Purpura and Moran File Their Brief and Appendix in Barack Obama N.J. Ballot Access Challenge Appeal

Tuesday, May 22, 2012

Purpura and Moran File Their Brief and Appendix in Barack Obama N.J. Ballot Access Challenge Appeal

Purpura and Moran File Their Brief and Appendix in Barack Obama N.J. Ballot
                                       Access Challenge Appeal

                                       By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                              May 22, 2012
                                        Updated May 25, 2012
                                       Updated May 29, 2012

On May 18, 2012, I filed on behalf of my clients, Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran, their Brief and Appendix in their New Jersey Ballot Access Challenge appeal currently pending before the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division. In the brief, we argue that Administrative Law Judge, Jeff S. Masin, and New Jersey Secretary of State, Kimberly M. Guadagno, erred in finding that candidate Barack Obama, when challenged to do so, has no constitutional or legal obligation to present any evidence as to who he is, where he was born, and that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” before the Secretary of State can place his name on the primary election ballot. We also argue that because he presented no evidence on the matter, they erred in finding that he was born in Hawaii. Finally, we also argue that because he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents, they erred in finding that as a matter of law he is a “natural born Citizen.”

The Brief and Appendix may be read here, http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/94493192-Purpura-Moran-v-Obama-Brief-and-Appendix-Filed-5-18-12

Obama and the New Jersey Attorney General have until Friday, May 25, 2012, to file and serve their responding Brief and Appendix.

Telephonic oral argument is scheduled for Wednesday, May 30, 2012, at 1:00 p.m., before Hon. Clarkson S. Fisher, Jr., P.J.A.D., Hon. Linda G. Baxter, J.A.D., and Hon. Philip S. Carchman, J.A.D.

Important Update:

I just received word from the New Jersey Superior Court, Appellate Division that the appellate oral arguments that were initially scheduled for Wednesday, May 30, 2012, at 1:00 p.m. by TELEPHONE have been changed to in-person oral argument in the OPEN COURT ROOM.

Hence, oral arguments on the Purpura and Moran v. Obama appeal to the New Jersey Appellate Division with take place in the open court room as follows:

Place: Superior Court of New Jersey
Appellate Division
Hughes Justice Complex
25 W. Market Street
5th Floor
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0006

Date: Wednesday, May 30, 2012

Time: 1:00 p.m. (Eastern)

Judges: Hon. Clarkson S. Fisher, Jr., P.J.A.D.; Hon. Linda G. Baxter, J.A.D.; Hon. Philip A. Carchman, J.A.D.

Method: In person argument on the record in open court room (not telephonically).

I hope to see members of the interested public at the oral arguments so that you can learn first hand what the issues and arguments are.

Update: I just filed Appellants' Reply Letter Brief and Appendix. It may be viewed here:
http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/95195368-Purpura-Moran-Reply-Letter-Brief-FILED-5-29-12

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 22, 2012
Updated May 25, 2012
Updated May 29, 2102
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

740 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 600 of 740 Newer› Newest»

Robert said...: Mario,
You must be greatly encouraged by the increase in the intensity and volume of the attacks against you.

Your efforts to educate the people are really paying off and are contributing to a fast growing interest not only in the issues surrounding Mr. Obama, but those pertaining to our Constitution as a whole.

This obviously frightens your detractors to no end. Yet, they keep on coming like moths drawn to a flame.; June 10, 2012 at 3:44 PM
Frank Bailey said...: I suppose when you have no facts all you can do is zero in on a couple of typographical errors on a blog that offers no ability to correct them. It is the kind of juvenile behavior that I should have expected.

Documentation of your incompetence is available on the public record. I find it odd that your sycophant supporters never ask themselves why you have lost every single time. They must be embarrassed at using the excuse that the judges are all on the take or intimidated time after time. Of course you encourage them by saying the judges haven't bothered to answer your baseless legal arguments point by point even when they say "we have carefully considered your arguments and find them without merit". Judges have better use of their time than to write lengthy opinions in reply to kooks and crackpots.; June 10, 2012 at 4:39 PM
MichaelN said...: More about Fogbow and obots identities.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=791_1307484540; June 10, 2012 at 5:26 PM
MichaelN said...: Andy, John Woodman, Reality Check, Gorefan, Ballantine .....

What "common law" was the SCOTUS in the Minor court referring to which the SCOTUS recognized as acknowledging doubts as to if a native-born child to alien parents was even a US citizen?????; June 10, 2012 at 6:02 PM
Carlyle said...: Mario -

Why is it that these belligerent posters here are so afraid of the facts? They seem to have a rather deep hatred for you - as opposed to just ignoring you, if you are the fool they claim. Why don't they just walk away?

On the other hand, given their level of apparent hatred, combined with the general ineffectiveness of their "lashing with wet noodles" approach, why are they not eager to help dig out the facts and then be able to REALLY PROVE how misguided (and/or malicious) you really are? It seems a no brainer. That is certainly what I would do.

They surely could not be afraid of the truth, could they? Nah, it must be something else entirely. -snark-

I don't know if The Obama is NBC or not. According to his own narrative, he appears not. However, we are learning more and more that his narrative is largely nonsense. So, at this point, I have no reason to believe that SAD and BHO are his biological parents. Perhaps he is 100% solidly NBC - even by the most restrictive definition I believe is the correct one.; June 10, 2012 at 7:44 PM
Carlyle said...: Big Questions?

What do you think is the proper NBC categorization for someone how is, either:

1. Born off-soil, to non-citizen parents, but is immediately adopted into the US by citizen parents?

2. Born on-soil to citizen parents, but is immediately adopted out of the US by non-citizen parents? Especially, should they resurface later and become a US citizen. Could they then say they were/are a NBC?

I don't think we ever seriously discussed this much before because the starting point was to always accept his narrative and go from there. Now, it is no longer reasonable to assume any truth - we must start at the beginning, with no assumptions.; June 10, 2012 at 7:47 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Frank Bailey,

Stop your whining.

I have carefully considered your arguments and find them without merit.; June 10, 2012 at 9:42 PM
jayjay said...: Frank Bailey:

truly you are an inept whiner as others here have ovserved. I cut you the "slack" you are tearing up about - but that still does not matter.

Your nonsense attacks on Mario Apuzzo make you look at the very least like a complete fool ... but you're surely not alone; the rest of the OOPS Troops come off equally badly.

The question which none of you are willing to address is "why not play 'open kimono' and have a huge release of not only the early natality records and early life records"??

Many people wonder why you don't join in that request but instead attack any who wish to see that happen.

The obvious answer, of course, is that you all know damned well that the guy is a fraud and may not even be an American citizen regardless of your BS efforts, Mr. Goebbels.

I'm sure that you also know that the courts so far have been completely unwilling to hear the elibibility issue with arguments, evidence, and the applicable law - and then rule accordingly.

These men are at least as cowardly as you are and it will eventually redound to their great discredit, as it should ... and probably a similar fate awaits many of you in the OPS Troops.

Americans want the truth dipstick!!! Your attempts to suppress the truth WILL NOT WORK!!!; June 10, 2012 at 10:27 PM
jayjay said...: Puzo1:

That's truly funny and on pointe and serves Frank Bailey right!!; June 10, 2012 at 10:30 PM
Anonymous said...: cfKerchner,

"All the accounts by Obama over several decades say Obama was foreign born and continued that way up until 2006/2007 when Obama was prepping for a run for the Presidency and he had to scrub the foreign born ID that he was living up until then."

This is factually not true. Here are, I believe, the first public articles written about President Obama. The newspaper articles are interviews with him on the occasion of his being elected to the Harvard Law Review.

1.) New York Times, February 6th, 1990 - “born in Hawaii”.

2.) Los Angeles Times, March 19h, 1990 - “born in Hawaii”.

3.) Associated Press, May 3rd, 1990 - “born in Hawaii”.

4.) Literary Agent Bio, 1991 - “born in Kenya”.

5.) “Dreams of My Father”, 1995 - birth hospital in Hawaii.; June 10, 2012 at 10:40 PM
MichaelN said...: What about YOU Frank Bailey?

What "common law" was the SCOTUS in the Minor court referring to which the SCOTUS recognized as acknowledging doubts as to if a native-born child to alien parents was even a US citizen?????; June 10, 2012 at 10:59 PM
Anonymous said...: cfKerchner,

Let me revise my last post:

1.) New York Times, February 6th, 1990 - “born in Hawaii”.

2.) Los Angeles Times, March 19h, 1990 - “born in Hawaii”.

3.) Associated Press, May 3rd, 1990 - “born in Hawaii”.

4.) Literary Agent Bio, 1991 - “born in Kenya”.

5.) Chicago Magazine, January, 1993 - "born in Hawaii".

6.) “Dreams of My Father”, 1995 - birth hospital in Hawaii.; June 11, 2012 at 12:26 AM
cfkerchner said...: African Newspapers, Kenyan Gov Officials, Obama Family, and other Accounts Reporting Obama is Kenyan Born:
http://www.scribd.com/collections/3248475/African-Newspapers-Kenyan-Gov-Officials-Obama-Family-and-other-Accounts-Reporting-Obama-is-Kenyan-Born

Collections of Information about the Usurper and Fraud in Chief:
http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty/collections/; June 11, 2012 at 1:22 AM
Andy said...: @Mario

You said:

"Stop your whining.

I have carefully considered your arguments and find them without merit."

Funny, isn't that very similar to what the appeals court said to you?; June 11, 2012 at 2:04 AM
js said...: Debate is recorded in the Kenyan government’s official March 25, 2010, hansard – a traditional name for printed transcripts of a parliamentary debate – as continuing with no other MPs mentioning or attempting to correct Orengo’s comments about Obama.

“If America was living in a situation where they feared ethnicity and did not see itself as a multiparty state or nation,” Orengo posited, “how could a young man born here in Kenya, who is not even a native American, become the president of America?”

This is official Government records...not gossip columns and unverifiable stories in the press.

Gotta say that Ive trumped your gossip eh 4zoltan!!; June 11, 2012 at 5:02 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Andy,

You are an idiot.

Frank Bailey already said that. Do you always just parrot what others say? Does Andy want a cracker?; June 11, 2012 at 8:41 AM
Andy said...: @Mario

Sorry. I didn't see that he had said that.

Better to be an intelligent parrot, then a really, really bad lawyer.

How are those cases going for you?; June 11, 2012 at 9:53 AM
Anonymous said...: js,

United States Senate Resolution 225

"Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961"

Passed July 28, 2009

United States House of Representatives Resolution 593,

"Whereas the 44th President of the United States, Barack Obama, was born in Hawaii on August 4, 1961"

Passed July 27, 2009.

This is official Government records...not some third world country unverified report.

Gotta say that Ive trumped your third world government transcript eh js!!

BTW, all of my news articles are from the 1990's before he became Senator or President.; June 11, 2012 at 10:51 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Andy,

The cases are going great. No one has yet demonstrated that my arguments on the definition of a "natural born Citizen" are wrong. That is a very encouraging sign.

We also just had the Fourth Circuit issue a decision in the Tisdale case which granted my motion to file an amicus brief, accepted my amicus brief, and put the stamp "nonprecedential" on their decision which in effect makes Judge Gibney's definition of a "natural born Citizen" non-precedential in the United States.

Thanks for asking.; June 11, 2012 at 10:59 AM
jayjay said...: 4zoltan:

MiGawd you're stoopid!!!

Guess we should change the US Constitution A2S1C5 to agree with the House and your other sources, eh???

Maybe you can get all of the other even more numerous sources claiming that as incorrect to change also??? Maybe you could also speak with Michelle Obama and tell her she lied when in a public speech prior to the 2008 elecction when she called Barry-boy "... a black man, a Kenyan ...". She needs to check her facts eh???; June 11, 2012 at 11:36 AM
Ray said...: MichaelIN,

Keep asking, 'What "common law" was the SCOTUS in the Minor court referring to which the SCOTUS recognized as acknowledging doubts as to if a native-born child to alien parents was even a US citizen?'

They'll never answer because they know that it is not ECL.

You've asked a dozen times and still no answer.

//

The jurisdiction of federal courts is defined by the Constitution. That written law does not grant to the federal judiciary the authority to incorporate other systems of laws of its own choosing, does not incorporate the common law of England, nor the law or constitution of the several states.

To deny these constraints is a dangerous usurpation and a direct subversion of the fundamental principle of seperation of powers (the Judiciary assuming the powers of the Legislature).

But the greater danger is the subsequent federal court judges who misconstruing the doctrine of stare decisis believe that the prior court has established a new grant of power, that the common law of England actually is incorporated into federal law since a prior court made it so.

Of course this is absurd, a body can not legitimately grant itself powers. Powers are granted to a body by a seperate body, in the United States that body is the People.

The unsanctioned assumption of power not granted does not establish precedent in the sense of stare decisis, "to stand by things decided". The federal Judiciary can not grant itself powers, and then "stand by powers self-granted".

The written delegation of power is within the Constitution and it does not include the common law of England nor the law or constitution of the several states.

The Constitution is superior and binding authority, the reliance on ECL by judge Gray is dangerous - not just in the WKA case but it excites the imaginations of subsequent judges.; June 11, 2012 at 12:02 PM
Andy said...: Actually, I think you're wrong, Mario. Judge Gibney's decision was affirmed. The only thing that is non-precedent was the affirmation.

And even still, your arguments were thrown out with the appeal.

So going great means that your legal arguments are:
1. Wrong (Kerchner et al v. Obama et al - D.N.J.; Dismissal Affirmed - 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals; Writ for Certiorari Denied - USSC, Kerchner et al v. Obama et al - Pennsylvania State Commonwealth Court; Tisdale v Obama 4th Circuit Court of Appeals; Purpura et al v. Obama - Ballot Challenge in New Jersey, Appeal Dismissed - New Jersey Superior Court)
2. Without Merit (Kerchner et al v. Obama et al - 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals; Purpura et al v. Obama - New Jersey Ballot Challenge, Appeal Dismissed - New Jersey Superior Court)
3. Frivolous (Kerchner et al v. Obama et al - 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals)

You must be some sort of an optimist. In your mind, constantly losing is moving forward.; June 11, 2012 at 12:30 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: 4zoltan,

You said: “This is official Government records...not some third world country unverified report. Gotta say that Ive trumped your third world government transcript eh js!!”

Response: It is really a shame that you and your coterie show such utter contempt for anything and everything that does not serve your purpose, including Emer de Vattel, the Founders and Framers, U.S. Constitution, David Ramsay, Minor v. Happersett, and any individual who does not agree with you.

The Republic of Kenya deserves as much respect as any nation in the world. But no, you have to cast aspersion upon it, calling it some “third world government” just so your position is accepted and the opposing point of view rejected. That my friend, makes you what you are, an Obot.

