That can only mean an indigenous citizen-- born from within. A child of an alien is DEFINITELY not a "creature of our own", it's a "creature of a foreigner". Those children are invasive species, until naturalized. Look at the Carp that are invading our waterways. They may be born here, but they are not indigenous, and are wreaking havoc-- they are invasive species--- like Obama.

Then of course you don't even address the Constitutional no no of a Congress able to amend the constitution at will if a "Citizen at birth" was a nbC.

FAIL.

Puzo1 said...

MichaelN,

And what is most despicable is that Obot angel Andy has the nerve to defend Judge Schacks ruling that arguing that a "natural born Citizen" is a child born in a county to parents who are citizens of that country is frivolous and worthy of paying over $100,000.00 for the defendant's attorney's fees. Just Zbigniew Kaimierz Brzezinski's attorney alone put in a bill for $80,000.00. I cannot imagine what he had to do that cost so much if Strunk’s argument was so frivolous.

The definition of a “natural born Citizen” that Strunk included in his New York complaint is the very definition that was commonly understood by the people of the Founding generation. It is the definition given by Samuel von Pufendorf in 1691 and Emer de Vattel in 1758 in Section 212 of The Law of Nations. It is undisputable that the Founders and Framers were heavily influenced by these natural law and law of nations giants. This is the very definition espoused by Founder historian David Ramsay, Thomas Jefferson in his citizenship laws of 1779, framer and Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court James Wilson, America’s Blackstone St. George Tucker, House Speaker Langdon Cheves 1814, Chief Justice Marshall in The Venus in 1814, and repeated by the other cases that I have cited again and again. It is the definition thought in Virginia at the College of William and Mary in 1779. Even our early Congress through the naturalization acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, confirmed this definition. It is the definition given by Alexander McLeod (1774-1833) in his, A Scriptural View of the Character, Causes, and Ends of the Present War (2nd ed. 1815), a sermon he gave to the Christian community. And this is not to mention all the other historical evidence that I have shown supports this definition as being the definition that was commonly understood by the people of the Founding generation. Our U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett in 1875 paragraphed and confirmed Vattel’s definition. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 confirmed that very definition. This definition has never been changed since. Finally, in almost 4 years of litigation, no state or federal court has ruled that arguing that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who are citizens of that country is frivolous and meriting of sanctions. How then was Strunk to know that his argument was frivolous?

On the other hand, the Obots produce no real evidence that the Framers defined a "natural born Citizen" the same as the English common law defined a "natural born subject," but because they argue that the English common law prevailed in the colonies before the American Revolution (conveniently acting like we never even had a Revolution), we are just supposed to roll over and die. They make their argument in light of all the historical evidence which shows that, with the exception of the limited incorporation of the English common law through the Bill of Rights ratified in 1791 which do not touch upon national citizenship and were adopted for political compromise purposes after the the “natural born Citizen” clause was adopted in 1787 through the unamended Constitution, the Founders and Framers rejected the English common law as applicable on the national level. Indeed, as Justice Story in 1829 explained: “The common law of England is not to be taken, in all respects, to be that of America. Our ancestors brought with them its general principles, and claimed it as their birthright; but they brought with them and adopted, only that portion which was applicable to their situation. Van Ness v. Pacard, 27 U.S. [2 Peters] 137, 143-144 (1829).

I think Chris Strunk said it best when he said that here we have a case of judicial tyranny.

Puzo1 said...

United Natural Born Citizens said in his/her comment to my Fox News article:

"I'm wondering if it is not advisable to dispense with the citing of Judicial Opinions that have NOT looked at the Statutes promulgated under the authorities of the Constitution, Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, 1804, and 1855, given that they all look to State Courts and foreign Law...?

The "common law" is a structure built off opinions of judicial determinations which address conflicts emanating from the application of Statutory laws, thus building a body of precedents.

It is a bit disturbing that so many 'Judicial Opinions" on the subject of 'citizenship' seem to disregard the mandate to the Congress to 'establish an uniform Rule of naturalization, (citizenship), throughout the U.S.'.

A New Nation was established with the adoption of the Constitution, ergo, it was NECESSARY to establish the New Nations Rule of Citizenship. It is not possible to separate Citizenship from the process of Naturalization in the conduct of the affairs of a Nation. They are the two sides of the same coin and equal in value for most transaction under our Republics Rule of Law.

Yet, in the manner consistent with nature it is the flip of the coin that determines whether one is 'born a citizen of citizen parents' or whether one requires some dispensation to be "considered as a Citizen".

I believe we've come full circle in pursuing the "Truth" as to the nature of an American natural born Citizen and that it's time to let the Statutes at Large be supported by those Opinions that adhere to the Rules established or allow them to be crushed by the full weight of the Laws that they failed to uphold.

May 6, 2012 5:35 AM"

United Natural Born Citizens understands well how controlling the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, 1804, and 1855 are in defining a "natural born Citizen."

I have an essay that I have had in the works on these acts and how they are incontrovertible proof that a "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the country to parents who are citizens of that country. I hope to publish that essay in the not too distant future.

jayjay said...

Reality Check:

Your question (in reference to the Minor decision) about why Justice Morrison Waite “did not speak up” when Arthur was elected VP has a quite reasonable answer.

Clearly you are not aware of the answer but it is that the esteemed Justice was dead by the time it was uncovered (in about the 2008/2009 timeframe) that Arthur’s father naturalized when Arthur was 14. As I recall, Waite died in 1888 and my reading of the calendar shows that even 2008 was quite a bit subsequent to that date.

MichaelN said...

@ Reality Check, who said...

"So if the Minor case was such a momentous decision that defined natural born citizen where are the newspaper and law review articles from the period extolling that fact?"
--------------------------

It's good to see that you acknowledge the truth for a change.

You do accept that the Minor court was NOT speaking about the English "common law" ......... right?

I don't recall anyone claiming that the Minor v Happersett opinion that defined a natural born citizen was "such a momentous decision".

There was no big fanfare, because it was already common knowledge that native-birth and natural descent made a natural born citizen.

How about this ............

So if the Minor case was such a momentous decision that defined natural born citizen, and the decision was wrong, and contrary to the correct and popular legal opinion, i.e. where native-birth alone sufficed to make a natural born citizen, then where are the newspaper and law review articles from the period extolling that fact?

Andy said...

@Mick

You read the NA of 1790 one way, I read it another. It doesn't mention those born here, only those "residing" with an alien parent. Given the short time frame (two years), there is no reason for me to read into the law mention of those born here. You are the one inferring. I am not.

Children have allegiance to parents first? You never rebelled against your parents? I'd say you are one of the few.

There isn't an issue of amending the constitution when the idea was clearly already understood in a synonymous term.

Andy said...

@Mario:

"The definition of a “natural born Citizen” that Strunk included in his New York complaint is the very definition that was commonly understood by the people of the Founding generation. It is the definition given by Samuel von Pufendorf in 1691 and Emer de Vattel in 1758 in Section 212 of The Law of Nations."

Weird how it was understood by people far removed from English Law and colonial adoption of that law.

And you're right, lots of people have espoused that definition - but the Supreme Court rejected it, and that has since become precedent. You can argue that it is incorrect, but until you convince the Supreme Court to agree with you, you lose every time. Standing precedent is on my side.

Justin said...

@Andy

You are the one who needs to reread WKA. Because the decision NEVER calls WKA a natural born citizen. Here's the important part, "becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States." It actually supports the Birther argument. Children of aliens are "citizens" not "natural born citizens". Saying that the dicta in WKA is important and the dicta in Minor is not just proves your intellectual dishonesty. You can't have it both ways.

Reality Check said...

@ jayjay

If you search for biographies for Arthur written in the 1800's they will all tell you that his father was born in County Antrim Ireland and immigrated to the US via Canada.

You would leave us to believe that everyone knew that he must have be naturalized by the time Chester was born in 1830 or Arthur could not be eligible. Yet no one bothered to ask. I think the more likely answer is that they didn't give a flip because they knew Chester was born in Vermont and that was all that really mattered.

Reality Check said...

I posted my reply to Mr. Apuzzo's comments on my blog post with a report from the hearing in Strunk v The NY State Board of Elections et. al.

I will not comment further here. Anyone is welcome to comment on the article at my blog.

http://rcradioblog.wordpress.com/2012/05/09/mario-apuzzo-comments-on-rc-radios-report-on-the-strunk-hearing-and-gets-it-wrong-again/

MichaelN said...

@ Andy.