In any event, we have established that two independent and free sovereign nations have come to two different conclusions, the Republic of the United States, through its Congress, has concluded Obama was born in Hawaii, and the Republic of Kenya, through its Parliament, has established that Obama was born in Kenya. In light of the results of the investigation by Sheriff Arpaio, the opinion of the U.S. Congress is no more verified than the opinion of the Kenyan Parliament. So which one is correct?; June 11, 2012 at 12:45 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Ray,

Excellent anaysis.

The difference between the law of nations and the English common law is that the Founders and Framers incorporated the law of nations into the Constitution but, except for the subsequent Bill of Rights which were ratified in 1791 and which only included selective parts of the English common law, did not incorporate therein the English common law. The law of nations is even mentioned in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10. The law of nations became “national law,” incorporated into the “Laws of the United States” in Article III, binding upon the whole nation under the supremacy clause of Article VI, and called “common law” by Minor v. Happersett (1875). The English common law continued to have selective and limited application only in the states until there abrogated by state legislatures.

And it is from that law of nations, national law, American “common law” that we obtain the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” not from English common law. Again, this is confirmed by The Venus (Chief Justice Marshall), Dred Scott (Justice Daniels), and Minor v. Happersett (1875), which in 1875 defined a “natural-born citizen” under “common law” (not under the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Acts, or the English common law) and said it was a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 cited and quoted the same Minor definition in its decision which dealt with defining a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Clearly, the Minor confirmed definition of a “natural-born citizen” is not based on the English common law, which included as an English “natural born subject,” a child born to aliens in amity while temporarily located in the King’s dominions and under his obedience, but rather on the law of nations, as confirmed by Emer de Vattel in Section 212 of his highly renowned treatise, The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758), where he defined the “natives, or natural-born citizens” as those that are “born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm.

Not even Wong Kim Ark completely accepted the English common law to define a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States,” for it required that the parents of a child born in the United States, if not “citizens” be at a minimum “domiciled” in the United States, which by definition excludes those parents who are in the United States only temporarily and with no legally recognized intent to make the United States their permanent home.; June 11, 2012 at 1:47 PM
Robert said...: Let it be noted that the Congress of the United States has concluded that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii without any verified documentation or other prima facia evidence.

Let it also be noted that the Senate of the United States, with sole the exception of Sen. McCain, has agreed via SR511, of which Mr. Obama is a sponsor, that a natural born citizen is one born in the country (or its equivalent/under its complete jurisdiction) to citizen parents.

Let it also be noted that the Congress and the Courts have completely and willfully ignored Mr. Obama's stipulation that he was born under British jurisdiction through his claimed British/Kenyan father.

Further note the irony that anyone who believes Mr. Obama must join with those who don't and accept that Mr. Obama is not eligible. To do otherwise is hypocritical, if not insane.

Of course those with a political agenda are doing whatever they want with no regard to the Constitution, our history, or any of the laws or facts pertinent to the case. Neither have they any interest in pursuing any truthful resolution of any questions of the case.

P.T. Barnum would just love the Obots. They are obviously among those who can be fooled all of the time - and love it!; June 11, 2012 at 2:17 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Andy,

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Tisdale v. Obama affirmed Judge Gibney's decision. The Court said the following in its decision: “UNPUBLISHED.” “Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.” So, not only are such decisions not binding outside the Fourth Circuit, but they are also not binding within its own circuit. Hence, the Court’s decision is non-precedential and non-binding which makes the whole case non-precedential and non-binding throughout the United States. Do you know what that means? Too bad for you, my friend.

My arguments were not thrown out with the appeal. My arguments were strong enough for the Court to rule that its decision is non-precedential and non-binding in the entire United States.

As to the other cases you cite, you lie there too:

1. Kerchner et al v. Obama et al - D.N.J.; Dismissal Affirmed - 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals; Writ for Certiorari Denied. The New Jersey Federal District Court dismissed the Kerchner case for lack of standing. That means the court had no jurisdiction. The Third Circuit affirmed, saying the plaintiffs did not have standing. Hence, both the lower court and the Third Circuit Court of Appeals never reached the merits of the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The Supreme Court denied cert. without stating any reason. After hearing from me, the Third Circuit withdrew its initial order for me to show cause why I should not have to pay damages (not sanctions as you lie) on the issue of whether my appealing on standing was reasonable. The Third Circuit recognized in its decision that it could not reach the issue of the American “common law” definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” before plaintiffs established they had standing. So clearly, the Third Circuit never reached the question of the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

2. Kerchner et al v. Obama et al - Pennsylvania State Commonwealth Court. The Court dismissed the case on jurisdiction. It never reached the question of what is an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

3. Tisdale v Obama 4th Circuit Court of Appeals. We have already discussed this case.

4. Purpura et al v. Obama - Ballot Challenge in New Jersey, Appeal Dismissed - New Jersey Superior Court. On the issue of what is a “natural born Citizen,” the ALJ wrote in his decision that he did not have time to write a law review article on the definition of a “natural born Citizen” and said during the hearing that because Wong Kim Ark included the words “natural born,” that made Obama a “natural born Citizen.”

You must be some pathological liar, not being able to tell one truth.; June 11, 2012 at 2:31 PM
MichaelN said...: Blackstone's Commentaries:
with Notes of Reference 1803
St. George Tucker

Quote:
"Our American plantations are principally of this latter sort, being obtained in the last century either by right of conquest and driving out the natives (with what natural justice I shall not at present inquire)or by treaties.

And therefore the common law of England, as such, has NO ALLOWANCE OR AUTHORITY THERE; they being no part of the mother country, but distinct (though dependent) dominions. They are subject however to the control of the parliament, though (like Ireland, Man, and the rest) not bound by any acts of parliament, unless particularly named."

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/tucker/tuck-104.htm; June 11, 2012 at 7:28 PM
MichaelN said...: Blackstone's Commentaries:
with Notes of Reference (1803)
St. George Tucker.

Quote:
"It is an original compact; whatever political arrangement existed between the American colonies, antecedent to the revolution, as constituent parts of the British empire, or as dependencies upon it, that relation was completely dissolved and annihilated from that period. -
From the moment of the revolution they became severally independent sovereign states, possessing all the rights, jurisdictions, and authority, that other sovereign states, however constituted, or by whatever title denominated, possess; and bound by no ties but of their own creation, except such as all other civilized nations are equally bound by, and which together constitute the customary LAW OF NATIONS."

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/tucker/tuck-1d1.htm; June 11, 2012 at 7:59 PM
Frank Bailey said...: "The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Tisdale v. Obama affirmed Judge Gibney's decision. The Court said the following in its decision: “UNPUBLISHED.” “Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.” So, not only are such decisions not binding outside the Fourth Circuit, but they are also not binding within its own circuit. Hence, the Court’s decision is non-precedential and non-binding which makes the whole case non-precedential and non-binding throughout the United States. Do you know what that means? Too bad for you, my friend.

My arguments were not thrown out with the appeal. My arguments were strong enough for the Court to rule that its decision is non-precedential and non-binding in the entire United States. "

Just when you think you have heard the most absurd argument ever Mario Apuzzo tops it! So Apuzzo won because the court chose not to issue a published opinion noting his arguments were nonsense while ruling against him. They merely rejected them. ha! ha! He really said that.

FYI, in Arizona the defense in the Liberty Legal Foundation v Arizona Democratic Party filed a motion for judicial notice asking the court to notice the Tisdale ruling. The plaintiffs attorney Van Irion made an almost identical argument that Apuzzo made that the court should not take judicial notice. The court struck Van Irion's motion.

Apuzzo also fails to note that the 4th Circuit Court's non-publication rate is 92% so taking credit for the non published opinion is just another example of a frivolous argument from Apuzzo.; June 11, 2012 at 8:21 PM
jayjay said...: MichaelN:

Your very fine posts merely go to highlight the terribly gross reading inadequacy the OOPS Troops (aka obots) really have.

When coupled with their almost total cognitive dissonance, that shows why our country is in the state it is presently in.

KEEP ON POSTIN ...!!; June 11, 2012 at 8:28 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Apuzzo,

Does the Kenyan Dept. of Health or it's equivalent verifiy that President Obama was born in Kenya? Hawaii verifies that President Obama was born in Honolulu, Hawaii.

Are there contemporary newspaper accounts in 1961 Kenyan newspapers that announce the birth of a male to Barack H. Obama Sr.? Two 1961 Honolulu newspapers announce the brith to Barack Obama Sr.

How about contemporary Kenyan government records from 1961 that indicate that one Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Kenya on August 4th, 1961? United States Immigration files from 1961 and 1967 indicate that Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Honolulu, Hawaii on August 4th, 1961.

Those things exist in the records of the United States, so it is easy to say that the United States Congress got it right and one guy in the Kenya Parliment got it wrong.; June 11, 2012 at 8:46 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Frank Bailey,

True or False:

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Judge Gibney's decision. The Court said the following in its decision: “UNPUBLISHED.” “Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.” So, not only are such decisions not binding outside the Fourth Circuit, but they are also not binding within its own circuit.

So which one is it Frank?; June 11, 2012 at 10:00 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: 4zoltan,

It still boils down to the U.S. Congress and the Kenyan Parliament. I’m sure the Kenyans believe Kenya is correct like you think the U.S.A. is correct.

Should you not know, birth certificates are to the INS (today called USCIS) what air is to human beings. Since you mentioned those INS records, why do you not produce for us all here what evidence exists in the INS file upon which anyone relied to conclude that Obama was born in Hawaii. I’ll be waiting.; June 11, 2012 at 10:09 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Apuzzo,

The fact that the Immigration officers were content to declare President Obama born in Honolulu on two separate occasions (1961 and 1967) is proof enough. Or do you believe they were derelict in their duties?

August 31, 1961 less then a month after his birth:

"U.S.C. spouse to go to Wash State University next semester. When finished school here plans to go to mainland school for a Doctor Degree in Economics – after that to return to Kenya. They have one child born Honolulu on 8/4/1961 – Barack Obama II, child living with mother (she lives with parents & subject resides at 1482 Alencastre St.)."

The 1967 memo was written as the result of an official inquiry into the child's status:

"The person in question is a United States citizen by virtue of his birth in Honolulu, Hawaii, Aug. 4, 1961. He is living with the applicants’ spouse in Honolulu, Hawaii." W.L Mix

Do you believe Mr. Wood and Mr. Mix simply took their word for it?

How about some proof from Kenya or then the unsubstantiated words of a politician that Obama was born in Kenya.

I'll wait.; June 11, 2012 at 10:37 PM
js said...: Last I checked the HI DOH validates that it is in possetion of documents...but they refuse to disclose the exact nature of them...or validate that the LF BC released last year by BHO is valid.

Strange, but I prefer a direct and HONEST reply. Omissions by the HI DOH in thier language leave weasel holes big enough to sneak an elephant through. If they had everything they claimed, they wouldnt need all the weasel clauses.

And face it, a non binding resolution by a Congress controlled by the DNC is far short of the claim that the nation BHO Sr was born in claims that his son was also born there. The hold in 4Z's head appears because he doesnt have any questions about this issue. If its valid, we have a total fraud in the Oval Office, a criminal that would indeed belong in prison. Instead, he frolicks with the idiots and plays like nothing is wrong.

The only thing 4zoltan can trumph is the short circuit between his ears.; June 11, 2012 at 10:45 PM
James said...: Mario,

When Hawaii gave their verification to Bennett, amazingly they did not verify to the birth date for Obama which is a bonified mystery. Blogger Butterdezillion believes, Hawaii may not be able to verify Obama's birth date because it not his birth date or that Obama's birth certificate is not legally valid. Now, Onaka supposely certified Obama being born in Hawaii to the lawyers in MS by verifying the long form White BC. Is Onaka lying? Yes and No. Onaka is not really lying when he verified the White House BC but that's OK because Onaka really verfied nothing. Onaka verfied "information" contained in the White House BC, but neither the lawyers nor Onaka specify what "information" was verified. This is a reasonable argument since the lawyers should have submitted the proper and official verification form that specifies elements of a particular vital record to be verified. With their failure to do that, One can make the argument that Onaka's verification of "information" contained in the Long Form White House BC is too vague to be meaningful.; June 11, 2012 at 10:51 PM
James said...: The birth announcements for Obama in Hawaii 1961 are not credible proof to establish birth. Sheriff Joe's team has proven that. Further, the birth announcements may have been triggered by the registration of birth by the grandparents. This is reasonable since the address in the birth announcements is grandparent's address. Obama Sr. and Stanley Ann never lived at that address together.; June 11, 2012 at 10:54 PM
James said...: "How about contemporary Kenyan government records from 1961 that indicate that one Barack Hussein Obama II was born in Kenya on August 4th, 1961?"

According to Dr. Corsi, records in Kenya have been apparently destroyed to cover up for Obama's birth there.

The INS file does mention Obama was born in Hawaii but there now supporting documentation, so that evidence really not meaningful. Any even if it is, it still may be based the registration of birth most likely by the Grandparents.; June 11, 2012 at 10:58 PM
James said...: More evidence of a Kenya birth:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wx0XcTmYtSE
Marine: 1980 In Hi. Obama Told Me He Was Born In Kenya And Wanted To Be President.

http://www.wnd.com/2011/05/303165/

INTEL REPORT: KENYANS HONOR OBAMA'S 'BIRTHPLACE'; June 11, 2012 at 11:02 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: 4zoltan,

I asked you: “Since you mentioned those INS records, why do you not produce for us all here what evidence exists in the INS file upon which anyone relied to conclude that Obama was born in Hawaii.”

You produce for us what some INS said. But you have produced no evidence existing in the INS file showing that Obama was born in Hawaii, which makes my point. So we are back to my question, who is correct Kenya or the U.S.A.?; June 11, 2012 at 11:15 PM
jayjay said...: 4zoltan:

The DOH in HI does not verify that the guy was born there. Read more closely; they merely say the information they have "matches" what they have "on file" which does not necessarily mean was born there. It doesn't say when nor where nor does it let you know that their natality laws are "different" in that one can be born elsewhere, come to HI (not necessarily immediately) and with HI paperwork be stated to have been "born" there ... a sort of miraculous rebirth.

You're much too used to most states laws that require someone born there to actually be born in that state and requires specific signed paperwork testifying to the fact by the doctor delivering the infant.

HI is "different" all right but they are trying to hide that facts and the truth of this man's identity and origin. Are you truly enough of a fool to swallow that hook, line, and sinker???

That won't continue forever despite all of the strenuous efforts of the OOPS Troops.; June 11, 2012 at 11:17 PM
juniper55 said...: Anybody watching the case Hassan v FEC in Federal District Court in DC?????

(the FEC said you need TWO citizen parents - Hassan is clearly a naturalized citizen)

As of today in Pacer no decision yet

Hey Obots - why is it that one juristiction says you need TWO citizen parents for this dude, and for Obama you only need ONE??

Which is it, please?; June 11, 2012 at 11:24 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Obama could have been registered as being born in Hawaii when in fact he was not. Being registed there would have triggered the two pro forma newspaper announcements. Maybe Hawaii knows that what it has in its vital records file is so weak, that it would not substantiate a true birth in Hawaii. That could be the reason the records are under wraps. This would also explain why there exists an alleged Hawaiian birth certificate, but no contemporaneous evidence to corroborate it (like medical records or any person, living or dead, who ever corroborated Obama’s 1961 birth in Hawaii).; June 11, 2012 at 11:26 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Frank Bailey June 21, 2012, at 8:21 p.m.

You said: “FYI, in Arizona the defense in the Liberty Legal Foundation v Arizona Democratic Party filed a motion for judicial notice asking the court to notice the Tisdale ruling. The plaintiffs attorney Van Irion made an almost identical argument that Apuzzo made that the court should not take judicial notice. The court struck Van Irion's motion.”

Response: Van Irion did not make the same argument that I make regarding Tisdale. Van Irion argues that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal issued an unpublished and non-binding decision in Tisdale because the appeals court knew that Tisdale had no standing. There are some problems with Mr. Van Irion’s argument.

First, he makes this argument even though the District Court in Tisdale did not find that Tisdale had no standing and decided the merits of the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” and the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court.

Second, the first thing a court has to do is make sure it has jurisdiction. An appellate court simply would not affirm a lower court ruling on the merits if the appeals court believes the lower court had no jurisdiction and hide the fact of no jurisdiction under the guise of issuing an unpublished and non-precedential decision. To allow such a result and to hide it under the pretense of an unpublished decision would be tantamount to allowing an usurpation of judicial power and to a court committing fraud upon the public it is sworn to serve. Appeals courts just do not do that.

I can understand why the court would have struck Van Irion’s motion.; June 12, 2012 at 12:14 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Apuzzo,

"Obama could have been registered as being born in Hawaii when in fact he was not. "

Not possible, both verifications indicate that the original birth certificate in the DOH office has the same information in box 6c.

Box 6c Hospital or Institution (if not in hospital or institution give street address).

The original DOH BC and the whitehouse pdf both says "Kapiolani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital" If President Obama had been simply registered by the grandparents there would be a street address in box 6c.; June 12, 2012 at 12:42 AM
MichaelN said...: Blackstone's Commentaries:
with Notes of Reference (1803)
St. George Tucker.

"These instances show that the colonists in judging of the applicability of the laws of the mother country to their own situation and circumstances, DID NOT CONFINE THEMSELVES TO VERY did not confine themselves to very strict, and NARROW LIMITS"
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/tucker/tuck-1e.htm

Establishing eligibility criteria for the office of president of a new republic, was and had NOTHING to do with English common law, in ANY shape or form or shadow.

The English common law definition of a "subject" would have been the least thing in the minds of the Framers.

Who would you rather see as an Article II "natural born Citizen"? ......

One who is native-born, but to alien parents? ...... or

One who is native-born, but also to US citizen parents?

Nothing complicated about it.

Two pluses trump one plus.; June 12, 2012 at 2:35 AM
Andy said...: @Juniper 55

There is no contention in the FEC filings that one needs 2 citizen parents. Please cite that example of you know of it (the FEC only has some of the documents on its website).; June 12, 2012 at 2:55 AM
Andy said...: @JayJay

Please cite the Hawaiian law that shows that in 1961, births could be registered from out of state (or country) and still be listed as being born in Hawaii.; June 12, 2012 at 2:57 AM
Teo Bear said...: Judge Gibney of the Tisdale v. Obama was appointed by Obama.

I guess Obots will take a win where-ever they can get one, even a corrupt one.

Obots I have news for you, these court cases have never been about winning, we all knew we would never win, what they have been about is educating the voters on the framers intent and definition of a natural born citizen, and showing the independent voter how corrupt the system is.

And you know what we won. These voters are not going to talk about it, they know your tactics, we taught them that too. They don't want to be called racist, so they will say they are voting for Obama or undecided, or n\probably not voting when the pollsters call. But vote they will but they will not vote for Obama.

Strange isn't it Obots, we Birthers haven't won a battle, but we are on the verge of winning the war.; June 12, 2012 at 7:33 AM
Mick said...: Have you seen this?

See page xi, and page 12 for nbC definition. It also mentions the Garfield assasination on page ix, so apparently Morse was not aware of C. Arthur's alien father.

http://archive.org/stream/cu31924020027870#page/n7/mode/2up

If Wong Kim Ark were decided on British Common Law, then the condition of the parents would not have mattered. WKA was a US Citizen because of the law of nations concept of permanent domicile and commerce establishing allegiance of the parents. See The Venus.; June 12, 2012 at 9:36 AM
Mick said...: Revised Statutes 1873

A2S1C4 annotated by INGLIS.

http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=018/llsl018.db&recNum=38; June 12, 2012 at 9:41 AM
jayjay said...: Andy:

Pleae cite why you are so stoopid!!

FEC filings do not override the Article 2 requirements in the Constitution so are of no interest at all.

And you apparently have never heard of Sun Yat Sen (aka "the father of modern China") who, despite being born in mainland China in the late 1890s, was given a BC by HI in about 1904. The practice was aided and abetted by post WWI HI when they were trying to boost their count of citizens to obtain more US taxpayer money (and more credibility) as they worked their way to statehood. There are reports that some Japanese citizens such as those from the nuclear-devastated areas left Japan to reestablish their lives on HI and in the process become citizens not necessarily going through any formal process and some undoubtedly acquired "birth certificates" in doing so at least for their children - for various reasons. Having more "born citizens" was very helpful in boosting the HI case for statehood.

You're welcome to prove this was not so by incontrovertible evidence. It was even the practice in HI for an infant brought into the country having been born elsewhere to be registered at one of the DOH registration offices at least one of which was NOT in downtown Honolulu near Kapiolani Hospital.

This is the most likely cause for the out-of-order registration number on the "Obama BC" bandied about on the internet. It also explains why the newspaper "birth annoncements" appear in the strange order they do - and note these announcements provide very little information of any use and certainly are not proof of anything except that the DOH forwarded its registration information to the newspapers. HI law required such a child to be brought to a hospital (within a year I believe it was) and examined by a physician who could then legally under the odd HI laws sign that the kid was a "live birth" and he was the "attending physician" (even though he'd never seen the child before that examination) none of which comports with the actual situation. But it does explain the HI-offered partial excuses and lack of interest they have in having the real information leak out ...

BUT IT WILL!!!; June 12, 2012 at 1:27 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Andy and 4zoltan,

You are missing the point. We are not saying that Hawaii knew Obama was not born in Hawaii and closed its eyes and still registered him as being born in Hawaii. Rather, we are saying that we need to rule out that Obama was not born in Hawaii and someone fraudulently registered him in Hawaii as being born there. Such a fraudulent registration would not have been done so Obama could someday be president, but rather just so he could enjoy the benefits of being a “citizen of the United States.”

The two newspaper birth announcements do not rule out this possibility, for they were generated from the Health Deparment based on place of birth information presented to it from third parties. The pre-natal, natal, and post-natal medical records for Stanley Ann Dunham and Barack Obama, examination of the microfilm of the original birth certificate, and examination of other original vital event documents would probably rule this possibility out and establish once and for all that Obama was in fact born in Hawaii. Again, this process is not normally needed for your average presidential candidate. But given the existing conflicting information regarding Obama’s place of birth, such an examination is warranted in his case.; June 12, 2012 at 1:35 PM
Andy said...: @Puzo1

And you're missing the point. The doctor at the hospital signed the birth certificate. We've ruled out he was born anywhere and at any time other than what is on that document. It has been verified (multiple times).

What is it you think happened?; June 12, 2012 at 1:57 PM
bdwilcox said...: "If President Obama had been simply registered by the grandparents there would be a street address in box 6c."

-Unless, of course, it had been amended/altered, making it legally non-probative and disallowing Alvin Onaka from verifying the information on it due to Hawaiian law. This is why he could only verify the information matched what was in their records, but he could not verify the information itself. And this is why the White House would have to modify the copy of the LFBC to remove the amended/altered notations and its resulting proof that the document was no longer legally probative.; June 12, 2012 at 2:08 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Here are the fundamental Obot lies when it comes to the question of whether Obama is an Article II ‘natural born Citizen.”

1. Minor v. Happersett (1785) 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.”

Obot argument: But Minor did not exclude from being "natural born Citizens" children born in a country to alien parents so therefore they too are "natural born Citizens." Lie. The U.S. Supreme Court has never said such a thing.

2. Minor said: “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.”

Obot argument: When Minor left open the question of whether under the stated circumstances one was a “citizen,” it really left open the question of whether that person was a "natural born Citizen." Lie. The truth is that Minor left open the question of whether a child born in the United States to alien parents is a “citizen of the United States” under the Foureenth Amendment. In the question raised, it made no reference to a “natural born citizen” which it had already defined in the previous sentence.

3. Obot argument: Wong answered the question left open by Minor, i.e., what is a "natural born Citizen." Lie. The truth is that Minor did not leave any question open regarding what is a “natural born Citizen.” Wong answered the question that Minor left open which is whether a child born in the United States to alien parents is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong said “yes” to this question.

4. Obot argument: Wong held that Wong was a "natural born Citizen." Lie. The truth is that Wong Kim Ark held that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States,” not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”; June 12, 2012 at 2:24 PM
Andy said...: @JayJay

You made a factual assertion: that the FEC had argued that natural born citizenship required two citizen parents in the case you listed.

You are wrong. Please don't call me stupid simply because you don't understand any of the arguments here. If you'd like to make another incorrect factual assertion, I'd be happy to prove it wrong, too.

As for the Chinese man who had a birth certificate - at the time, the some laws allowed a birth certificate based on no documentation, or rather, on an affidavit. (You can see Eisenhower for an example.)

You're also talking about Hawaii before it was a state, and before the Federal Government had stricter guidelines on records. Try again, if you must.; June 12, 2012 at 2:43 PM
Andy said...: @Puzo1

You call those "Obot lies." The irony is, the courts have held all of those "lies" to be truths. So either the entire country (save a few hundred birthers) are wrong, or you are.

The odds are not in your favor.; June 12, 2012 at 2:44 PM
jayjay said...: Andy:

"We've ruled out he was born anywhere and at any time other than what is on that document. It has been verified (multiple times)."

Do you do standup comedy for a living or is it just an accident??

That's so screwed it is unbelieveable. NO ONE HAS EVER VERIFIED THAT INFORMATION ONCE, LET ALONE MULTIPLE TIMES!!!

Many of you OOPS Troops (and your conterparts in HI) have parroted the misinformation since you think repeating the Big Lie is the same as making it true ... but it ain't.

It WILL eventually be verified under more rigorous conditions in a court of law using real evidence though. Hope you're around to admit your erroneous nonsesnse.; June 12, 2012 at 2:55 PM
bdwilcox said...: @ Teo Bear

EXACTLY!!!

As I commented on ObamaReleaseYourRecords regarding the Purpura and Moran v. Obama case:

"Masin ruled Obama was a natural born Citizen with zero evidence before him. Obama's lawyer withdrew the online birth certificate from evidence and agreed it would not be entered into evidence for the remainder of the case. Thus, with no evidence before him substantiating where Obama was born, what his name was, how old he was, who his parents were, or any other pertinent fact, Masin declared Obama to be a natural born Citizen and eligible to be on the NJ ballot. The three judges on the appeals panel, lacking all evidence as well, affirmed Masin's decision in its entirety.

Enjoy your Pyhrric victory, Obots, because in handing you this win Masin and his [deleted by author] cohorts just revealed that this hollow outcome was predetermined. Truth, justice and due process are the greatest casualties of their subterfuge. But the corruption has been laid bare for all to see; you and your phony Messiah are playing with a stacked deck and now everyone knows it."; June 12, 2012 at 3:03 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Andy,

Rather than tell me what the post-Obama court's have held, why do you not show me where I am wrong. Just citing to post-Obama courts which other than telling us that they did not have time to tell us what a "natural born Citzen" is or simply affirming without giving any reasons for their decisions is not very helpful.; June 12, 2012 at 3:26 PM
Andy said...: @Puzo1

Well, they did give you reasons. It's in the opinions. Many have said that they found the reasoning in WKA to be very persuasive. Since that was a SC ruling, it's even more so.

There are also myriad quotes from authors throughout our nation's history stating exactly what WKA did, that those born here are citizens at birth (natural born citizens).

If you can't figure that out, then you've got bigger problems than your losing cases.; June 12, 2012 at 3:28 PM
Andy said...: @JayJay

There are now two very recent verifications. Both of them state that the information in Obama's BC is correct. You can say it is fake, or that it isn't real, but you're denying reality.

Do you want me to provide you links to the verification? Or are you just going to deny that it's real even having seen it?; June 12, 2012 at 3:38 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Andy,

I’ve told you before and I will tell you again. It is a waste of time debating with you. It is plain to see from your anwer that you cannot show me that I am wrong. Just pointing to someone else or to some historical information without showing how that person or information is correct is not going to do it. You have got to state here what specifically the rationale is, no matter whose decision it was or what the information is. You have no rationale to present. Hence, you loose.; June 12, 2012 at 3:41 PM
bdwilcox said...: "Many have said that they found the reasoning in WKA to be very persuasive."

-This, of course, was the Ankeny decision and a number of cases, including Purpura and Moran v. Obama, have referenced it. The irony is that Ankeny admitted in their own footnote 14: "We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a "natural born Citizen" using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation's history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S.Ct. at 478."; June 12, 2012 at 3:47 PM
bdwilcox said...: "Both of them state that the information in Obama's BC is correct"

-Incorrect. Onaka verified that the information submitted by the lawyers only matches the information in their records. He refused to verify if the information is correct because he legally can't with an amended/altered/updated birth certificate that is no longer legally probative.; June 12, 2012 at 3:51 PM
bdwilcox said...: Also, we can add "late" to the conditions that make a Hawaiian birth certificate legally non-probative (and therefore non-verifiable) in addition to the condition "amended/altered/updated".; June 12, 2012 at 4:12 PM
Andy said...: @Mario

Did you just call me loose? Wow - my wife would be upset.

As for historical references, I wouldn't dare to try to upstage the Supreme Court. You do that and fail enough for all of us.