Andy said ......
"So I will stand by my belief that the term natural born citizen was used in the context (as a derivation of "natural born subject") until such time as someone can point to any evidence that the Founders were changing the term."
-------------------------

Andy,

Pointing to the evidence....

The Minor court, (in the very same paragraph of making mention of the "common law", and also mention of native-birth AND natural descent as requisite to make a "natural born citizen"), recognized and acknowledged doubts as to whether a native-born child, born to alien parents, was even a citizen.

The Minor court also acknowledged that the doubts were still not solved. (i.e. the doubts still existed at the time of the Minor case)

How can it possibly be that the Minor court was referring to the English common law, given it were true that English common law maintained that native-birth alone sufficed to make a "natural born subject" and given also that "citizen" and "subject" were considered to be analogous?

Well there's the evidence Andy.

What have you to say?

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

There is an old saying that you do not need to use a bat to kill a fly. But sometimes it is necessary.

“Publius” (probably James Madison who was President then) on October 7, 1811, commenting and applying the Naturalization Act of 1802 (which was the same as the Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795 in the particular at issue) in The Alexandria Herald, concerning the “Case of James McClure,” stated:

“Mr. Rodman hints, that it would have been sufficient for James McClure to have been born in the United States—he is mistaken. The law of the United States recognizes no such claim. The law of Virginia, of 1792, does—for, “all free persons born within the territory of this commonwealth,” is deemed a citizen. The law of Virginia considers him as a son of the soil. An alien, as well as a citizen, may beget a citizen, but the U. States’ act does not go so far. A man must be naturalized to make his children such.”

Publius, in 1811, living when the acts were passed by Congress, would know what Congress intended when it passed the naturalization acts. In that connection, Publius tells us that it did not matter where a child was born. “Wheresoever born,” (Jefferson in his citizenship law of 1779), if his parents were aliens, he or she was an alien. Regardless of where the child was born, the child’s parents had to naturalize in order to make their children citizens. The historical record tells us that Secretary of State, James Monroe, eventually declared McClure to be a “citizen,” not because he was born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785, but because a few months after he was born, his British father naturalized as a “citizen of the United States.” I will take Publius’ and the James Madison’s Administration’s word in 1811 on what the acts meant rather than yours in 2012.

For more information on the James McClure case, see my brief filed in the Kerchner and Laudenslager v. Obama Ballot Challenge in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, accessed at http://www.scribd.com/doc/83104811/Kerchner-Laudenslager-v-Obama-Ballot-Challenge-Brief-on-Behalf-of-Objectors-Filed-28Feb2012,

I have a full article on the James McClure case in progress which I hope to publish in the not too distant future.

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

Stop your lying. You have no “standing precedents.”
On the contrary, here are our precedent which show that you are plainly wrong in telling us that a “natural born Citizen” has the same meaning as an English common law “natural born subject:”

1. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875): Even though the Fourteenth Amendment had already been passed, Minor did not rely upon that amendment to define either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen.” Rather, it applied the American “common-law” definition of those terms. Providing Vattel’s law of nations definition of a “natural-born citizen” without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, it laid down the definition of a “natural-born citizen” as follows:

“The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.”

Id., at 167-68. We can see that Minor defined a “natural-born citizen” as a child born in a country to parents who were citizens of that country.

2. Then we have the decision of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898), which explained:

“At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children, born in a country of parents who were its citizens, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further, and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class, there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.”

Id. at 679-80. Wong confirmed that Minor decided an issue about citizenship and also its definition of a “natural born Citizen” which was a child born in a country to parents who were citizens of that country. Minor had left open the question whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.” Wong then answered that very question. It held that, provided the child’s parents were domiciled and residing in the United States, he was and in so doing did not touch or amend the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Andy, where are you standing precedents? Be sure to cite and quote them all here or you will be declared the loser.

Puzo1 said...

Reality Check,

You have no evidence that the issue was joined in the Chester Arthur case. Hence, he is not a precedent.

Puzo1 said...

Reality Check,

You have no evidence that the issue was joined in the Chester Arthur case. Hence, he is not a precedent for your English common law definition of a "natural born Citizen."

Puzo1 said...

Reality Check,

You just cannot stop your intellectual dishonesty. You say in your article that I try to hide the negative aspects of Mr. Strunk’s complaint and that I just focus on his “natural born Citizen” argument. On the contrary, I said in my article in defense of Mr. Strunk:

“As to Strunk’s factual allegations, he has adequately pled in his complaint that Obama’s father was not a U.S. citizen at the time of Obama’s birth wherever that may be. As proof of this fact, he relies upon Obama’s admission in his book, Dreams from My Father, the INS (immigration) file on Obama’s father, the alleged Certificate of Live Birth that Obama released via the internet on April 27, 2011, and the Obama-Dunham divorce papers. While it could be argued that portions of Strunk’s complaint (references to the Vatican, Roman Catholic Church, and the Society of Jesus and inclusion of a long list of defendants) rise to the level of the “irrational,” the thrust of his legal argument, that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” as we shall see below is eminently reasonable. Whether or not Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen” citizen under the American common law standard that has been in place since the Founding is not a conspiracy theory or what Judge Schack pejoratively calls a “birther case.” There are some factual allegations in Strunk’s complaint that could raise some eyebrows. We can also understand Strunk’s frustration and his naming defendants who he believes have allowed Obama to proceed unchallenged and others who he believes should be “taking responsibility to enforce the law which has not been done” regarding the question of Obama’s eligibility to be President. Decision and Order, p. 20 (Strunk speaking at oral arguments). Strunk does add some questionable factual allegations in his complaint about the defendants’ religious motivations. He does express an “irrational anti-Catholic bias.” But those questionable factual allegations regarding defendants’ motivations are not relevant to the question of what is a “natural born Citizen” and whether Obama meets that definition. Those suspect factual allegations which he “weaves” into his complaint should therefore not trump the sound part of his complaint and be used as a means to create a circus-type atmosphere in the court and thereby to obfuscate the real argument that he makes which is that Obama does not meet the status quo American common law definition of a “natural born Citizen,” which definition as we can see below is adequately shown to exist by the historical record and case law of our United States Supreme Court.”

Why did you leave that part of my article out of your little story? I will tell you why, because it does not fit well with your lies.

Andy said...

@MIchael and Mario

Your boat has sunk. The court has ruled in WKA that child born here are citizens at birth, and every court since has agreed. Those that have looked at the natural born citizen clause in light of WKA have agreed.

Your boat has sunk.

jayjay said...

Reality Check:

(channeling Ronald Reagan) -
"There he goes again ...!!".

Re-writing history on the fly and substituing your own belief that "... they didn't give a flip ..." so you can try to ameliorate the current eligibility crime being committed as we speak - and which you are complicit in.

I wasn't talking of Arthur's friends/foes nor speculating about what they did or did not know during the 1800's but rather the FACT that Arthur's lack of eligibility (his father's naturalization delayed until Arthur was 14) wasn't known until only a couple of years ago and you clearly did not know that.

In the instant case, however, we have no comparable situation since Obama has told everyone loudly and frequently that "Daddy was a Kenyan" who NEVER naturalized - forever giving up the chance that Sonny had even a shred of eligibility such as Arthur (if he did). The two instances are entirely different.

Blabbering on about something not comparable as though it were is merely typical of the criminal fringe obot technique of misstating the obvious to try to turn the tenor of things in a different direction. A very old technique and one not well-served here.

Go back and read what I said - the Justice was long-dead before Arthur's "little problem" was unearthed just recently. I couldn't give a rat's posterior about what you think was said since you're merely trying the old misstating the response; that, however does not change the fact that the Justice you mention was long dead and therefore could not know about Arthur's naturalization.

You seem to have a heavy dose of cognitive dissonance, q.v.. Or, perhaps, you cannot direct your gaze downward and see you hero's feet of clay.

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

We have had our fill of straw man arguments here. Now also you.

We did not say that Wong Kim Ark did not rule Wong to be a citizen "at birth." Rather, we said that the Court did not rule that he was an Article II "natural born Citizen." Note that the Constitution requires that one be a "natural born Citizen." It does not say "citizens at birth," which status can be given by the Fourteenth Amendment and Congress my mere statute.

Faith said...

Attorney Apuzzo,
This is a related question, which is somewhat unrelated. Yesterday, I found out that Michele Bachmann is a dual citizen of Switzerland and was so at the time of her candidacy for POTUS.

While born a natural born citizen, she acquired dual citizenship in 1978 by means of her marriage to a Swiss citizen. The Constitution does not specify anything further than "natural born citizen." Is a person who becomes a dual citizen, later in life, Constitutionally eligible to hold the Office of the Presidency under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5?