I'm sorry if you think I need to tell you why they are right. I guess that someday, someone will sit down and explain it all to you in small words. I won't do that. I have neither the time nor the patience. I'll just let the courts keep smacking you down. It's much more fun to watch without all the hassle.; June 12, 2012 at 4:15 PM
cfkerchner said...: CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) was the Guest on “One Nation Under Fraud” Radio Show hosted by Gary Wilmott – Monday 11 Jun 2012 4 p.m. ET – The topic was natural born Citizenship and the constitutional eligibility issues of some of the VP candidates mentioned in the news.

Per the last sentence of the 12th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, VP’s must meet the same constitutional eligibility requirements as the President.

Listen to the show on podcast link posted near the bottom of the page at this link: http://www.radiosandysprings.com/showpages/OneNationUnderFraud.php

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
ProtectOurLiberty.org; June 12, 2012 at 4:36 PM
MichaelIsGreat said...: Hello Mr. Apuzzo,

Here I add the article on my previous question.
Read "Supreme Court Refuses To Hear Obama Birth Certificate Challenge" at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/11/supreme-court-obama-birth-certificate-case_n_1586695.html?ref=politics; June 12, 2012 at 4:54 PM
ksdb said...: Wong Kim Ark doesn't provide any reasoning from which to believe that natural-born citizens are the same as natural-born subjects. Instead this court unanimously supported the Minor definition of NBC and unanimously agreed on a separate type of birth citizenship under the 14th amendment; this is despite the dissent arguing that a treaty cannot be voided by the 14th amendment.

Ankeny shoots itself in the foot with footnote 14. Not only do they admit there is no legal precedent in Minor for their errant conclusion, but they argue that the lack of precedent is immaterial because it would only be relevant to the president of the United States. The NBC clause isn't in the Constitution a favor to the winning presidential candidate.

Second, the Ankeny conclusion is further undermined by the Supreme Court itself in Luria v. United States when it cited Minor, not Ark as the legal precedent on presidential eligibility. These courts have some serious 'splainin' to do.; June 12, 2012 at 4:54 PM
bdwilcox said...: Two important notes about Purpura and Moran v. Obama before Judge Masin:

First, Masin actually states that Obama does have the burden of presenting a record of his birth at 11:44 in the video. He says to Obama's attorney: "Counsel suggests, as I understand his position, that there's a fundamental qualified requirement before that, before the challenge, in effect, that the candidate must affirmatively establish a, uh, present, a, uh a record of his birth. And I understand you don't think he has that obligation. He does."

and,

Obama's counsel admits that a document expert cannot verify the authenticity of a document, such as a birth certificate, without access to the original document at 4:14 in the video: "Not without the authentic document, the authentication process is missing the link to have him be an expert in any of this."; June 12, 2012 at 5:04 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Apuzzo,

"You are missing the point."

No, I afraid you are missing the point. Under what type of scenario do you see a registered birth ending up with box 6c saying "Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital"?

August 7th, 1961 (verified date parent signed BC)

Grandma and Grandpa Dunham go into the DOH and say to the clerk, "Our daugther had a baby this weekend and we've come in to register the birth."

Clerk, takes form and after filling out the name, sex and date of birth, asks, "Where did the birth take place?"

Granparents in unison respond, "Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital."

Clerk stares and grandparents and says, "Since the child was born in a hospital, you do not have to register the birth, the hospital will take care of all the paperwork."

Clerk tears up form and drops it into wastebasket, so as not to create confusion and duplicate certificate when the Kapiolani sends over the BC.

Grandparents go home and wait for daughter and grandson to return from Kenya.

Do you see how that doesn't quite work?

Maybe you can come up with a scenario where a registered birth gets Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital into box 6c.; June 12, 2012 at 5:11 PM
jayjay said...: Andy:

I'll repeat ... YOU TRULY ARE STOOPID!!! I do hope you can read and understand that.

Trying to fob off the different situations I mention about fake HI BC scenarios just will not work since all you basically do is say "... but that wasn't Obama ..." or similar weak response. It's no wonder the OOPS Troops are going down with their leader if you are an example of their intellectual capacity.

Just a bit earlier you said:
"You made a factual assertion: that the FEC had argued that natural born citizenship required two citizen parents in the case you listed."

Indeed that MAY be a factual assertion, but it is not one that I made - those words never passed through my computer. Perhaps you;d like to either show us the exact post where you believe I said that or merely admit your lie.

As I said ... you are truly stoopid.; June 12, 2012 at 5:38 PM
MichaelN said...: Andy said...
@JayJay
"Please cite the Hawaiian law that shows that in 1961, births could be registered from out of state (or country) and still be listed as being born in Hawaii."

Hawaiian Revised Statutes.
[§338-17.8] Certificates for children born out of State. (a) Upon application of an adult or the legal parents of a minor child, the director of health shall issue a birth certificate for such adult or minor, provided that proof has been submitted to the director of health that the legal parents of such individual while living without the Territory or State of Hawaii had declared the Territory or State of Hawaii as their legal residence for at least one year immediately preceding the birth or adoption of such child.

(b) Proof of legal residency shall be submitted to the director of health in any manner that the director shall deem appropriate. The director of health may also adopt any rules pursuant to chapter 91 that he or she may deem necessary or proper to prevent fraudulent applications for birth certificates and to require any further information or proof of events necessary for completion of a birth certificate.

(c) The fee for each application for registration shall be established by rule adopted pursuant to chapter 91. [L 1982, c 182, §1]

This application could have easily been made by Obama or any "adult" after 1982.; June 12, 2012 at 6:05 PM
MichaelN said...: The United States Citizenship & Immigration Service recognizes TWO type of born citizens.

"(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective .

.......... prospective and restore the status of NATIVE-BORN OR NATURAL BORN CITIZENB (WHICHEVER existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired."

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html; June 12, 2012 at 6:12 PM
Anonymous said...: Bdwilcox,

"-Unless, of course, it had been amended/altered, making it legally non-probative and disallowing Alvin Onaka from verifying the information on it due to Hawaiian law."

Governed by Hawaii statutes

§338-15 - Late or altered certificates.

§338-16 - Procedure concerning late and altered birth certificates.

§338-17 - Late or altered certificate as evidence.

Both 338-15 and 16 require evidence be presented to verify the alteration.

So what evidence would someone submit to get the original BC box 6c changed from grandparent's house to "Kapiolani Maternity & Gynecological Hospital"?; June 12, 2012 at 6:19 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Andy,

Your answer is a cop-out. You have nothing, my friend.; June 12, 2012 at 6:49 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: MichaelIsGreat has left a new comment on your post "Purpura and Moran File Their Brief and Appendix in...":

Hello Mr. Apuzzo,

Please, could you tell me how could we get justice and the full truth on Obama's eligibility to be President of the USA ACCORDING TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE USA when the US Supreme Court [deleted] systematically rejects any appeal that is made to the Supreme Court of the USA on Obama's eligibility??!!!!
Because of the [deleted] behaviour of the Supreme Court, the entire American Judicial system is basically completely broken, completely destroyed!!!

Posted by MichaelIsGreat to Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers at June 12, 2012 4:53 PM; June 12, 2012 at 6:53 PM
juniper55 said...: Andy,

See my post on May 31.

The case is at the U.S. District Court District of Columbia CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:11-cv-02189-EGS, HASSAN v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION

You can't have one case where the government is requiring someone to be an NBC yet on the other hand trying to argue - in the case of Obama - that being an NBC doesn't matter.; June 12, 2012 at 7:54 PM
juniper55 said...: Maybe we should just try to impeach the bastard instead. Fast and Furious, leaking secrets, crony deals to all the bundlers to run solar energy companies, etc.

What I can't fathom is why so many Dems in high places continue to support the guy. I'd watch Hillary, the original birther.; June 12, 2012 at 7:56 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of III

Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana conflates and confounds an Article II “natural born Citizen” with a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth. It assumes without demonstration that a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment is the same as a “natural born Citizen” under Article II. In doing so, it commits grave constitutional error.

Ankeny said: "We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a "natural born Citizen" using the Constitution's Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation's history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant.”

Ankeny concedes that Wong Kim Ark by its express language held Wong to be a “citizen of the United States,” not a “natural born Citizen.” But it also says that it is “immaterial” that Wong Kim Ark said Wong was a “citizen of the United States,” rather than a “natural born Citizen.” The court states that it was “immaterial” because as the court assumes a “citizen of the United States” that is not a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is the same thing as an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The only type of “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment who the court has in mind as not being a naturalized citizen can only be one that is born in the United States. There are several problems with Ankeny’s Footnote 14.

Contrary to what Ankeny states, the Constitution does not divide the “citizens” between “natural born Citizens” and naturalized citizens. Rather, from Article I, II, and other parts of the Constitution, and from Congressional Acts, we learn that there are only two types of “citizens” in the United States, “natural born Citizens” and “citizens of the United States.” The “natural born Citizens” are those born in the United States to “citizen parents.” This has always been the definition of the clause. So, all “citizens” who are not “natural born Citizens” are “citizens of the United States.”

Article II itself tells us that, to be eligible to be elected President, in addition to having to meet the age and residency requirement, for those born before the adoption of the Constitution, they had to be at least “Citizens of the United States.” And for those born after its adoption, they must be “natural born Citizens.” In increasing the citizenship standard for future presidents, they did not say “Citizen of the United States” from birth or at birth. Rather, they said “natural born Citizen.” To show the universality of the “natural born Citizen” clause, the Founders and Framers did not even qualify the clause with the words “of the United States,” which they used only with a “Citizen of the United States.” Hence, we can see from the way the Founders and Framers used these two clauses that they are absolutely distinct.; June 12, 2012 at 8:27 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of III

The error that Ankeny court commits is in assuming that the Fourteenth Amendment class of “citizens of the United States” at birth is the same as the class of Article II “natural born Citizens.” It says that it is not important to distinguish which of the “citizens of the United States” are “natural born Citizens” unless one is referring to presidential eligibility. In other words, what it is saying is that it is not important to know whether a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” is one from birth or after birth, because such a distinction only applies for determining presidential eligibility. There is absolutely no legal or historical support for the court’s conclusion that a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment is the same as a “natural born Citizen” under Article II. The court errs in equating the two types of “citizens” and in not keeping a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States” as separate and distinct types of “citizens.” The error of the court is tantamount to one assuming when analyzing Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 that a “Citizen of the United States” is the same as a “natural born Citizen.” An Article II “Citizen of the United States” is as much
a word of art as a “natural born Citizen.” The two are separate and distinct constitutional phrases that connote two separate classes of citizenship which cannot be conflated or confounded. It is ever more critical to distinguish the two clauses and keep them separate because the Founders and Framers used them both as constitutional requirements of presidential eligibility.

Ankeny says that the Fourteenth Amendment makes a dichotomy between a “natural born citizen” and a naturalized citizen.” But the amendment does no such thing. Rather, it only states that those born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are “citizens of the United States.” There clearly is no mention of any “natural born Citizen.” Without expressly or even impliedly including the “natural born Citizen” clause in the amendment, the amendment simply cannot present any dichotomy between that clause and a naturalized citizen. And surely, there is nothing in the amendment to suggest that a “citizen of the United States” at birth is the same as a “natural born Citizen.”

Continued . . .; June 12, 2012 at 8:28 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: III of III

The framers of the Fourteenth Amendment were well aware of the difference between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States” as stated in Article II and throughout the Constitution and Congressional Acts. They knew that a “natural born Citizen” as defined at “common law” and so confirmed by our U.S. Supreme Court was a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. They knew that Congress, after the Naturalization Act of 1790, never again used the clause “natural born Citizen” in any of its Acts. They were even aware of the Third Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1795 making it a specific part of that legislation to remove the clause “natural born citizen” and replace it with “citizen of the United States.” If the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment wanted to make children born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” “natural born Citizens” rather than just “citizens of the United States,” they could have simply done so by saying “natural born Citizen” rather than “citizen of the United States.” It is unfathomable that the framers would have hid the “natural born Citizen” clause within the “citizen of the United States” clause and that they would have removed the clause’s requirement of “citizen” parents and replaced it with “domiciled” parents. If that was their wish, they would not have lumped those born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (rather than born to “citizen” parents) with those naturalized after birth and called them both “citizens of the United States.” They would have told us that the new “citizens of the United States” at birth under the amendment were now what Article II called “natural born Citizens.” Hence, given the Constitution’s clear distinction between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States” and what the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment specifically intended by and what they wrote in that amendment (“citizen of the United States” and not “natural born Citizen” and treated that “citizen” the same as a naturalized “citizen”), it is error to conclude that a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth is the same as an Article II “natural born Citizen.” We cannot mistake the “natural born Citizen” and “citizen of the United States” at birth clauses for each other and take “citizen of the United States” at birth as found in the Fourteenth Amendment or any Act of Congress and simply say that it means “natural born Citizen.”

Without any legal or historical authority, Ankeny conflates and confounds an Article II “natural born Citizen” and a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth and thereby equates a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth with an Article II “natural born Citizen.” By doing so, it has, without constitutional amendment, amended the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” by changing the requirement of birth in the country to “citizen” parents to birth in the country to “domiciled” parents. By doing so, it commits grave constitutional error.; June 12, 2012 at 8:29 PM
Anonymous said...: bdwilcox,

"He refused to verify if the information is correct because he legally can't with an amended/altered/updated birth certificate that is no longer legally probative."

How exactly can any registrar verify that the information is correct? Especially fifty years after the fact.

By the standard all BCs in the United States are suspect.

Also how would an amendment change the name of the hospital?; June 12, 2012 at 8:30 PM
jayjay said...: 4zoltan:

How???

You just gave me a wonderful idea ... why don't we just pull out the real paper BC where the delivering doctor swears the kid is alive and see just what it says.

Wouldn't you sign a citizen's petition to HI DOH to do that>>>; June 13, 2012 at 12:37 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Check out AttackWatch at http://www.attackwatch.com/latest-attack-about-the-presidents-birthplace-ignores-the-facts-on-record/ This is what Dr. Conspiracy said about AttackWatch: “Today, FightTheSmears has been re-branded ‘AttackWatch.’”
This is their take on the Breitbart article about the 1991 publicist pamphlet which stated that Obama was born in Kenya. The authors attack the reliability of the publicist piece, saying that the publicist (not naming the person) did not have any information upon which she relied in writing the piece. They state:

“The literary agent who put together the 1991 pamphlet in question noted that, “there was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii.” The mistake in the pamphlet was the result of ‘nothing more than a fact checking error’ by the agent.”

“Despite the Breitbart bloggers’ claim that the booklet was an attempt to manipulate some carefully crafted persona, numerous news outlets had already reported the President as Hawaiian-born. A year before the pamphlet’s release in 1991, a New York Times article on Barack Obama’s election to head the Harvard Law Review reported correctly, ‘Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii.’”

But the authors do not tell us how the publicist concluded that Obama was born in Kenya. In other words, what facts did the agent check or not check in error? What a coincidence to have chosen Kenya of all the countries in the world. The truth squad authors also do not tell us what information the New York Times writer had to conclude that Obama was born in Hawaii. As is typical for Obots (I apologize, I know these fellows are supposed to be on God’s team), they just love to practice double standards. Also note that the piece does not list any names. And the best part of all, at the bottom of the web site it says: “Paid for by Obama for America.”; June 13, 2012 at 1:41 AM
Andy said...: @Juniper55

Oh, I've already read the available documents. Unfortunately, there is no mention of "two citizen parents" in anything, only "natural born citizen." Now, if you've been paying attention to the court findings, and history, I might add, you'd realize that "natural born citizen" means one who is born a citizen at birth.

The arguments in this case (and every case with Obama) have been identical - one only need be born here to be a natural born citizen.

The FEC isn't arguing anything about "two citizen parents" contrary to what the previous poster stated.; June 13, 2012 at 2:51 AM
Andy said...: @Mario

I have a lot. I have some 130 cases decided just about this president stating that either citizens have no direct right to challenge the eligibility of a president, or that states don't get to decide eligibility requirements, or that those born here are natural born citizens.

You, sir, have nothing, but a long string of loses.; June 13, 2012 at 2:53 AM
Andy said...: @MichaelN

Doubtful - his father, who signed the certificate died that year, and hadn't been in the US for some time.

So, you'll agree that in 1961, there was no way to register his birth in a foreign country and have it show on his BC that he was born in Hawaii?; June 13, 2012 at 6:55 AM
Anonymous said...: JJ

"why don't we just pull out the real paper BC where the delivering doctor swears the kid is alive and see just what it says."

Already done.

And it's been verified by the State Registrar. Can't get any more official than that.; June 13, 2012 at 11:16 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Andy,

If you want to present the winning argument here, give us principle rather than feigned authority.; June 13, 2012 at 12:34 PM
Andy said...: @Mario

Okay - how about this:

The court in Wong Kim Ark reasoned that under English Common Law, those born in the country are natural born citizens regardless of parental citizenship.

That's the principle. Find a single subsequent case that disagrees with that, and we'll have a debate.

Unfortunately, you can't.; June 13, 2012 at 12:39 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Apuzzo,

"But the authors do not tell us how the publicist concluded that Obama was born in Kenya. In other words, what facts did the agent check or not check in error? What a coincidence to have chosen Kenya of all the countries in the world."

Any chance the publicist confused Kenya born Barack Obama Sr. with Hawaii born Barack Obama II?

The names are very similar.; June 13, 2012 at 1:37 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Andy,

I asked for principle, not lies.

You said: “The court in Wong Kim Ark reasoned that under English Common Law, those born in the country are natural born citizens regardless of parental citizenship.”

Your use of the word “reasoned” instead of “held” does not hide your lie from me and hopefully from other well-informed Americans.

If you want to use the Wong Kim Ark decision as any principle, provide the actual language from the Court which shows that it held that Wong was an Article II “natural born Citizen,” rather than a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States."; June 13, 2012 at 2:28 PM
Andy said...: @Puzo1

I used "reasoned" because that is what the court did. As you know, the Supreme Court does not rule on issues not before it. Never has the Supreme Court ruled anyone a natural born citizen in it's holding that I have found. Even in Minor, the holding itself rules her "native-born," and they only "reason" that she is natural born.

I used "reasoned" because, in reading the opinion, the court made clear the rationale for upholding the more recent decisions.

Even the Minor court makes clear that there two and only two paths to citizenship:

"Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization."

As you know, the court never directly ruled Wong Kim Ark nor Virginia Minor "natural born citizens," because the Presidential Eligibility was never part of those cases.

The syllabus in Minor clearly states:

"In this state of things, on the 15th of October, 1872 (one of the days fixed by law for the registration of voters), Mrs. Virginia Minor, a native born, free, white citizen of the United States, and of the State of Missouri, over the age of twenty-one years, wishing to vote for electors for President and Vice-President of the United States, and for a representative in Congress, and for other officers, at the general election held in November, 1872, applied to one Happersett, the registrar of voters, to register her as a lawful voter, which he refused to do, assigning for cause that she was not a "male citizen of the United States," but a woman. She thereupon sued him in one of the inferior State courts of Missouri, for wilfully refusing to place her name upon the list of registered voters, by which refusal she was deprived of her right to vote."; June 13, 2012 at 2:43 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: 4zoltan,

You said: “Any chance the publicist confused Kenya born Barack Obama Sr. with Hawaii born Barack Obama II?”

You offer no plausible explanation as to how the publicist could have made such a mistake. It is pretty clear from the entire context and business relationship between Obama and his publicist that they were dealing with Obama the son and not Obama the father. Also, your comment assumes without evidence that the nativity information did not come from Obama the son. Finally, the publicist did not say that she confused the father for the son. Rather, she just came up with some lame excuse about not properly fact checking, not providing any details about what “facts” she did or did not check, from where she obtained those “facts,” and how the wrong information could have been published.; June 13, 2012 at 3:08 PM
cfkerchner said...: ... born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii

Let's see ... three facts there about Obama in his bio ... born in Kenya, raised in Indonesia, and raised in Hawaii.

Literary agent now claims it was a "fact checking error". Well the immediate next question the major media press should be asking if they had an investigative journalistic integrity is ... who gave her the facts for the then unknown new potential author named Barack Hussein Obama II. And the bio was edited and updated for 16 years with new information about Obama as he progressed in his progressive life and career in politics. Who gave her the original facts and the subsequent updates for those 16 years if not Obama himself? The literary agent's excuse for Obama defies all common sense and the very instructions posted in the agent's website. Some serious follow up questions to the agent by the main stream media are needed. But as usual the cover up continues by main stream media. Implausible excuse accepted, move along, don't ask any more questions, nothing to see here ... is the major media's and Congress' response.; June 13, 2012 at 3:12 PM
cfkerchner said...: The U.S. Marine in 1980 says Obama told him he was born in Kenya:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/96776968/Marine-Says-Obama-Told-Him-in-1980-He-Was-Born-In-Kenya

A U.S. Postman who delivered mail in late 1980s and early 1990s to Ayers family home near Chicago IL says Obama was a "foreign student" who the Ayers family were helping through college:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/96780474/US-Postman-Met-Foreign-Student-Obama-at-Ayers-Home

Obama's literary agent from 1991 to 2006 includes bio about Obama a new book proposal from potential author in her agency brochure saying Obama was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/93986071/Obama-s-1991-Literary-Agent-Promo-Booklet-States-Obama-Born-in-Kenya-Reported-at-Breitbart-com-17-May-2012

And many more accounts by people and newspapers over many years on two continents saying Obama II was born in Kenya:
http://www.scribd.com/collections/3248475

Obama was committing identity fraud and lying then or he is committing identity fraud and lying now, or both. Either way the putative pres Obama is a liar and has committed criminal ID theft and fraud and draft registration felony violations and should be in jail instead of the Oval Office.

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
CDR Kerchner's Blog; June 13, 2012 at 3:33 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Andy,

Minor clearly confirmed the long-standing definition of a “natural born Citizen” which Wong Kim Ark never changed because it had no reason to.

As far as your point about “citizens” being either born or naturalized, that is correct, but that does not answer the question of what is a “natural born Citizen” as you would like it to for these reasons:

1. “Born citizens” include:

a. “natural born Citizens.”

These “born citizens” do not need any positive law for creation but rather are simply born in the country to “citizen” parents. They are born in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent;

b. “citizens of the United States” at birth.

These “born citizens” are so made by positive laws such as the Fourteenth Amendment, Congressional Acts, or treaties. Hence, they can be considered in a technical sense to be “naturalized” at birth. They are born either in or out of the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment and Congressional Acts covers those who are born in the United States to one or two alien parents. Congressional Acts cover those who are born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parent. Treaties cover other situations.

2. Naturalized “citizens” (the word “naturalized” here is used to mean “naturalized” after birth) include:

a. “citizens of the United States” after birth.

They are born out of the United States to two alien parents. They are created by Congressional Acts and treaties and recognized and protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

So as you can see, there are “born citizens” who are not “natural born Citizens.”

Assuming that Obama was born in Hawaii to a U.S. “citizen” mother and a British “citizen” father, hence lacking birth to two U.S. “citizen” parents, he would be a Fourteenth Amendment (and Congressional Act 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a)) “citizen of the United States” at birth. He would be a “born citizen” who is a “citizen of the United States,” but not a “born citizen” who is a “natural born Citizen.”; June 13, 2012 at 3:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Apuzzo,

"Also, your comment assumes without evidence that the nativity information did not come from Obama the son."

Other than the this

"there was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii."

What evidence do you have to doubt this?; June 13, 2012 at 3:52 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: 4zoltan,

So you say that the agent said: "there was never any information given to us by Obama in any of his correspondence or other communications suggesting in any way that he was born in Kenya and not Hawaii." So why does not the agent tell us from where she got the information that Obama was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii. Or maybe since you know so much you can tell us.; June 13, 2012 at 4:58 PM
MichaelN said...: Andy said ....

"Even the Minor court makes clear that there two and only two paths to citizenship:"

This doesn't change the fact that there are two types of born citizens.

One born citizen has the "path" via native-birth-right.

The other born citizen has the "path" via native-birth-right and natural descent.

Even today, the US Citizenship & Immigration Service recognize there are two types of born citizens.

Andy, what "common law" was the Minor court referring to which the court recognized as holding doubts if a native-born child to alien parents was even a "citizen"????; June 13, 2012 at 5:03 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Apuzzo,

"So why does not the agent tell us from where she got the information that Obama was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii."

Maybe no one asked her that question. Have you tries e-mailing her?; June 13, 2012 at 5:09 PM
ksdb said...: Mario, Wong Kim Ark uses a complete separate term for 14th amendment birth citizenship; what justice Gray calls "citizenship by birth." It's real clear in the text, that once he gives the Minor definition of NBC and affirms that Virginia Minor was a citizen by virtue of being born in the country to citizen parents on page 6890, Gray does not again use the term NBC in the decision. Instead, for the next 25 pages he uses the alternate term "citizenship by birth" and ties it directly and ONLY to the 14th amendment, not the eligibility requirement, as Waite did with the NBC definition in Minor:

"The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, ... by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country."

"The effect of the enactments conferring citizenship on foreign-born children of American parents has been defined, and the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the dominion of the United States, notwithstanding alienage of parents, has been affirmed, ..."

"These opinions go to show that, since the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, the executive branch of the Government, the one charged with the duty of protecting American citizens abroad against unjust treatment by other nations, has taken the same view of the act of Congress of 1855, declaring children born abroad of American citizens to be themselves citizens, ... holding that such statutes cannot, consistently with our own established rule of citizenship by birth in this country, ..."

"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of resident aliens, ..."

"But citizenship by birth is established by the mere fact of birth under the circumstances defined in the Constitution. "

Here's what Foggers and Faither purposely miss. The 14th amendment equates the citizenship of all persons, whether born or naturalized. It assumes no difference between the two. They are equal and have equal rights. Therefore, it can't redefine natural-born citizenship without granting a right of natural-born citizenship to naturalized citizens through its own equal protection clause. Not even Foggers would believe naturalized citizens are considered natural-born citizens, but they would have to be or else there's an inherent conflict and flaw between the citizenship clause and the equal protection clause. This is in part why the Minor decision rejected Virginia Minor's 14th amendment citizenship argument. They were willing to make Minor eligible for president, but not eligible to vote.; June 13, 2012 at 5:14 PM
Andy said...: @Puzo1

Please cite some reference to a court ruling (since you're so fond of me doing the same) where there is a distinction between native-born and natural born.

You are finding a distinction that the courts and the founders never made. They discussed 2 types of citizen - the slightly narrower category of "natural born", and the slightly more broad of "citizen."

Where are you getting this distinction - please cite the opinion from the court.; June 13, 2012 at 6:04 PM
Andy said...: @MichaelN

The "common law" reference is irrelevant, since the court only considered the specific question at hand: those that were born here with two citizen parents.

My guess, since I can't ask them, was the English Common Law. I personally believe that since they dispatched the discussion of citizenship in a paragraph or two, that there was no need to look further beyond the very specific instance. This is consistent with the idea of judicial restraint - the court only rules on the specifics within a case.

You're asking the wrong question, MichaelN, if you want a response. Your questions has little to do with this discussion, because it isn't relevant to the facts at hand.; June 13, 2012 at 6:06 PM
Andy said...: @ksdb

And here's what birthers always miss: the 14th Amendment didn't need to change anything with regard to natural born citizenship. It simply recognizes that everyone born here or naturalized here are citizens, regardless of race, nationality of parents, or any other distinguishing characteristics.

It doesn't have to mention "natural born citizenship" directly, because the people born here SHOULD have been natural born citizens before the Amendment - unfortunately, an entire race was subjugated to slavery because of idiocy.

No one is arguing that the 14th Amendment changed anything regarding natural born citizenship - it simply reaffirmed what we've already known - only two ways to become citizens - birth and naturalization.; June 13, 2012 at 6:10 PM
Andy said...: @Puzo1

You have still failed to establish the requirement in any case law of having two citizen parents for natural born citizenship status. You assume it is true, without having a case to back you up.

(Remember, Minor didn't define it, it just applied the term to the situation. The same is true in other rulings - in Tinker, the court didn't "define" the entirety of First Amendment rights by finding that the students were allowed to wear armbands.); June 13, 2012 at 6:14 PM
jayjay said...: Puzo1 & cfkerchner:

It seems that the (very small) eamnants of the OOPS TRroops, namely "4zoltan" and "Andy" are just farntically frothing at the mouth trying desperately to come up with something - anything - to get their "hero" off the hook.

For example their story now is that the publicist dreamed up out of whole cloth (since the budding "author"-not-Bill-Ayres never spoke of it so it wouldn't be perjury) and just happened to select born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia. SURE!!

It seems as though this "publicist" is one of the OOPS Troops too since that is clearly a lie (about it just popping into her mind out of thin air).

Why do these fools believe that everyone else is completely gullible just because they are. I truly wonder what some of them will do when they are hauled into a criminal court to testify under oath about why they have done certain things??? Some have been at this for several years and have left a long print record.

Perhaps they think they will successfully hide all that.; June 13, 2012 at 6:22 PM
cfkerchner said...: Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), confirmed Ms. Elg to be a "natural born Citizen of the United States" since she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizen parents.