MichaelN said...

@ Andy.

Andy said ......
"So I will stand by my belief that the term natural born citizen was used in the context (as a derivation of "natural born subject") until such time as someone can point to any evidence that the Founders were changing the term."
-------------------------

Andy,

Pointing to the evidence....

The Minor court, (in the very same paragraph of making mention of the "common law", and also mention of native-birth AND natural descent as requisite to make a "natural born citizen"), recognized and acknowledged doubts as to whether a native-born child, born to alien parents, was even a citizen.

The Minor court also acknowledged that the doubts were still not solved. (i.e. the doubts still existed at the time of the Minor case)

How can it possibly be that the Minor court was referring to the English common law, given it were true that English common law maintained that native-birth alone sufficed to make a "natural born subject" and given also that "citizen" and "subject" were considered to be analogous?

Well there's the evidence Andy.

What have you to say?

Do you still say that the Minor court was referring to the English common law?

Puzo1 said...

Faith,

Assuming that there is no evidence that Michele Bachmann lost her U.S. citizenship, I will answer your question with a question.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a resident within the United States.”

Is a person who is not only 35 years old but 55 years old more eligible than a 35-year old?

Is a person who is not only a 14-year resident of the U.S. but a 28- year resident more eligible than the 14-year resident?

Under the Constitution, the answer to both questions is no. But the voters migh think otherwise.

Andy said...

@Michael N

"Pointing to the evidence…."

Well, for starters, the court didn't look to closely at the citizenship of Minor, because once it established she was a citizen (a very easy task indeed) they could move onto deciding what the case was about: voting rights.

That's in opposition to WKA, where they spent pages and pages discussing citizenship, since the case was actually about that subject.

Minor is dicta for citizenship cases.

bdwilcox said...

"Minor is dicta for citizenship cases."

Chief Justice Fuller disagrees: "In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word 'citizen' is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since;" LOCKWOOD, EX PARTE, 154 U.S. 116 (1894)

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

You cannot shake the power of reason and logic.

Minor has two holdings, one about citizenship and the other about women’s voting rights.

Under its citizenship holding and being necessary for its decision concerning voting rights because Article IV privileges and immunities belonged only to “citizens,” Minor confirmed what a "natural-born Citizen" is which it said was also a “citizen.” Not being necessary to its decision, it did not define what a born Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States" is which it did not say was also a “natural-born citizen.”

Wong has one holding which is about citizenship.

Under that holding and being necessary for its decision because Wong was not a “natural born Citizen, it decided what a born Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States" is. Not being necessary to its decision, it did not change the definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen" which had prevailed since the Founding and which Minor confirmed in 1875.

MichaelN said...

@ Andy

You still haven't come clean.

Do you still say that the Minor court was referring to the English common law?

Andy said...

@Mario:

If you are so very certain that Minor declares what you think it does, then why has no court agreed with this argument in the 120-odd cases filed in the last 4 years?

You can't cite standing, because at least a few cases have been decided on the merits, including your recent case in New Jersey.

"The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a “natural born Citizen” regardless of the status of his father."

So are you going to argue that every court that has thus decided in Obama's favor is wrong, or that it is simply corruption?

Logic, it appears, is on my side.

Andy said...

@MichaelN

I believe they were paraphrasing Vattel. But as I stated before, since the analysis provided amounts to little more than a paragraph compared to the rest of the case, the court wasn't looking to delve into citizenship law.

Minor's citizenship wasn't in question - the court simply needed to show she was a citizenship to even get to the equal protection question.

James said...

Andy and Mario,

The courts don't like to admit they are wrong. Every lawyer knows that. That is why it is so hard to win an appeal. In addition, the courts know the constitutional ramifications of giving a definition of NBC which is contrary to Obama's situation. That being said, I do believe that no court to date has had the courage and wisdom to rule in a way that would make Obama ineligible. This would explain why the courts have cited the Ankeny decision while avoiding addressing the merits of lawyers' arguments. Clearly, the courts have yet to give a clear and independent understanding of NBC as it applies to Presidential Eligibility.

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

You still fail.

You cannot defend your own position so you run to the court to do it for you.

But your appeal to authority is not reason or logic.

You have not shown by the strength of reason and logic why you are correct and I am wrong.

You still have not addressed my arguments. You cannot put forth some vague notion of a court as addressing my arguments.

Why do you not produce here where the New Jersey court even attempted to address any one of my arguments. And, “well intentioned?” Sounds a bit condescending to me. And “accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii?” That finding comes after both Obama’s lawyer and the ALJ said that there was absolutely no evidence before the court as to who Obama was or where he was born and that Obama had no legal obligation to produce any such evidence in order get on the New Jersey ballot and run for President.

Your repetitive nonsense which does not address my arguments is not impressive.

Face it, Andy, you have no argument so you are dead in the water.

Andy said...

@Mario:

I don't need to reinvent the wheel. A court fully analyzed common law citizenship in WKA. That court was the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Their decision has held for nearly 120 years to date.

I'm not going to restate their analysis. You're a lawyer - either read it and understand, or keep arguing against it and be educated the hard way. If you want to overturn the precedent in WKA, then you'll need to convince the courts, not with some mythical American Common-Law that somehow created itself out of nowhere in our constitution, but with real legal arguments. I know that the court of public opinion may be less scary to you, but to actually cause the precedent to change, you'll need to go win in the real courts.

RE: New Jersey
You do realize that you failed to produce even a single piece of evidence to question the validity of Obama being born in Hawaii, right? Of course the court could rule that way - it's common knowledge that Obama was born there. The burden was on YOU to prove it false, or at least raise reasonable doubt.


RE: Your silly attacks

You may say I fail at arguing on your blog all I want - it has no effect on my career, the rest of my day, or the law. You fail in court - which does directly affect your career. (Though thus far, you haven't really affected the law, either, except to establish precedents against you.)

You should probably stick to whatever law you were practicing before you tried your hand at Elections and Constitutional law. You will problem find more success in more familiar territory.

Have a good evening!

cfkerchner said...

The reason the founders and framers put the NBC clause into the constitution was to insure that the person who would be President and Commander-in-Chief of our military after the founding generation was gone had "sole allegiance" to only the USA. Dual citizenship was not recognized back then to my knowledge. I believe the USA only recognized dual citizenship in the last 50 years of so. It certainly complicates things in that a U.S. citizen who becomes a dual citizen no longer has sole allegiance to the USA. It looks like Michelle Bachmann has learned that very quickly. Since she sits on some very sensitive committees dealing with national security, she likely may have been in jeopardy of losing the committee assignments if she decided to keep her dual citizenship status, which apparently few were aware of. See this news story:

Michele Bachmann renounces Swiss citizenship
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76175.html#ixzz1uV51vFoC

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

You said: “I don't need to reinvent the wheel. A court fully analyzed common law citizenship in WKA. That court was the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Their decision has held for nearly 120 years to date.” So, what? The Court held that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, not a “natural born Citizen” under Article II.

You said: "I'm not going to restate their analysis. You're a lawyer - either read it and understand, or keep arguing against it and be educated the hard way. If you want to overturn the precedent in WKA, then you'll need to convince the courts.” If you think that I ever argued that WKA needs to be overturned, then you never understood my argument. I was probably the first to argue that Wong did not need to be overturned because it only held that Wong was a “citizen of the United States,” and not a “natural born Citizen.”

You said: “[Not with some mythical American Common-Law that somehow created itself out of nowhere in our constitution, but with real legal arguments.” Do you call the Minor decision defining a “natural-born citizen” as a child born in a country to citizen parents mythical? That my friend, is American common law, not English common law.

You said: “I know that the court of public opinion may be less scary to you, but to actually cause the precedent to change, you'll need to go win in the real courts.” I do not need to change any precedents. The precedents already support my position, not yours.

You said: “You do realize that you failed to produce even a single piece of evidence to question the validity of Obama being born in Hawaii, right? Of course the court could rule that way - it's common knowledge that Obama was born there. The burden was on YOU to prove it false, or at least raise reasonable doubt.” The Court said there was no evidence before it as to who Obama was or where Obama was born. It said it was not relevant. Why would I want to introduce any evidence on such an issue? But then the nuances of legal strategy escape you.