It was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States that a child born in the United States to naturalized parents on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen and that the child's natural born citizenship is not lost if the child is taken to and raised in the country of the parents' origin, provided that upon attaining the age of majority, the child elects to retain U.S. citizenship "and to return to the United States to assume its duties." Not only did the court rule that she did not lose her native born Citizenship but it upheld the lower courts decision that she is a "natural born Citizen of the United States" because she was born in the USA to two naturalized U.S. Citizens.

But the Secretary of State, according to the allegation of the bill of complaint, had refused to issue a passport to Miss Elg 'solely on the ground that she had lost her native born American citizenship.' The court below, properly recognizing the existence of an actual controversy with the defendants [307 U.S. 325, 350] (Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U.S. 227 , 57 S.Ct. 461, 108 A.L.R. 1000), declared Miss Elg 'to be a natural born citizen of the United States' (99 F.2d 414) and we think that the decree should include the Secretary of State as well as the other defendants. The decree in that sense would in no way interfere with the exercise of the Secretary's discretion with respect to the issue of a passport but would simply preclude the denial of a passport on the sole ground that Miss Elg had lost her American citizenship.

The Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.

For more see: Article II Facts

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
ProtectOurLiberty.org; June 13, 2012 at 7:05 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of II

Andy,

Minor v. Happersett (1875), without looking to the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed that the only birthright citizenship for children born in the country was for those born to “citizen” parents. These were not only born “citizens,” but also “natural born Citizens.” There was no other in-country birthright citizenship. Minor did state that “some authorities” did maintain that children born in the country to alien parents were also born “citizens.” It said “there have been doubts” if that was correct. It did not say that these other possible born “citizens” could be “natural-born citizens” and it could not have given that there were doubts whether those children were even “citizens.”

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark ( 1898), having to rely on the Fourteenth Amendment because U.S.-born Wong was not born to “citizen” parents, created that other birthright citizenship. But because the Fourteenth Amendment does not create a “natural born Citizen,” but rather only a “citizen of the United States,” that new type of Wong birthright citizenship became a “citizen of the United States” at birth who was not a “natural born Citizen” as was Virginia Minor who was not only born “citizen,” but also a “natural born Citizen.”

It is reading Minor and Wong in tandem which informs that there are two types of birthright citizens, a born “citizen” who is an Article II “natural born Citizen (born in the country to “citizen” parents-Minor), and a born “citizen” who is a “citizen of the United States” at birth (a child born in the United States to one or two alien parents and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”-Wong).

This distinction between different types of born “citizens” is constitutionally necessary because The People upon ratifying the Constitution decided that for those born after the adoption of the Constitution, only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. The People only had one definition in mind for a “natural born Citizen,” which was a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. That original “natural born Citizen” came with very special allegiance requirements which only a child born in the country to “citizen” parents can meet. That allegiance was sole and absolute allegiance to the United States from birth. That original definition of a “natural born Citizen” became the constitutional law of the land which cannot be changed other than by constitutional amendment. Any other born “citizen” who does not meet that original definition of a “natural born Citizen” is not and cannot be a “natural born Citizen.”

Continued . . .; June 13, 2012 at 8:22 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

That a “native-born,” who is not a “natural born Citizen” is not eligible to be President was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Schneider which said:

“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

***

Distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens in connection with foreign residence are drawn in the Constitution itself. Only a native-born may become President, Art. II, § 1.”

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964).

In the first quote, the Court said that one had to be a “natural born” citizen, not only a “native born” citizen to be eligible to be President. Hence, the Court said that a “natural born” citizen is not the same thing as a “native-born” citizen, for the Court said that under the Constitution only a “natural-born” citizen can be President. So it follows from this juxtaposition of “natural born” citizen and “native born” citizen that all “natural born” citizens are “native born” citizens but not all “native born” citizens are “natural born” citizens.

In the second quote, the court said “in connection with foreign residence,” only a “native-born” person could be President, meaning only a person born in the country could be President. Schneider would have know from Minor and Wong that birth in the country is only one of the two necessary conditions to be eligible to be President. The other necessary condition is birth to “citizen” parents which brings us back to Schneider’s “natural born” citizen which is the only “citizen” that is eligible to be President.; June 13, 2012 at 8:23 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Andy,

Your attempt at re-defining a “natural born Citizen” by what in your opinion Minor and Wong did or did not do does not work. The definition of a “natural born Citizen” was established long before those cases were decided. Our history shows that we adopted the rule that children during their minority followed the condition of their parents and upon reaching the age of majority could accept the citizenship they inherited from their parents by tacit consent or throw it off and accept another one. Being an American “citizen” from birth, this was your “natural born Citizen.” It it that history which you cannot come to grips with and overcome in your quest to squeeze Obama in as a “natural born Citizen.”; June 13, 2012 at 8:46 PM
Robert said...: So, if the arguments of Andy and 4Zoltan hold up, a terrorist couple "vacationing" in Guantanamo Bay can give birth to a junior terrorist who can then grow up to become President.

Even though, like Wong Kim Ark's parents, neither terrorist parent would be a US Citizen; A+4 would apparently maintain that the child would still have been born under complete US jurisdiction to permanently domiciled parents and thus be a natural born citizen.

Andy, 4Zoltan, et al are going to have to be a bit more persuasive before I'm ready to move to their side of the argument.

Our founders were a bit more clear-headed than that.; June 13, 2012 at 9:24 PM
MichaelN said...: Andy, maybe you can explain how the SCOTUS could accept and uphold that the Congress by statute "denaturalized a native-born citizen" of the US?

"Perez v. Brownell, 356 U.S. 44 (1958), in which the Court, by a five-to-four decision, upheld a statute denaturalizing a native-born citizen for having voted in a foreign election."

The recognition of native birth as giving a right to citizenship in the US is via act(s) of government.(i.e. 14th Amendment)

Not so for an Article II "natural born citizen", where no act of government is necessary to recognize or create this status, nor can any act(s) of government "denaturalize" such a person.; June 13, 2012 at 9:54 PM
MichaelN said...: Even US Code title 1481 is careful to us the term "native-born" rather than "natural born".

i..e. it DOESN'T use "natural born" as the opposite pole of naturalized.

"§1481. Loss of nationality by native-born or naturalized citizen; voluntary action; burden of proof; presumptions"; June 13, 2012 at 10:06 PM
MichaelN said...: Andy why did not the plaintiff's lawyers claim "natural born Citizen" for Leonardo Costa????

According to you, if he was native-born, he is a "natural born Citizen" ..... right?

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit. - 267 F.2d 921
Argued May 14, 1959.Decided June 16, 1959

"Plaintiff claims that he is a NATIVE born citizen of the United States, having been born in Yatesboro, Pennsylvania on August 7, 1905;"; June 13, 2012 at 10:26 PM
MichaelN said...: What about this one Andy?

Why did Delmore/Amoruso not claim to be a "natural born Citizen"?

He was native-born, which according to you means the same thing....... right?

"Delmore, also known as Amoruso, having been declared an alien and ordered deported, brought suit to have himself declared to be a NATIVE born citizen of the United States and to restrain the defendants from proceeding with his deportation. See 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and 8 U.S.C.A. § 1503(a).1 THE COURT below HELD that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the plaintiff was not a United States citizen AND DECLARED HIM TO BE A CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES. See 135 F.Supp. 470 (1955). "; June 13, 2012 at 10:34 PM
Carlyle said...: DOH
V8 Moment
Heel of Hand to Forehead

I just figured it out! Puzo1 and Andy are one and the same person. In a grand literary tradition that goes back as far as Plato, we have a 'dialog'.

The method most often used is to invent a particularly obtuse person to represent the opposing view - therefore providing a counterpoint and highlight to the Correct View being propounded by the author.

Man, I feel really dumb it took me this long to figure it out.; June 13, 2012 at 10:35 PM
MichaelN said...: Andy said...
"@MichaelN

The "common law" reference is irrelevant, since the court only considered the specific question at hand: those that were born here with two citizen parents."

Response:
Andy.
It seems you have conveniently pretended to miss the point.

If it was commonly held by the SCOTUS that the common law provided for solely native birth as sufficient to make an Article II "natural born Citizen", then why would the SCOTUS initiate the mention of doubts if native-birth would suffice to even make a citizen?

No only did the SCOTUS initiate the mention of the doubts whether native-birth alone was enough to make a citizen, the SCOTUS also expressed the merits of the doubts by saying that the doubts were unsolved and still to be solved.

So it is impossible for the SCOTUS in the Minor court to have been referring to the English common law, given that it were true that the English common law provided for native-birth alone as sufficient to make a "natural born subject" and that "subject" and "citizen' are in fact analogous.; June 13, 2012 at 11:01 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: American courts have recognized that U.S. citizens born on U.S. soil to foreign parents or born abroad to U.S. citizen parents have double allegiance which significantly affected that person’s allegiance and political and military rights and obligations. U.S. law explicitly warns about the dangers and problems of dual allegiance. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 344-48 (1939); Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717, 723-26, 733-36 (1952).

America even went as far as passing curfew and exclusion laws during World War II which deprived freedom of movement and association to Fourteenth Amendment “citizens of the United States” of Japanese descent (their mothers and fathers were Japanese nationals) because of “pressing public necessity” and the need to provide America with every possible protection against espionage and sabotage which jeopardized America’s survival. The Korematsu Court stated that this government action was justified because the “segregation of the disloyal from the loyal” within American Fourteenth Amendment “citizens of the United States” of Japanese descent was not possible. See Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1945). In other words, the Court found that we could not place at risk the survival of our country for the sake of trying to determine who was loyal or disloyal to the cause. Our nation took the drastic action that it did against Fourteenth Amendment “citizens of the United States” of Japanese descent because they were dual nationals and children of aliens or foreigners. Hence, even though these persons were Fourteenth Amendment citizens, we still considered and treated them as being subject to a foreign power. Can we just imagine what would have happened if President and Commander in Chief Truman would have been a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” with a Japanese father. To be consistent, I guess our nation would have had to place him in a concentration camp too with the rest of the other Fourteenth Amendment citizens of Japanese descent.

Such court decisions make it abundantly clear that such Fourteenth Amendment "citizens" are not Article II "natural born Citizens."; June 13, 2012 at 11:09 PM
MichaelN said...: Andy said .....

"No one is arguing that the 14th Amendment changed anything regarding natural born citizenship - it simply reaffirmed what we've already known - only two ways to become citizens - birth and naturalization."

No one is arguing that there are more then two basic ways to US citizenship.

The point is that there are two TYPES of born citizens.

The US Citizenship & Immigration Service recognizes these TWO types of born citizens.

The Minor court recognized and gave merit to doubts about one TYPE of born citizen, which was "clarified"/solved by the Wong Kim Ark court, basing it's holding in part of on the domicile & residency of WKA's parents.; June 13, 2012 at 11:12 PM
MichaelN said...: Andy.

No "natural born Citizen" here either for those native-born.

Now why do you suppose that was?

783 F.2d 1266: Patricio Hernandez-cordero and Maria Guadalupe Ortega Dehernandez, Petitioners, v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service, Respondent

"Patricio Hernandez-Cordero, age 32, and his wife, Maria Guadalupe Ortega de Hernandez, age 35, are natives and citizens of Mexico.

They have four children, Victor, age 13, a Mexican citizen, the natural son of Mrs. Hernandez, who has been adopted by Hernandez; Patricio, Jr., age 9; Lisa, age 8; and Veronica, age 7, all of whom are NATIVE-BORN American citizens."; June 13, 2012 at 11:27 PM
MichaelN said...: Andy.

Here's another case where native-born children, born to alien parents are called "native-born United States citizens".

Why do you suppose do the US courts constantly use the term "native-born" INSTEAD OF "natural born Citizen" to describe those who are native-born to alien parents?

"Varela is a native and citizen of Guatemala who entered the United States without inspection on or about August 10, 1991. Varela married Delmy Hernandez in November 1994. Varela and Hernandez have five minor children, all of whom are NATIVE-born United States citizens."

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT - 204 F.3d 1237
Submitted February 9, 20001Decided March 8, 2000; June 13, 2012 at 11:58 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: After telling us what a “natural-born citizen” was, Minor said that such persons were “citizens.” It then added: “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. 167-68.

These sentences are very important to understand. They show that the Court went searching for what was a “citizen.” In addition to explaining who the original “citizens” were, it found that a child born in a country to “citizen” parents was a “citizen.” It added that these children were not only “citizens,” but also “natural-born citizens.” It then introduced that “some authorities” include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. These children did not fit within the definition of a “natural-born citizen.” Hence, the Court could not say that they were also “citizens.” So the Court left the question unanswer which meant that these children would have to establish that they were “citizens” by some way other than showing that they were “natural-born citizens.” And we know that Wong Kim Ark used the Fourteenth Amendment to establish their “citizen” status. But Wong only established that they were “citizens.” It was not able to go further and say they were also “natural-born citizens” as Minor had done with Virginia Minor who was born in the country to “citizen” parents.; June 13, 2012 at 11:59 PM
MichaelN said...: Sheriff Joe's affidavit

http://www.orlytaitzesq.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/affidavit-Arpaio5.pdf; June 14, 2012 at 12:50 AM
Andy said...: @Mario

Again you misread the opinion of the court, and find differences where they did not.

Let's look at Schneider again:

“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

***

Distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens in connection with foreign residence are drawn in the Constitution itself. Only a native-born may become President, Art. II, § 1.”

The first quotes cites two types of citizenship: native-born and naturalized (birth and naturalization). The court then explains that only those born here ('natural born') can become president. No mention of parents' citizenship at all.

The court then REAFFIRMS the distinction below - two classes, and reaffirming that NATIVE-BORN may become President. Since the Minor Court did not DEFINE natural born citizenship, only discussed one situation being part of the category, this makes absolute sense.

Just a question, Mario - when giving a definition of something, is it common to list the "definition" first, or the "term-to-be-defined?"; June 14, 2012 at 2:29 AM
Andy said...: @Puoz1

Please demonstrate that the activities in WWII actively sought to separate citizens by the nationality of their parents.

I noticed that specifically didn't cite any passages from the case to support your view.; June 14, 2012 at 2:33 AM
Andy said...: @MichaelN

They use "Native-born" because it is synonymous with "natural born." See Schneider. Mario already showed us that the court found that "native-born" citizens could be president, meaning they considered them "natural born citizens."

Again, as I've explained to Mario (who should know better) the court uses judicial restraint - they don't rule any farther than they have to.

To win, I only need to point to WKA and watch the courts agree. To win, you need to find a court that actually says that native-born citizens are not eligible for the presidency.

I have the easier position - one which will be upheld. Your position is outside the mainstream and will take a lot more convincing.

Good luck with that.; June 14, 2012 at 3:26 AM
Andy said...: @MichaelN

Look to Afroyim v. Rusk. The court has (more recently) held that a citizen of the United States, regardless of whether being born here or being naturalized, cannot be deprived of their citizenship without consent.