You said: “You may say I fail at arguing on your blog all I want - it has no effect on my career, the rest of my day, or the law. You fail in court - which does directly affect your career. (Though thus far, you haven't really affected the law, either, except to establish precedents against you.) You should probably stick to whatever law you were practicing before you tried your hand at Elections and Constitutional law. You will problem find more success in more familiar territory.” You sure are showing your Obot colors. This comes right out of the Obot Bible. And you were trying to pawn yourself off here as some angelic being.

In short, debating with you has become a waste of time. You really have nothing new to add. Now your resort to talking about my legal career rather than my arguments. What a pity.

Harold Smith said...

Question:

As I understand it, Obama's Dept. Of Justice is suing Sheriff Joe over his practice of "immigration patrols"...which allegedly amount to "racial profiling".

Could Sheriff Joe raise the issue of Obama's ineligibility to be President as a defense? IOW, if Obama holds his office illegally, how can the Executive branch he presides over have any kind of standing to sue anyone on behalf of the United States?

Puzo1 said...

Harold Smith,

The Justice Department is part of the Executive Branch of Government. The Chief Executive is the President. Every one in that Department therefore obtains his/her orders from the President. If Sheriff Joe should be personally charged with criminal and/or civil wrongdoing, he probably would have standing to challenge the executive action against him, arguing that Obama is not eligible and so therefore neither is the action against him. See my article on Bond v. United States, 564 U. S. ____ (2011), entitled Bond v. United States and Standing to Challenge Putative President Obama on His Eligibility to be President, accessed at
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/06/bond-v-united-states-and-standing-to.html , which explains how standing is established under such a scenario.

Justin said...

"A court fully analyzed common law citizenship in WKA. That court was the Supreme Court of the United States of America."

Yes, and when it came time to declare his status they specifically DID NOT call him a natural born citizen. All of that discussion and then they fail to make it perfectly clear that he was a natural born citizen. How strange. What I see is that they made it perfectly clear that he WAS NOT a natural born citizen, "becomes upon his birth a citizen of the United States". It's right there in black and white.

MichaelN said...

@ Andy

You still haven't come clean.

Do you still say that the Minor court was referring to the English common law?

Yes? or No?

Puzo1 said...

Linda,

Elizabeth Speer, President John Buchanan’s mother, was born in the United States.

John Buchanan Sr, the President’s father, was born in Ireland.

In September 28, 1776, Pennsylvania adopted its constitution. It provided, in pertinent part:

“Every foreigner of good character who comes to settle in this state, having first taken an oath or affirmation of allegiance to the same, may purchase, or by other just means acquire, hold, and transfer land or other real estate; and after one year’s residence, shall be deemed a free denizen thereof, and entitled to all the rights of a natural born subject of this state, except that he shall not be capable of being elected a representative until after two years residence.”

In 1783, James Buchanan Sr. arrived in Pennsylvania from Ireland. I do not have the exact date.

On September 4, 1783, the United States and Britain signed the Treaty of Peace. Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. 99, 157 said that the treaty “ought to be construed, as that each government should be finally deemed entitled to the allegiance of those who were at that time adhering to it.”

Buchanan Sr. acquired a lot of land in Pennsylvania. Hence, he had to have taken the oath of allegiance. Also, he lived in Pennsylvania for more than one year. Hence, under the Pennsylvania constitution, he became a “naturalized” citizen of Pennsylvania. If father Buchanan arrived in Pennsylvania prior to the signing of the Treaty of Peace and taking a oath of allegiance, he could also claim to be a “citizen” under that treaty.

When the Constitution was adopted in 1787, state citizens became “citizen of the United States.”

On April 23, 1791, President James Buchanan was born in Pennsylvania. When he was born both his parents were “citizens of the United States.”

With his parents both being “citizens of the United States,” President Buchanan was born in the country to citizen parents. He is therefore a “natural born Citizen.”

bdwilcox said...

In the same Virginia Constitutional Ratifying Convention where George Mason stated plainly: "The common law of England is not the common law of these states.", James Madison declares this: "In compositions of this kind, it is difficult to avoid technical terms which have the same meaning. An attention to this may satisfy gentlemen that precision was not so easily obtained as may be imagined. I will illustrate this by one thing in the Constitution. There is a general power to provide courts to try felonies and piracies committed on the high seas. Piracy is a word which may be considered as a term of the law of nations. Felony is a word unknown to the law of nations, and is to be found in the British laws, and from thence adopted in the laws of these states. It was thought dishonorable to have recourse to that standard. A technical term of the law of nations is therefore used, that we should find ourselves authorized to introduce it into the laws of the United States."

Did James Madison just say what I think he said? Did he just say that in writing the Constitution, using terms from the English law was repugnant, so instead they used similar terms from the law of nations? Did he just say that the law of nations was referenced first while English legal terms were shunned?

If you look further throughout that debate, you will find the rejection of English common law and the utmost respect given the law of nations. At one point, William Grayson went so far as to say this about the Constitution they were ratifying: "This paper will be called the law of nations in America; it will be the Great Charter of America; it will be paramount to every thing. After having once consented to it, we cannot recede from it."

From reading these debates, I find it hard to see how the Constitution in any way, shape or form was derived from the English common law.

Puzo1 said...

I of II

bdwilcox,

In The Federalist No. 42 (J. Madison), Madison said that Congress was given the power in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas and against the law of nations. He then explained why such power was given and what standard Congress was to apply in defining the two terms.

With respect to piracies, he said that Congress could use the definition of piracies as found in the law of nations, even though a definition of piracies could be found in most municipal codes of the states.

He then said that a definition of felonies on the high seas was necessary, suggesting that one did not exist in the law of nations.

He added that the English common law and English statutory laws defining felonies were not clear and consistent. In any event, he said that neither the common law or the statutory laws of England or those of any other foreign nation should be the standard to be applied in defining felonies on the high sees unless previously adopted by statute.

He said that state statutes that defined the term were impracticable. Furthermore, he said that the English common law and statutes were “a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” for defining the term. He therefore concluded that for the sake of “certainty and uniformity” it was “necessary and proper” that Congress was given the power to define felonies on the high seas.

Note that when the law of nations provided the definition of a term, Madison said that our national government would use that standard. We know from Vattel, Section 212, The Law of Nations, that the law of nations did, indeed, define a “natural born Citizen” and that definition was a child born in the country to citizen parents. Hence, Madison, as he looked to the law of nations to define piracies, would also have looked there to define “natural born Citizen” and would have adopted that definition. In fact, we know from later U.S. Supreme Court cases, the last two being Minor v. Happersett and Wong Kim Ark, that our nation did adopted that law of nations standard (which Minor called "common-law") to define a "natural-born citizen."

Note that Madison did not view the law of nations as foreign law, for he said that foreign law was not to be the standard for defining any terms to be used by the national government unless previously adopted by statute. Hence, he would not have viewed defining a “natural born Citizen” under the law of nations as doing so under some foreign law or even “international law.”

Note that Madison said that the English common law and statutes did not provide the standard for defining any terms in the Constitution unless it had been specifically adopted by Congress by statute. We know that the Bill of Rights which was later ratified in 1791 and which brought into the republic selected English common law rights, did not touch upon defining citizenship in the republic. We also know that even Congress in the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, 1804, and 1855 rejected the jus soli of English common law and rather adopted jus sanguinis of the law of nations.

Note that he called the English common law and statutes “a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” to defining a term that was included in the Constitution. Madison surely would have thought the same if someone proposed using the English common law, with its feudal, watered-down, and broad notions of allegiance (friendly aliens inhabiting the British dominions were considered “subjects” of the King and naturalized subjects were considered “natural born subjects”) to define a “natural born Citizen,” which was the republican allegiance standard for the President and Commander in Chief of our military power.

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of II

We can also see how important the Founders and Framers believed applying the correct standard was to defining terms in the Constitution. We can also see how important “certainty and uniformity” were to the Founders and Framers. They even provided that Congress make uniform the laws of naturalization which were a hodgepodge of laws in the former colonies and new states. Without doubt, the law of nations definition of a “natural born Citizen” gave them the honorable and legitimate standard and the “certainty and uniformity” they sought and which would be recognized throughout the civilized world.

MichaelN said...

Andy said...

(When asked if the Minor court was referring to English common law)

"I believe they were paraphrasing Vattel."

So they were not referring to the English common law, but they did say "common law" right?

So what "common law" do you suppose the Minor court was referring to which provided for TWO qualities to make a "natural born citizen" of the US, i.e. native birth AND natural descent from US citizens, and this same "common law" made no definitive provision for a native-born child of an alien to be a citizen at all?

Linda said...