(They later held that not to be true for those born abroad of citizen parents, though the law allowing Congress to do so was repealed.)

Also, Schneider vs. Rusk: the court held that since you can't deprive natural born citizens of their citizenship, you can't deprive naturalized citizens, either.; June 14, 2012 at 4:19 AM
ksdb said...: @Andy, if what you and other ignorant/uninformed Foggers believed was true, then the Minor court should have accepted Virginia Minor's argument of being a citizen via the 14th amendment, but they did NOT do so. They rejected that argument by introducing a definition of birth citizenship dependent on having citizen parents. There's no point in doing that except as how the Law of Nations definitions natives and natural-born citizens as those born in the country to citizen parents. The Wong Kim Ark court respected the unanimous Minor decision and affirmed that natural-born citizens are excluded from the citizen clause of the 14th amendment. It's also why Luria v. United States cites Minor, NOT Wong Kim Ark as THE legal precedent on presidential eligibility. 27 Supreme Court justices agreed on a definition of natural-born citizenship that inherently excludes the Kenyan Coward™ from being eligible for president.; June 14, 2012 at 10:13 AM
Andy said...: @KSDB

You really should read the cases you cite, especially if you say they support your argument.

Firstly, the court in Minor very much considered the 14th Amendment. They even agreed with it:

"There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position."

They then go on to discuss why the principles therein were already in place (which we already knew from Congressional debates).

What the court didn't agree with is the argument that the 14th Amendment granted voting rights to women. The court ruled that voting rights are not directly connected to citizenship (which can be seen in the laws of Missouri at the time, which allowed some aliens to vote!).

Let's look at Luria now. The citation for Minor in Luria is to this quote:
"Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency."

Wow. Even there, the Luria quote points out that the native citizen is eligible, while the naturalized is not. (This is a theme of two forms of citizenship, which Minor talks about, as well.)

Now, as for WKA. Could you provide me with a citation of natural born citizens being excluded from the 14th Amendment? The congressional record (and Minor court) both state that the 14th Amendment didn't really create anything, but recognized those principles that were around before.

And no Supreme Court Justices have commented on the eligibility of Mr. Obama. Even the Minor court wouldn't answer that question, since they observed some "doubts."; June 14, 2012 at 11:19 AM
jayjay said...: Carlyle:

Naw - I think not. Andy is just one of the run-of-the-mill OOPS Troops talking about things "not in evidence" and misquoting and partial-quoting to try to protect El Presidente Wetback.; June 14, 2012 at 3:25 PM
Andy said...: @JayJay

"el presidente wetback?" Is that a racial slur? Wow - nice argument. I use the words of our highest court, and you name-call. Very effective, indeed.; June 14, 2012 at 5:09 PM
jayjay said...: Andy: and keep in power.

MIGAWD you're dumb!!! That title is neither racial nor a slur and you can't even understand that. It's merely descriptive of the guy you're trying to protect and keep in power.

That's not a name, dipstick ... "El Presidente Wetback" is a title and so far as the man has ever shown, a deserved one. We might as well use it until he shows definitively that he's at least an American citizen.

And after that he can show how he is eligible to hold the office he now occupies by being a "natural born Citizen".

Obviously it's not too tough to hoodwink fools such as the OOPS Troops and then threaten the Media into silence (print, TV, radio). All that needs to be done is to convince those cowards that he'll take away their meal ticket and the do the el-foldo.

You merely misuse words of SCOTUS, not use them.; June 14, 2012 at 7:29 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of II

Andy,

Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 24 (1913) said:

“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827. ”

Schneider v. Rusk, 377 US 163, 165 (1964) said:

“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

***

Distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens in connection with foreign residence are drawn in the Constitution itself. Only a native-born may become President, Art. II, § 1.”

Let us analyze what these two Courts said:

1. The Schneider decision came after the Luria decision. Hence, Schneider is the more current word of our U.S. Supreme Court.

2. Luria said: “Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency." The Court was well aware that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 requires one to be a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to be President. The Court cited to Minor v. Happersett, which only spoke about a “natural-born citizen,” not a “native citizen.” Hence, the Court must be equating a “native citizen” to a “natural born Citizen” which latter term is the correct constitutional term that is used in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. We can also not conclude that “native citizen” has some definition different from “natural born Citizen.” That would not make sense for the Court said that a “native citizen” is eligible to be President which means that “native citizen” has to have the same meaning as a “natural born Citizen.”

3. The Schneider Court knew how the U.S. Supreme Court defined a “natural born Citizen” which was done by Minor v. Happersett in 1875. Minor said that a child born in the country to “citizen” parents is not only a “citizen,” but also a “natural-born citizen.” This statement is consistent with the definition of a “natural-born citizen” found in Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212, The Venus (C.J. Marshall concurring), and Dred Scott (J. Daniels concurring), which all preceded Minor. The statement is also consistent with the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855. There is therefore little doubt that Minor confirmed the long-standing definition of a “natural-born citizen” which it said existed under “common law.” U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which defined a “native-born” “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment, did not alter this original definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” So the Court was well aware of the long well-established constitutional definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

Continued . . .; June 14, 2012 at 9:23 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

4. The Schneider Court went further than Luria in telling us that not all “native born” citizens are “natural born” citizens. It distinguished between “native born,” “naturalized person,” and “natural born.” The Court could not have equated a “native born” with a “natural born,” because through the two sentences it compared “native born,” “naturalized persons,” and “natural born” and set them apart to show that they are, indeed, constitutionally separate and distinct from each other. Note that the Court said that “[t]he only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1. When it said that ONLY the “natural born” are eligible to be President, the Court did not say that only the “native born” are eligible to be President. Furthermore, if a “native born” meant the same as a “natural born,” there would not have been any need for the court to inject the phrase “natural born” into the comparison with “naturalized person.” So what the Court actually told us is that there are “native born” and “naturalized persons” who fall under the Fourteenth Amendment. The amendment calls them both “citizens of the United States.” The Court also told us that there are “native born” who are “natural born” and who fall under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. It is ONLY the “natural born” who are eligible to be President.

5. The Court said: “Only a native-born may become President, Art. II, § 1.” This means that it is NECESSARY that a person be “native born” in order to be eligible to be President. It does not mean that it is SUFFICIENT. Since the Court said that “only the “natural born” citizen is eligible to be President,” and “native born” does not mean the same as “natural born,” being “native born” cannot be SUFFICIENT to be eligible to be President. And we know from Wong Kim Ark that “native born” means “born in a country.” Wong even said that those who are born out of the country to “citizen” parents and who are granted under Congressional Acts the status of “citizens” at birth are nevertheless naturalized at birth. See Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815(1971) (such citizenship is naturalization at birth (J. Black dissenting in Bellei also said: "All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependant on congressional enactment are forms of naturalization"). So, Schneider told us that is NECESSARY that one be born in the country to be eligible to be President.

As demonstrated by Minor, Wong Kim Ark, and Schneider, a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. Schneider not only affirmed that ONLY a child born in the country is eligible to be elected President, but also affirmed that ONLY a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be elected President, i.e., a child born in the country to “citizen” parents.

Based on these three U.S. Supreme Court cases, Obama is not eligible to be President. If born in Hawaii, he may be a “native-born” citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. Under the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark, he would be a “citizen of the United States” by virtue of being born in the country and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (But compare: Wong’s parents were both “domiciled” in the United States). But he is not and cannot be a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, by virtue of being born in the country to two “citizen” parents.; June 14, 2012 at 9:23 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Andy,

You said: “I only need to point to WKA [Wong Kim Ark] and watch the courts agree.” And that says it all. You concede that you have no argument which demonstates that your English common law jus soli definition of a “natural born Citizen” is correct. Rather, the most that you can do it to “point” to Wong Kim Ark and hope and pray. But when Wong Kim Ark and our the historical records is closely analyzed as they showed be given the critical importance of correctly defining an Article II “natural born Citizen,” Wong Kim Ark also does not give us a jus soli “natural born Citizen.” So what you are doing, Andy, is relying on feigned authorities. In the meantime, just keep pointing and praying.; June 14, 2012 at 9:33 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Here is something to think about. Someone says: “I have carefully considered your arguments and find them without merit.” He says nothing more. How do we know that he truly carefully considered my arguments if he does not show us that he really did?; June 14, 2012 at 11:37 PM
Andy said...: @Mario

You continue to read into the court's writing what it did not put there. We have to take the words of the court to mean what they say.

Luria destroys your "Minor defined natural born citizen" in their own reference.

With the court stating:

"Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency"

and then directly referencing Minor, either your assumption of a definition is wrong, or the court is wrong.

Under your definition, a native citizen isn't always eligible for the Presidency. Under their statement, they are. This means that your "definition," at least according to the Supreme Court of the United States, is wrong.

In Schneider:

"“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

***

Distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens in connection with foreign residence are drawn in the Constitution itself. Only a native-born may become President, Art. II, § 1.”"

We find that the court is saying that native-born and natural born are synonymous. They did not distinguish them in any way. (In fact, in the second paragraph, they use the native instead of natural, again!)

We see that "native-born" (the court uses quotes around 'natural born,' after stating that the only difference between native born and naturalized, which means that the 'natural born' reference is to native born) are eligible for the presidency.

You are finding a distinction between things that aren't there.

And the Supreme Court's ruling in Minor is not a "feigned authority." What kind of lawyer would ever make that argument? You can argue that the court is wrong, but it isn't me you will have to convince, it is the highest court in our land.

It is you that dismisses the words of our courts, simply because you are wrong. You can keep up your ignorant act, not understanding (or intentionally distorting) the words, and attacking those who disagree with you, but you won't succeed.

The judges in our country are much smarter than you. The know when our meritless cases come, that they are easily dispatched. They have actual experience with the law and Constitution (beyond traffic law), and easily disregard your silly musings (as has happened every single time you've filed your cases).

"How do we know that he truly carefully considered my arguments if he does not show us that he really did?" He did show you. He told you they were meritless.; June 15, 2012 at 3:10 AM
James said...: I agree Mario. The judge makes a pretty strong statement and doesn't support his statement with any facts. The Appeals court essentially make the same finding but they too never make facts to support their ruling allegations. In reading many past court decisions, if a court finds an argument without merit, they will support that allegation with the case law that supports it.; June 15, 2012 at 8:51 AM
Andy said...: @Mario

The Superior Court explained in their opinion why they weren't discussing your arguments:

"We have carefully considered appellants' arguments andconclude that these arguments are without merit. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E). We affirm substantially for the reasons set forthin ALJ Jeff S. Masin's thorough and thoughtful written opinionof April 10, 2012, as adopted by the Secretary on April 12,2012."

What is R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E)?

This:
"(E) that some or all of the arguments made are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion;"

Not worth their time.; June 15, 2012 at 10:57 AM
ksdb said...: @Andy, you're shooting your own argument in the foot on Minor, when you say the Minor court agrees with the 14th amendment. They said in the court's opinion, Virginia Minor (and all women and men born to citizen parents) did NOT need the amendment to become citizens. They didn't simply reject that the 14th amendment didn't give voting rights, they said it didn't confer citizenship on those matching the criteria they exclusively characterized as natural-born citizens.

The Luria citation of Minor (Wong Kim Ark is nowhere to be found) is significant because Minor defined "natives" as "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens."

Wong Kim Ark AGREED with Minor on how to define natural-born citizens. It's why that court said:

"In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."

It goes further and says that because Minor was a UNANIMOUS decision that the court was "committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment ..."

Then they confirm that THIS is the holding in Minor:

"The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States ..."

There's no reason for the Ark court to say anything about Minor being born to citizen parents EXCEPT as how it specifically pertains to the Minor court's exclusive characterization of natural-born citizens. It's why for the next 25 pages in Wong Kim Ark, they never use that term again.; June 15, 2012 at 11:12 AM
Carlyle said...: I don't wish to disparage any effort to expose, oust, and hopefully prosecute, The Fraud. BUT

I personally find all this discussion of NBC to be tedious. As the evidence mounts to a monumental height that the Official Obama Narrative is nearly 100% fabricated, we know not The Truth.

This, in turn, seriously calls into question whether The Obama is ANY kind of US Citizen, let alone NBC. It appears certain that he was NEVER a 'pure' citizen (i.e. without foreign citizenship simultaneous), and very likely not a citizen now.

It is unbelievable that he retained any vestige of US Citizenship as and when adopted into Indonesia. Following that there are no records anywhere of him becoming a naturalized citizen. (And we all know that requests for passport information are emphatically denied. Why?)

There is also the VERY WEIRD incident with being adopted by Native Americans - which has never been explained. The only reasonable speculation I have heard so far is that he was trying to establish at least some tie to citizenship.; June 15, 2012 at 11:43 AM
Carlyle said...: Question -

What do we all think will happen in the Florida court case on Monday?; June 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of II

James,

Our courts seem to be violating a rule which they impose on others but not on themselves. This rule is called the “net opinion” rule.

In MOHAMMED ALI V. THANH DAO, App. Div., A-1611-08T3, August 21, 2009, the New Jersey Appellate Division explained the “net opinion” rule thus:

“The net opinion rule is a prohibition against speculative testimony.” Grzanka v. Pfeifer, 301 N.J. Super. 563, 580 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 154 N.J. 607 (1997). “Under this doctrine, expert testimony is excluded if it is based merely on unfounded speculation and unquantified possibilities.” Vuocolo v. Diamond Shamrock Chems. Co., 240 N.J. Super. 289, 300 (App. Div.), certif. denied, 122 N.J. 333 (1990).
The rule requires an expert “to give the why and wherefore” of his or her opinion rather than a mere conclusion. Jimenez v. GNOC, Corp., 286 N.J. Super. 533, 540 (App. Div.), cert. denied, 145 N.J. 374 (1996). Experts “must be able to identify the factual bases for their conclusions, explain their methodology, and demonstrate that both the factual bases and the methodology are scientifically reliable.” Landrigan v. Celotex Corp., 127 N.J. 404, 417 (1992). They must be able to point to a generally accepted, objective standard of practice, and “not merely to standards personal to the witness.” Fernandez v. Baruch, 52 N.J. 127, 131 (1968). When an expert opinion is unsupported by factual evidence, it is inadmissible. Jimenez, supra, 286 N.J. Super. at 540.”