Mr. Apuzzo, I appreciate your prompt response, but I am still having trouble with the dates. I have read that Buchanan emigrated from Ireland in 1783, but I have not found anything that says when or where he arrived. Likewise, I have seen references to him owning property in PA, but nothing as to the dates of acquisition there either. Do you have something?

Also, when I said as did you, "When the Constitution was adopted in 1787, state citizens became “citizen of the United States.”, I was asked to show where in the Constitution it says that. I must admit I have used the phrase before and never checked, assuming it were true. Now I do not find a clause that says that. Could you explain how that worked?

Thanks for your time.

Faith said...

Attorney Apuzzo,

Michelle Bachmann has, admittedly, held dual Swiss Citizenship since 1978. It is only this past week that the information was made public - to which she responded by stating that she planned to relinquish her Swiss citizenship prior to her next bid for reelection; an action that she did not take prior to her recent Presidential bid. Is there any precedent to either support or discount a natural born citizen, who then becomes a dual citizen, from running for and actually holding the office of the presidency?

Linda said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

Thanks for your prompt response. I am still having trouble finding dates. I have seen references to Buchanan, Sr. emigrating in 1783, but I have not been able to find anything on when or where he arrived. Likewise, I have seen him called a land-owner, but no dates associated with any purchases or dates of ownership. Do you have anything?

Also, I too have used the phrase you did above ("When the Constitution was adopted in 1787, state citizens became “citizen of the United States.” ) many times, not remember how I picked it up. I was recently challenged by someone asking me where in the Constitution did it say that. I didn't have an answer. I look and nothing jumped out at me. Can you show me where that is or how that worked?

Thank you for your time.

MichaelN said...

Andy,

The Minor court was not only "paraphrasing Vattel", but the Supreme Court of the United States, when referring to the "common law", in the Minor court, was also denying that native birth alone sufficed to make a US "citizen".

Don't you agree?

Puzo1 said...

Linda,

(1) I said: “In 1783, James Buchanan Sr. arrived in Pennsylvania from Ireland."

You said: “I have seen references to Buchanan, Sr. emigrating in 1783, but I have not been able to find anything on when or where he arrived.”

Response: An astute internet researcher has found a source for me. I read it and found this information: “On July 4, 1783, young Buchanan went aboard the brig Providence as a paying passenger. We can imagine some of his thoughts and dreams as he stood at the rail while the lines were cast off and the creaking ship slowly eased her way out of the channel from Londonderry, but even his wildest flights of fancy would scarcely have approached the reality of the future. Joshua Russell met Buchanan in Philadelphia and returned with him to the Russell Tavern on the Hunterstown road.” http://www.frostandgilchrist.com/getperson.php?personID=I25618&tree=frostinaz01

(2) I said: “Buchanan Sr. acquired a lot of land in Pennsylvania. Hence, he had to have taken the oath of allegiance.”

You ask: “Likewise, I have seen him called a land-owner, but no dates associated with any purchases or dates of ownership.”

Response. “After a few years as Tom's helper, Buchanan got the chance to buy the Stony Batter property. Legend has long had it that this transaction involved some sharp practice, but the court records show only that on December 15, 1786, John Tom offered to sell his property to Buchanan for 200 pounds, Pennsylvania currency, promising in the contract that the land was "free of all Taxes, Debts, dues or demands." A few days after Buchanan had recorded these terms of sale, however, John Ferguson of Chambersburg sued Tom for over 500 pounds owing to him and guaranteed by the property. The December County Court confirmed this judgment against Tom, and the February Court ordered a sheriff's sale of Stony Batter, the proceeds to go to Ferguson. Buchanan bought the 100-acre tract for 142 pounds at the public sale on June 23, 1787.

After buying Stony Batter, Buchanan rode off to the foot of South Mountain to claim Elizabeth Speer as his bride. She was just twenty-one, and he twenty-seven when they married on April 16, 1788. The young couple moved into Tom's log cabin which, though crude and rustic by later standards, was quite comfortable for their day. Their property included several log cabins, some barns and stables, a storehouse and store building, cleared fields, and an orchard.

The Buchanans' first child, christened Mary, was born in 1789. On April 23, 1791, Elizabeth presented her husband with a son whom they named after his father.”
http://www.frostandgilchrist.com/getperson.php?personID=I25618&tree=frostinaz01 So President Buchanan was born 4 years after his father purchased at "public" land in Pennsylvania. The public aspect of the purchase assures the oath of allegiance.


(3) I said: When the Constitution was adopted in 1787, state citizens became “citizen of the United States.”

You ask: Where in the Constitution does it say that.

Response: The Constitution is not a dictionary. For example, the Constitution does not define natural born Citizen, Citizen of the United States, naturalization, treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors, felony, piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, letters of marque and reprisal, habeas corpus, bill of attainder, ex post facto law, jurisdiction, privileges and immunities of citizens, republican form of government, keep and bear arms, unreasonable searches and seizures, probable cause, due process of law, speedy and public trial, common law, cruel and unusual punishments, law or equity, and equal protection. When we look outside the constitution we can find the answer in case law of the U.S. Supreme Court. The same is true about the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” The Constitution does not define it. But we find the meaning of the clause, i.e., a child born in the country to citizen parents, outside the Constitution.

Puzo1 said...

Suranis,

A CRS memo dated April 3, 2009 along with Jack Maskell's CRS of 2011 conclude: "Considering the history of the constitutional qualifications provision, the common use and meaning of the phrase "natural-born subject" in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s, the clause's apparent intent, the subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term "natural born citizen" to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens), as well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta, it appears that the most logical inferences would indicate that the phrase "natural born Citizen" would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth."[41]

The conclusion reached by Jack Maskell, that a “natural born Citizen” is merely "U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth," is totally unsubstantiated and only made up by him. Let us briefly consider his points and see what evidence exists on those points:

1. “[T]he history of the constitutional qualifications provision”: But the Founders and Framers were careful to distinguish between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States” and for a good reason. A “natural born Citizen” was the highest form of citizenship to be inherited only by being born in the country to citizen parents. In contrast, all other “citizens,” no matter how created and who were not “natural born Citizens,” were “Citizens of the United States.”

2. “[T]he common use and meaning of the phrase ‘natural-born subject’ in England and in the Colonies in the 1700s”: But citizenship in the new America changed after July 4, 1776. The Founders and Framers did not use the definition of a “natural-born subject” as the definition of a “natural-born citizen.” Minor v. Happerset in 1875 clearly tells us this. Wong Kim Ark cited and quoted Minor’s definition of the clause. The definition the U.S. Supreme Court gave us is a child born in the country to citizen parents. This is not the English common law definition of a “natural-born subject.”

3. “[T]he clause's apparent intent”: But the purpose of the clause is to keep monarchial and foreign influence out of the Office of the President and Commander in Chief of the Military. We do not accomplish that purpose by having a would-be president be born with divided allegiance and loalty which occurs if he/she is not born in the country to citizen parents.

4. “[T]he subsequent action of the first Congress in enacting the Naturalization Act of 1790 (expressly defining the term ‘natural born citizen’ to include a person born abroad to parents who are United States citizens)”: But Congress in its early naturalization acts (1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855) allowed only children born to “citizen” parents to be themselves citizens from the moment of birth. It did not matter if the child was born in or out of the United States. If any child was born to alien parents, that child could not become a “citizen” until his/her parents naturalized or if that child upon reaching the age of majority naturalized on his/her own.

5. “[A]s well as subsequent Supreme Court dicta”: But all U.S. Supreme Court cases, including concurring opinions, defined a “natural born Citizen” as a child born to citizen parents. There is no U.S. Supreme Court case either in its holding or even its dicta that ever defined a “natural born Citizen” as merely "U.S. citizenship "at birth" or "by birth."

So upon close examination, every one of Mr. Maskell’s points does not hold any water. On the contrary, it convincingly appears that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents.

Puzo1 said...

I wanted to share here some typical Obot logic and attitude. The following is from http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2012/05/01/natural-born-citizen-requirements/

Author: alcum
Comment: Mario, You are incorrect of course, as I have proven. Your analysis has been unanimously rejected by and and all courts that have considered it. It has no authority behind it, only fabrications and faulty logic. Courts have declared your faulty interpretation of Minor v Happersett to be incorrect on the same grounds I have been pointing out for the past four years -- the Minor decision does not define a natural born citizen as only the child of citizen parents, and it explicitly warns you that it is not doing any such thing. It said the converse, that a child of citizen parents is a natural born citizen. Your argument is as faulty as if you might have said "A dog is a creature with four legs" and then went on to argue on that basis that the only creatures with four legs are dogs. The only thing you have left to say is that all the judges -- every single one who has considered the question -- are wrong and only you are right. This is ludicrous on your part. Look, just sitting around and making stuff up has gotten you nowhere. Time to fold your tent.

Mario Apuzzo response:

Alcum,

Why do you not show me where I am wrong rather than tell me about what some imaginary court allegedly said?

I have heard all about the dog which is not the only creature with four legs. Your argument is fallacious. You cannot analogize your creature example to the Framers who in Article II wrote a bright line rule for presidential eligibility. Yes, dogs are not the only creatures with four legs. Yes, there are many other creatures with four legs. But really, your argument is absurd when applied to writing bright line eligibility standards for the President. How many types of "natural born Citizens" do you think the Founders and Framers had in mind when they said the President had to be a “natural born Citizen? Are you going to tell me as many as there are four-legged creatures? Are there still some more definitions of a "natural born Citizen" yet to be discovered? Do you not see the aburdity of your argument? Do you not see that the Framers would have had in mind only one definition of a “natural born Citizen” when they said a would-be President had to have that status in order to be eligible to be elected President? Minor confirmed that one definition of a “natural-born citizen” as had other previous U.S. Supreme Court cases. Even Wong Kim Ark confirmed that same definition. There never have been any other definitions of the clause.

Do you think that the Founders and Framers expected a court to come along and just change the definition of terms they used in the Constitution, all done without constitutional amendment? We cannot change the constitution at whim every time circumstances require it. The current definition of a “natural-born citizen” as confirmed by Minor and Wong Kim Ark can be changed, but only by constitutional amendment.

Puzo1 said...

I of II

Here is more debate with alcum at http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2012/05/01/natural-born-citizen-requirements/comment-page-4/#comment-13828

Author: alcum
Comment: Mario, Yours is the fallacious argument, as all courts who've looked at this issue have declared. I showed you where you are wrong. Minor does not say what you claim it does -- it explicitly STATES that it is not saying what you claim it is! -- while Wong DOES say what you claim it doesn't! This is simple proven fact. Your refusal to accept reality does not create a dispute. Denial is not refutation. My dog analogy is not fallacious at all but in fact is perfectly congruent with your ludicrous claim. Stop and think about it for a second -- To say that a child of citizen parents is a natural born citizen does not mean the same thing as to say a natural born citizen is the child of citizen parents. The dicta in the Minor opinion is not exclusive but inclusive. You are fallaciously asserting that the converse of the statement is the same as the statement. You are saying, in full congruence, that saying a dog has four legs is the same thing as saying four legged creatures are dogs. No court is "changing the definition" of the Founders but in fact courts are wholly consistent with the Founders, as they stated that all those born on the soil of the nation are natural born citizens. You are blatantly incorrect about Wong. Wong did not "use the same definition" of NBC as Minor for several reasons. One, Minor did not define who all is a natural born citizen -- it says explicitly that it's not doing so. But Wong did establish that the child of two aliens is a natural born citizen if born on US soil. This is not ever remotely open to dispute, it's the explicit issue of the case itself.

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of II

Mario Apuzzo response:

alcum,

Your response is a complete fail.

1. You continue to appeal to “all courts” without making a legal argument that shows that you are correct and I am wrong.

2. You declare that your “reality” is correct and not mine without showing it.

3. Again more absurdity, telling us that Minor’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” is inclusive, not exclusive. Again, how many definitions of a “natural born Citizen” did the Founders have in mind? Why can you not answer this simple question?

4. You totally ignore what I said about your creature with four legs fallacious argument. When writing bright line eligibility standards for President, which is not the world of cats and dogs, the statement “a child born in a country of citizen parents is a natural born citizen” means the same as “a natural born citizen is a child born in a country to citizen parents.” How many definitions do you expect “natural born Citizen” to have? A “natural born Citizen” is not the subset of any other greater class that can also contain other “natural born Citizens” like the four-legged creature dog is a subset of animals which contain other four legged creatures. What logical absurdity are you peddling?

5. You say that some current courts have declared that “all those born on the soil of the nation are natural born citizens” and that such a ruling is consitent with what the Founders and Framers intended the “natural born Citizen” clause to mean. If these current courts are correct, then you should be able to provide for us one U.S. Supreme Court case which supports such a definition. But the truth of the matter is that there is not one U.S. Supreme Court case that says any such thing either in its holding or even in dicta.

6. Your characterization of Minor is false. Minor did not leave open any question about what is a “natural born Citizen.” Like I said, there is only one definition of a “natural born Citizen” which it confirmd for us and so there was nothing for the Court to leave open about a definition that it gave and about which it said there were no doubts. What Minor left open was whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment. That question has nothing to do with defining a “natural born Citizen.”

7. Your characterization of Wong is also false. Wong only answered the question left open by Minor. Wong did not hold that a child born in the U.S. to alien parents is a “natural born Citizen.’’ Rather, it held that a child born in the U.S. to domiciled alien parents is a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment. You really mischaracterize when you tell us that “natural born Citizen” was “the explicit issue of the case itself.” If that is true, then the Court would have included the “natural born Citizen” clause in the question presented and in its holding. The Court would also have expressly discussed what a “natural born Citizen” was, even going back to the Founding and the constitutional convention and citing sources from that period on its meaning. Why do you not present for us here as quotations and not as your spin the question presented and holding of the Wong Court, along with all its historical analysis of the Article II “natural born Citizen” clause so we can see how much truth there is to your assertion.

MichaelN said...

Maybe alcum can explain what "common law" was it that the US Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett was referring to.

If the English common law provides that native-birth alone sufficed to make a "natural born subject", then it is impossible for the SCOTUS in Minor to have been referring to the English common law.

What was the "common law" which the SCOTUS was referring to in the Minor court, which held that there was never any doubt that native-birth AND natural descent made a US "natural born citizen" and also held that there were doubts as to whether a native-born child to alien parents was even a "citizen" at all?

It could not have been the English common law which the SCOTUS was referring to.

So what "common law" do you suppose it was alcum??????

Puzo1 said...

Here is more from alcum. You be the judge.

Author: alcum
Comment: Mario, you must imagine that by repeating your disproven claims you can somehow make them not be wrong. You have failed. There is not one single authority for your ludicrous claim that two, or even one, citizen parents are necessary to make a natural born citizen when the birth is on US soil. Jack Maskell is 100 percent in all regards and proven so. The Wong case settled this, and it had in fact been set out by the Founders. It was their tradition and practice, as James Madison said. I have yet to see one citation even hinting at the existence of this mysterious secret-ninja "rule" requiring citizen parents. You sure haven't produced a bona fide cite. All court decisions on the matter have said you're wrong. You know, when you're going down the freeway at night and all the other headlights are coming toward you, it's reasonable to consider that they might not be the ones going the wrong way.

Mario Apuzzo response:

alcum,

I have presented a great amount of evidence (historical sources from before, during, and after the Founding, Congressional acts, U.S. Supreme Court cases, scholarly works) that the Founders and Framers defined a "natural born Citizen" under American "common law" as a child born in a country to parents who are citizens of that country.

The weight of all of this evidence crushes the little evidence that you have presented to support your thesis that the Founders and Framers used the English “common law” to define an Article II "natural born Citizen" and thereby defined one as a child born in the United States regardless of the citizenship of his/her parents (excluding births to foreign diplomats and military invaders).

Puzo1 said...

Of course, the Obot playbook instructs that Obots must under all circumstance always have the last word, no matter what it is (even just saying that you are wrong). Here’s more:

Author: alcum
Comment: You're wrong, Mario, you've presented absolutely NO evidence that your interpretation is correct. You cannot. It's been proven incorrect. All you've done is misinterpret and misconstrue and illogically present cases that, when read correctly as all courts have done, contradict you. There's a reason you haven't won a single case. You're wrong. There is not one single authority that states a child born on US soil must have two citizen parents to be a natural born US citizen. None. This is a fact you cannot refute. You illogically reconstruct Minor v Happersett to claim it says something that it not only does NOT say but which it explicitly contradicts! You're amazing in that your complete lack of any legal success with your losing argument hasn't yet caused you to reassess the lies you've been spreading. This is not in dispute. Wong alone proves you wrong. The Founders' words prove you wrong. You cannot prevail because all of American history says your wrong, and all courts that have considered this issue say you're wrong.

Mario Apuzzo response:

Alcum,

I hate to tell you but your telling me that I am wrong and that some current courts disagree with me is not a legal argument and surely does not show that I am wrong.

You have not presented any argument to dispute what I have said. Following up on your creatures with four legs masterful logic, I see that you just cannot bring yourself to tell us how many definitions of a “natural born Citizen” the Founders and Framers wrote into the “natural born Citizen” clause. That tells me that you cannot shake off my reason and logic and must therefore resort to simply saying that I am wrong, claiming ownership of American history, and appealing to what some current courts have done which have created within a politically-charged environment straw men arguments regarding what a “natural born Citizen” is (e.g. what Minor and Wong Kim Ark did and did not say and what the “birthers’” definition of a “natural born Citizen” is) and have not addressed my arguments in any event.

MichaelN said...

Here's what gorefan said at "honest" John Woodman's lie-fest & pack attack blog, where run-away Johnny dictates & censors free speech, based on trumped-up charges of inappropriate language which he himself spews ad nauseam.

gorefan quoting Fuller’s dissent in Wong Kim Ark.

[My comment: I have capitalized the operative words and I have left gorefan's sloppy use of quotation marks intact]

Quote:
"Mario,

Justice Fuller begins his dissent by saying:

“THE ARGUMENT IS, that, although the Constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words “citizens of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule”

was in force in all [p706] the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established;

and

that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign Government, were NATIVE-born citizens of the United States.
“Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment is held to be merely declaratory except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond he control of the legislative power.”

And he goes on to say:

“And it is this rule, pure and simple, which it is ASSERTED determined citizenship of the United States during the entire period prior to the passage of the act of April 9, 1866, and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and governed the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” used in the Constitution as originally framed and adopted.”

Justice Fuller is saying that the majority opinion determined that English Common Law (“this rule”) “governed the meaning of the words “citizen of the United States” and “natural-born citizen” used in the Constitution”.

English Common Law not American Common Law."
------------------------

Reply:

Notice that Fuller describes all those children born in the US as "NATIVE-BORN CITIZENS"?

To the extent that native-birth was the criteria for birth-right citizenship, the principle of jus soli was accepted as sufficient to make a native-born as a "citizen of the United States".

It governed the meaning of the words "natural born citizen" to the same extent, as Binney put it, "by operation of the same principle" in that a "natural born citizen" is also a "citizen of the United States".

Quoting Binney, who was cited in the Wonk Kim Ark case, and who made the clear distinction between the TWO types of (as Fuller put it) "NATIVE-BORN CITIZENS".

Quote:
"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."

The SCOTUS in the Minor case made it clear that the "common law" they referred to DID NOT provide for native-birth as necessarily sufficient to make a "citizen of the United States", let alone a "natural born citizen".

Keep up your desperate mining, so far you have come up with some fool's gold, but anyone with common sense will not buy it, and your trying to peddle it as the real deal simply demonstrates your dishonesty and deceitful agenda.

js said...

Here is proof that Congress knew that there was a difference between a citizen and a NBC as far back as 2004.

S.2128 -- Natural Born Citizen Act (Introduced in Senate - IS)


S 2128 IS
108th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 2128
To define the term `natural born Citizen' as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
February 25, 2004
Mr. NICKLES (for himself, Ms. LANDRIEU, and Mr. INHOFE) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary
________________________________________
A BILL
To define the term `natural born Citizen' as used in the Constitution of the United States to establish eligibility for the Office of President.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Natural Born Citizen Act'.
SEC. 2. DEFINITION OF `NATURAL BORN CITIZEN'.
(a) IN GENERAL- Congress finds and declares that the term `natural born Citizen' in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States means--
(1) any person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof; and
(2) any person born outside the United States--
(A) who derives citizenship at birth from a United States citizen parent or parents pursuant to an Act of Congress; or
(B) who is adopted by 18 years of age by a United States citizen parent or parents who are otherwise eligible to transmit citizenship to a biological child pursuant to an Act of Congress.
(b) UNITED STATES- In this section, the term `United States', when used in a geographic sense, means the several States of the United States and the District of Columbia.

js said...

Also, an amendment introduced to eliminate the NBC requirement a year before that;


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

September 3, 2003
Mr. CONYERS introduced the following joint resolution; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary


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


JOINT RESOLUTION
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States to permit persons who are not natural-born citizens of the United States, but who have been citizens of the United States for at least 20 years, to be eligible to hold the Office of President.


Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein),

SECTION 1. CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

The following article is proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States:

`Article --

`A person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 20 years shall be eligible to hold the Office of President.'

Andy said...

@MichaelN:

You said:
"The Minor court was not only "paraphrasing Vattel", but the Supreme Court of the United States, when referring to the "common law", in the Minor court, was also denying that native birth alone sufficed to make a US "citizen".

Don't you agree?"

No. I don't agree. Because the court didn't say that. They said "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."

They don't limit natural born citizenship to those born with two parents. They specifically say they aren't going to answer that question.

Let's take an example that is based on fruit (since we aren't agreeing on citizenship).

Let's say the court rules that the fruit of a red-delicious tree is an apple. Some people would go further to say that cross-bred fruit of red delicious and yellow delicious trees are also apples. We don't have to discuss that though, because we're talking about the fruit of red delicious trees.

See, we didn't deny that the cross-bred fruit is an apple, while affirming that the pure-bred fruit is.

The same logic applies to the Minor ruling.

MichaelN said...

Andy.

You are still dancing around and evading the point.

Take your apples Andy and peddle them somewhere else, and get a few lessons in logic....... you need it.

Here..... (my comments in brackets)

Minor case, quote:
"Some authorities go further and include as CITIZENS (NOT natural born) children born within the jurisdiction (i.e. NATIVE-BORN) without reference to the citizenship of their parents.
As to THIS CLASS (i.e. those who only have native-birth and no US citizen parents) there have been DOUBTS, , but never as to the first (i.e. those with BOTH native-birth and US citizen parents).
For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these DOUBTS." (i.e. the doubts as to whether native-birth alone can even make a CITIZEN, not whether a "natural born")

FACT = the SCOTUS in Minor referred to a "common law".

FACT = this SAME "common law" provided for TWO qualities that make a "natural born citizen", i.e. native-birth AND natural descent from a US citizen parent.

FACT = the SCOTUS in Minor introduced, acknowledged and recognized "doubts" as to whether NATIVE-BIRTH alone would suffice to make a "citizen" (nothing to do with whether a "natural born citizen")

FACT = the SCOTUS in Minor acknowledged that the "DOUBTS" STILL EXIST at the time of the Minor case (this was AFTER the adoption of the 14th Amendment), stating that the "DOUBTS" have not been solved.

FACT = IF it is true that the English common law holds NO DOUBTS that NATIVE-BIRTH ALONE suffices to make a "natural born" subject/citizen, then the "common law" referred to by the SCOTUS in Minor can NOT POSSIBLY be the English common law.

Don't you agree Andy?

Puzo1 said...

Andy has left a new comment:

@MichaelN

No Michael, I'm refusing to play your game. I honestly don't care what common law the Minor ruling was talking about. Do you know why? Because it doesn't matter. If they were talking about English Common Law, they were wrong. If they were talking about an "American" Common Law, they were also probably wrong. Even if that was the intention, a later court used actual law to establish precedent.

So no, I won't hazard a guess with you. I've seen how hazarding a guess about things like this can lead to problems. (See. the recent case of Mr. Strunk in New York.)

@Puzo

You're making up arguments for me now? Weird. Let me know how that works out for you.

About doubts: I'm not sure how closely or thoroughly the court actually looked at the common law - this is exact point I've been trying to get across to Michael N (though he seems much more intent on trying to score non-existent points). That's probably why the court specifically used phrases like:

"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."

Notice they specifically say "it was never doubted." They aren't citing specific sources. They are speaking in the general understanding, without looking at the actual details because it wasn't necessary. No one had ever doubted those specific conditions made one a citizen.

Apuzzo response:

Andy,

The Minor Court said: “At common-law” . . . "it was never doubted" who was a “natural-born citizen.” That “common-law” came from the law of nations which was incorporated into Article III’s “Laws of the United States” which under the supremacy clause of Article VI, became binding upon the nation. That law of nations or “common law” became our national law on the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Solid evidence of this, among many sources that I have cited, is the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, which treated a child born in the U.S. to alien parents as an alien, and by a process of elimination considered to be a “natural born Citizen” only a child born in the United States to citizen parents. It has always been said that the Constitution does not define a “natural born Citizen.” But the Founders and Framers defined one through the early Congress in these naturalization acts.

Your comment about Chris Strunk and the New York court is really intellectually dishonest. You know that Judge Schack did not correctly state and analyze Strunk’s definition of a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., a child born in the country to parents who are “citizens” of that country either “at birth” or after birth. Strunk never said that the parents had to be born in the United States. In other words, Strunk never said that the parents had to be U.S. “citizens” “at birth,” for his definition also included parents who become U.S. “citizens” after birth (i.e., through naturalization after birth). So you persist in this lie, just like John Woodman persists in so many of his lies, distortions, manipulations, bombast, and political propaganda.

Puzo1 said...

Obots love to cite and quote Smith v. Alabama as done by Wong Kim Ark for support for their position. Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark said:

“In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said: ‘There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several states each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes.’ ‘There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.’ 124 U.S. 478 , 8 Sup. Ct. 569.”

There are several problems in using this quote as a justification that a “natural born Citizen” has the same meaning as a “natural born subject.”

First, the provisions of the constitution are not only to be read in the light of the history of the English common law, but more so in light of the American Revolution and the changes brought by that revolution to America’s political, legal, social, and cultural institutions.

Second, Smith dealt with state issues, not federal issues. So that the English common law continued to pervail in the states on a selective basis proves nothing on the federal level.

Third, the key part of this quote is: “The interpretation of the constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.”

The first key words of the above quote are: “its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law.” Clearly not all the provisions of the Constitution are framed in the language of the English common law. On the contrary, most of them are not. One clear example is the “natural born Citizen” clause which not only did not exist in the English common law, but was totally unsuited for a monarchy.

The second key words are: “are to be read in the light of its history.” Reading something in light of the history of something does not mean that what is being read takes on the same meaning as the history of whatever someone is reading. To take this statement and use it to mean that a “natural born Citizen” has the same meaning as a “natural born subject” is going way too far and is not at all what the quote is intended to mean. In fact, while Justice Gray used the English common law to give controlling effect to being born in the country, he did not go as far as the English common law would have permitted him to go and did not say that Wong was a “natural born Citizen,” but rather only a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Puzo1 said...

Jonroland made the following statement at GOPUSA, http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2012/05/01/natural-born-citizen-requirements/comment-page-5/#comment-14355 :

“The argument that natural birth is affected by the citizenship of parents is frivolous.”
Here is my response to him.

************

Jonroland,

You really love to make stuff up as we go along just to suit your little agenda.

You said: “The argument that natural birth is affected by the citizenship of parents is frivolous.”

First, you have put forth a straw man argument. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 says “natural born Citizen,” not “natural birth.” Not even the English common law speaks of “natural birth.” And surely, the Founders and Framers never said “natural birth.” Consequently, nor have the constitutionalists, who people like you pejoratively call the “Birthers.” So, you are the only person who speaks of the straw man “natural birth” and you are the one who easily defeats him.

We recently saw another straw man argument, produced by the New York State court when it erroneously said that Christopher Strunk maintains that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to parents who are citizens by being born in the United States. What is fact and not understood by the court is that Strunk argues that the parents may be citizens either “at birth” or after birth, but yet the court wants to sanction him for what it says is a frivolous argument (that he says that the parents have to be born in the United States) which has compelled the defendants to incur attorney’s fees. The court wants to sanction Strunk for those fees and has asked the defendants to submit their bills to the court. Those bills will be well over $200,000.00. The court should recognize its error and not sanction Strunk for defining a “natural born Citizen” the same way that our U.S. Supreme Court has done in Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

Second, your argument is so absurd that you are also compelled to maintain: “The argument that natural birth is affected by the place of birth is frivolous.” After having said that, what is left specifically of an Article II “natural born Citizen” and generally of Article II presidential eligibility when we throw out both birth in the country and birth to citizen parents? Answer: Zero. Or are you going to take the absurd position and tell me that “natural birth” is affected by the place of birth [and not by birth parents] so it is not frivolous to require that a “natural born Citizen” be born in the United States?

So, are you telling us that the Founders and Framers, when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause and presidential eligibility standards into the Constitution, wrote such foolishness? Or are you the guilty party?

We know what the answer is because having devoted their lives to the study of knowledge, the Founders and Framers were wise persons. They looked for a way to preserve the republic for generations to come. Hence, in a “natural born Citizen,” the person who would be President and Commander in Chief of the Military in the future, they required both birth in the United States and birth to “citizen” parents, i.e., parents who were U.S. “citizens” “at birth” or after birth. It was this formula, which produced attachment to country by being born on its soil and by being born to parents who are “citizens” of that country, that best assured what they saw as an indispensable requirement for the President and Commander in Chief of our military forces to have. That requirement was allegiance and love of country only for the United States from the moment of birth and through adulthood.

Chris Strunk said...

The historical abuses of the Star Chamber are considered a primary motivating force behind the protections against compelled self-incrimination embodied in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The meaning of “compelled testimony” under the Fifth Amendment—i.e., the conditions under which a defendant is allowed to “take the Fifth”—is thus often interpreted via reference to the inquisitorial methods of the Star Chamber. Judge Schack not only invented the alleged violation ipse dixit, for which he charged me of frivolous conduct for daring to allege that BHO Jr. has a British Subject father on August 4, 1961 or when ever it happened, is therefore not NBC; that Justice Schack shamelessly poses as the prosecutor, judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one . Without the ability to call the judge as a witness to the crime that he is committing as my own counsel I may seek an appeal on the merits of the sanctions wrongly held against me.
As the U.S. Supreme Court described it, “the Star Chamber has, for centuries, symbolized disregard of basic individual rights. The Star Chamber not merely allowed, but required, defendants to have counsel. The defendant’s answer to an indictment was not accepted unless it was signed by counsel. When counsel refused to sign the answer, for whatever reason, the defendant was considered to have confessed.” Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 821-22 (1975).

Contrary to the dishonesty of the “Observer”, I offered a copy of the AMICUS written by Mario Apuzzo, Esq. to everyone in the Courtroom including the “I am just an Observer” with a yellow legal pad that rejected the offered a copy showing absolutely no interest in knowing.

It seems curious to say the least that since 2008 I was the only litigant in the entire State of New York to question the eligibility of BHO. One would think of the 120,000 attorneys in NYC alone at least one would raise a question? Were the truth to be told each wants to continue to practice law and make a livelihood know better about judicial retaliation; and since the court cannot take away something I do not have a license someone had to speak-up and I did. Obama’s father was a British Subject married to his mother and as such BHO Jr. is not a Natural-born Citizen per se at best he is “Born a Citizen” that is a fact admitted to and I did nothing frivolous in the process; notwithstanding the glorified mortgage clerk that as Justice David I. Schmidt at IAS Part 1 stated in open Court in the case 2008-29642 on January 11, 2011 “Mr. Strunk why don’t you just file a new case rather than try to amend this one?” Justice Schmidt also said in open Court at IAS Part 47 on November 22, 2011 stated that he “did not agree with Justice Schack” and believes “the case was stolen” from him politically.

Chris Strunk

Chris Strunk said...

Making the deadline is what due process is all about not matter how pretty it is or isn't. I was told by the County Clerk at the time I filed my notice of Appeal that she had never sen such a large entry ever befoer in her long carrier and surprised me when she told me that the Court's OSC of April 11, 2012 was more than 2000 actual pages that were NEVER served upon me as order by the COURT by his Law Clerk. I am about to do a Notice of Intent to file a claim against the State for the injury to me.


http://www.scribd.com/doc/94586470/Filed-NOA-with-Attachments-2011-6500-and-followed-by-AMICUS-and-uncorrected-Transcript-of-5-7-12-Hearing

cfkerchner said...

This is a long video. But if you take the time to watch it, you will see how this former KGB agent explains how the communist and marxist agents are trained to use disinformation and deception to undermine a nation. These techniques are exactly the same techniques Obama and his backers and online army of paid operative and volunteer OBOTS are using to confuse the American electorate. It is well worth watching, especially when he starts explaining the disinformation and deception techniques used by the communist party in their target nations. In our instant case ... the USA and our constitutional republic. I suggest readers here take the time to watch the whole video and you will learn a lot about how the trained OBOTS operate. Or read the new book, The Communist, which is about Frank Marshall Davis and how he and his ilk used these techniques to deceive the masses in their work.

http://wp.me/pPOcT-2cG

CDR Kerchner (Ret)

misha trotsky said...

"We are not in a law court here. This is the court of public opinion"

In the court of public opinion, only your looks count, and I don't like your looks.