(1) Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 states that no person who is not a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. New Jersey state statute provides that ineligibility of a candidate for the office he or she seeks is a ground for an election contest. Yet, the New Jersey ALJ rendered his “opinion” and the SOS adopted it in total in which they found that Obama did not have any constitutional or statutory duty, when duly challenged under the federal constitution and state statute to do so, to present any evidence to the State of New Jersey showing who he is and where he was born so as to establish that he is a “natural born Citizen” as a condition of the SOS allowing his name to be placed on an election ballot presented to the voters of the State of New Jersey. In coming to this conclusion, the ALJ relied upon a New Jersey state statute which does not even address the issue and disregarded the U.S. Constitution and New Jersey state statutes which clearly do. This looks like the ALJ did not “point to a generally accepted, objective standard of practice,” but rather relied merely on “standards personal” to the judge.

(2) The ALJ also ruled that Obama was born in Hawaii while not having a shred of evidence before him (which both Obama and the ALJ conceded on the record) to support such a conclusion. So the ALJ found that Obama was born in Hawaii without having any evidence to support such a finding. That sure sounds like “unfounded speculation and unquantified possibilities.”

(3) Finally, while prefacing his “opinion” that he did not have time to write a law review article on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” the ALJ ruled that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” That sounds like a failure to “give the why and wherefore” of his or her opinion rather than a mere conclusion.

Continued . . .; June 15, 2012 at 12:28 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

The New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division affirmed the ALJ’s and SOS decisions in total. It did not provide any reasons for its “opinion” that we should accept the ALJ’s and SOS’s conclusion that: (1) Obama has no constitutional or statutory duty to present any evidence to the State of New Jersey that he is a “natural born Citizen” before the SOS can place his name on the election ballot when duly challenged to do so; (2) Obama was born in Hawaii; (3) our argument on the definition of a “natural born Citizen” (a child born in the country to “citizen” parents) has no merit. Nor did it cite any case or other source in support of its “opinion.” It did not explain why Minor v. Happersett does not support our position. It did not cite U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark or explain why that decision is, as Obama contends, dispositive in showing that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” It did not cite Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, Tisdale v. Obama, or any state administrative law cases (Georgia, Arizona, and Illinois), which have ruled in favor of Obama on the definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

Hence, the New Jersey Appellate Division gave us an “opinion” which does not inform on the “the why and wherefore” of its conclusions that Obama has no constitutional or statutory duty to present any evidence to the State of New Jersey that he is a “natural born Citizen” before the SOS can place his name on the election ballot when duly challenged to do, that Obama was born in Hawaii, and that Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Under these circumstances, how much authoritative weight can we give the decision of the New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division regarding Obama’s eligibility to be placed on the New Jersey primary and general election ballot?; June 15, 2012 at 12:30 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: ksdb,

You said: "It goes further and says that because Minor was a UNANIMOUS decision that the court was "committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment ..."

I believe you meant to say "was not committed." Check it out again.; June 15, 2012 at 12:41 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Carlyle,

It appears that Obama is defending only on a state issue in the Florida ballot challenge. Correct me if I am wrong.; June 15, 2012 at 12:48 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Andy,

(1) Luria did not say that just being a “native born” citizen is sufficient to be eligible to be President. It only said that between a “naturalized citizen” and a “native born” citizen, only the “native born” citizen is eligible. It could not have meant that all “native citizens” are eligible to be President. Luria cites to Minor and not to Wong Kim Ark when it speaks about a “native born” citizen being eligible to be President. Hence, the Court was thinking of the Minor “native born” citizen (an Article II “natural-born citizen” who is born in the country to “citizen” parents), and not the Wong Kim Ark “native born” citizen (a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth who is born in the United States to one or two “domiciled” alien parents and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”).

Again, there is a critical constitutional distinction between these two types of “native born” “citizens.” That critical constitutional distinction is based on allegiance which historically has always been the heart and soul of U.S. citizenship. Only the Minor “native born” citizen is eligible to be President because it is only that “citizen” who is born with sole and absolute allegiance to the United States, needed for the President and Commander in Chief of the Military to properly and faithfully execute his great civil and military powers only in the best interests of the preservation of the United States as expected of him or her by the People of the United States who spoke during the Founding and adoption and ratification of the Constitution. There does not exist any constitutional amendment which replaced the People’s original understanding of what is expected of our President and Commander in Chief with another expectation.

(2) I did not say that Minor is a “feigned authority.” I said that Wong Kim Ark is. Also, my reference to Wong Kim Ark being a “feigned authority” is in how you and others like you rely on that case as proving that Obama is a “natural born Citizen” when that case said no such thing.

(3) Your reference to “traffic law” is clear evidence that you are, indeed, not only a scorpion but also a despicable Obot.; June 15, 2012 at 1:24 PM
Andy said...: @KSDB
1 of 2

Actually, the Minor Court ruled that women have always been citizens, in regards to the Constitution, and didn't need the amendment separately to confer it. The Court in WKA, while citing Minor said:

"In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, on behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: 'The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And proceed to resort to the common law as an aid in construction of this provision."

showing that even when consulting the common law, it was in construction of the 14th Amendment. So, as you can see, the Minor Court did not rule out the 14th Amendment, simply stated that it was reflective of what was the law from even the time of the founding of our nation.

In fact, the WKA court showed that people born here of alien parents were not excluded from the "subject to the jurisdiction" phrase, when correctly cited:

"That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of theFourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),
reciprocal obligations.
"; June 15, 2012 at 2:17 PM
Andy said...: @KSDB
2 of 2

In Luria, the court wrote this:

"Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility of the Presidency" citing Minor, which we know stated:

"Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization."

And also citing Elk v Wilkens, which says:

"The distinction between citizenship by birth and citizenship by naturalization is clearly marked in the provisions of the Constitution, by which
"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,"
and "The Congress shall have power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization." Constitution, Article II, Section 1; Article I, Section 8.
"
…
"This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization."

Again, the court is pointing out only two sources of citizenship - being born here, and being naturalized. There is no support whatsoever in any case for a special distinction to be made for those born of two citizen parents.; June 15, 2012 at 2:17 PM
Andy said...: @Puzo1

1) The courts make clear that they consider anyone born with citizenship, be they called native or natural-born, eligible for the Presidency. There is no distinction to be found in caselaw between those born here of aliena parentage, and those born of citizen parents.

You claim a constitutional distinction, but there is none in the actual constitution. It lists two terms: natural born citizen, and citizen. A natural born citizen is a specific kind - one that is born with citizenship. These are those that are eligible for the Presidency and Vice Presidency. Anyone who is a citizen at all (either natural born, or naturalized) is eligible for any other elected office according the Constitution. The Supreme Court has never held otherwise, and I don't think it will.

2) You're right, I did misquote you. I apologize. I don't believe that the opinion in the Wong Kim Ark case is any more of a feigned authority than your misunderstanding of the Minor court's opinion. We'll have to agree to disagree, though I feel that the courts are on my side.

3) I am not a scorpion, but a person. I my reference to traffic law is for one purpose only - to remind you that until you began this "birther" stuff, you were no more well-versed in Constitutional law than the next person. You try to portray yourself as a Constitution expert, but have little experience in that field. You try so hard to impress, but most people see through the ruse.

To be honest, I think you're probably a pretty likable person, Mario. If I had the chance, I'd be more than willing to sit down and have a beer with you (if you drink beer).

But when you attack those who argue with you, or dismiss them because they don't agree so quickly, you show just how little you understand the law you are trying so hard to twist into neat little pretzels.; June 15, 2012 at 2:37 PM
ksdb said...: @ puzo1: No, I didn't mean to say "not." That would defeat the purpose. The court made a unanimous decision. It was committed to the view that NBCs are EXCLUDED from the operation of the citizen clause of the 14th amendment. It's why the Minor court rejected Virginia Minor's argument of being a citizen under the 14th amendment. The Ark court's point was that the exclusions to the subject clause as expressed in Slaughterhouse did not comprehensively cover all who are excluded from the citizen clause of the 14th amendment. The exclusions in Minor, however, are NOT based on the subject clause.

Also, the justices in Slaughterhouse were almost all the same as voted in Minor. They weren't going to contradict their own thinking two years later. They simply didn't know at the time of Slaughterhouse that they would deal with a different type of 14th amendment exclusion two years later.

Again, it's important to understand that this citation is the last point in the Ark decision where it specifically uses the term "natural-born citizen." For the next 25 pages, the Ark court opts for a different term, not NBC, to refer to birth citizenship, but one that is ONLY defined by the 14th amendment. The Ark court doesn't dispute Minor's finding. It doesn't say it disagrees. It did disagree with the subject clause exclusions in Slaugherhouse, and Justice Gray had to find a delicate way around his own decision in Elk v. Wilkins that excluded native-born Indians from the subject clause because they were members of alien nations (somehow that's different than being the subject of a foreign state).; June 15, 2012 at 2:52 PM
ksdb said...: @ Andy, you're citations shoot your arguments in the foot. Why would the Ark court say that the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be natural-born citizens if it could be used to define natural-born citizens?? Second, the Minor court didn't resort to English common law to define the citizen provision in the 14th amendment. They didn't define the citizen provision at all. The ONLY common law they used was from the Law of Nations: all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens. These were the natives or natural born citizens. That's nearly a verbatim quote. Here's the law of nations definition:

"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens."

The quote about Slaughterhouse, as I've just explained, EXCLUDES the children of subjects of foreign states and children born of citizens. If not, then the Court woudn't say that the 14th amendment does NOT say who shall be the natural-born citizens.; June 15, 2012 at 2:59 PM
ksdb said...: @ Andy: The Luria quote defeats the Fogger talking points. It doesn't cite Wong Kim Ark in definiting "native citizens." The first citation is to Minor. The Luria decision was in 1913, yet they quoted a decision from 1875 instead of a decision from 1898. The ONLY native citizenship defined in Minor is "all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens." Any other citizenship is in doubt, so the Minor court's exclusive characterization of NBC ONLY belongs to those born of citizen parents. IOW, Wong Kim Ark did NOT resolve the doubts about those who are born without reference to the citizenship of their parents. Luria also reference Elk v. Wilkins, but that relies on being COMPLETELY subject to the jurisidiction of the United States. The only way to guarantee this is by birth to citizen parents.

And yes, the 14th amendment does have only two sources of citizenship, but NBC, as Wong Kim Ark, notes, is not defined by the 14th amendment. This isn't a winning argument for you.; June 15, 2012 at 3:07 PM
Andy said...: @ksdb

Actually, both the WKA court and the Minor court agreed that the English common law is where citizenship ideals come from. They both cited it in their cases.

The Minor Court didn't say that Minor wasn't a citizen under the 14th Amendment. In fact, they stated this:

"There is no doubt that women may be citizens. They are persons, and by the fourteenth amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position."

The Court is acknowledging, like the court in WKA, that the 14th Amendment didn't create something that wasn't there before. They weren't excluded from the 14th Amendment, only pointing out that citizenship (both by birth and naturalization) was around before the 14th Amendment. One could not be denied citizenship that was created at the common law because of the 14th Amendment. That's why the court in WKA was so thorough in discussing where Wong Kim Ark's citizenship came from - the common law, and why it couldn't be deprived - the 14th Amendment.

The question before the Minor court was stated very clearly:

"The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone."

Minor's citizenship was never even a question before the court:

"[I]it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."

You seem to be confusing the contexts of your quotes. You should re-read WKA and Minor, so you can see more fully what their explanations are.; June 15, 2012 at 3:49 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Ksdb,

I said: “I believe you meant to say ‘was not committed.’ Check it out again.”

You said: “No, I didn't mean to say ‘not.’"

But this is what Wong Kim Ark said:

“That neither Mr. Justice Miller nor any of the justices who took part in the decision of The Slaughterhouse Cases understood the court to be committed to the view that all children born in the United States of citizens or subjects of foreign States were excluded from the operation of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is manifest from a unanimous judgment of the Court, delivered but two years later, while all those judges but Chief Justice Chase were still on the bench, in which Chief Justice Waite said: "Allegiance and protection are, in this connection" (that is, in relation to citizenship),

reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other: allegiance for protection, and protection for allegiance. . . . 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 [p680] 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.

The only adjudication that has been made by this court upon the meaning of the clause, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the leading provision of the Fourteenth Amendment is Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, in which it was decided that an Indian born a member of one of the Indian tribes within the United States . . . was not a citizen of the United States, as a "person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" within the meaning of the clause in question.”

Here Wong Kim Ark is saying that neither The Slaugherhouse Cases nor Minor were committed to excluding children born in the United States to alien parents from being “citizens of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, the Court said that both of those Courts were NOT committed to such a position. It adds that the only U.S. Supreme Court case to address the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause of the new Fourteenth Amendment was Elk v. Wilkins. The Court then sets out to distinguish Elk and shows why that case, authored by Justice Gray himself, did not prevent Justice Gray from finding that Wong was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Note that Justice Gray says that the only case that has made an “adjudication” upon the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause and by extension the Fourteenth Amendment was Elk. He does not state that Minor addressed the Fourteenth Amendment and he is correct because the question that Minor left open and which Wong Kim Ark answered had all to do with the Fourteenth Amendment (the “citizen of the United States” clause) and nothing to do with Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 (the “natural born Citizen” clause).; June 15, 2012 at 4:48 PM
ksdb said...: @ puzo1: You need to read the part preceding the paragraph in question. The Ark court was reviewing the ways that the Supreme Court had interpreted the subject clause of the 14th amendment.

It cited the Slaughterhouse decision because Gray took exception with the exclusion of consuls.

"Mr. Justice Miller, indeed, while discussing the causes which led to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, made this remark:

"The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.""

Gray explains:

"it was then well settled law, as has since been recognized in a judgment of this court in which Mr. Justice Miller concurred, that consuls, ... are not considered as entrusted with authority to represent their sovereign ... or entitled by the law of nations to the privileges and immunities of ambassadors or public ministers"

So here we have a direct citation to the Law of Nations to confirm a a simple disagreement that consuls are not considered the same as foreign ministers.

Gray then goes on to quote Justice Marshall who said "general expressions in every opinion are to be taken in connection with the case in which those expressions are used ..." He's citing this to say that the Ark court shouldn't look ONLY at the Slaughterhouse case to decide how to interpret the citizen clause of the 14th amendment.

The justices in the Slaughterhouse case weren't deciding whether the citizenship of natural-born citizens is affected by the 14th amendment, but they did so in the Minor case. That they didn't understand this at the time they decided Slaughterhouse is made evident by the fact that the court unanimously made other exclusions in the Minor decision. That's what Gray is saying.

Gray's decision in Elk V. Wilkins is troublesome for his interpretation in Wong Kim Ark, so he sloughs it off by saying that the "children of members of the Indian tribes" have a "standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law." Like I said, somehow he thinks that Indians are "alien nations" while Ark would be a member of a "foreign state." In Gray's view, the former are excluded from the 14th amendment, but not the latter ... as long as the parents are resident aliens. And of course, Obama's parents were not resident aliens, meaning Obama can't even claim to be a 14th amendment citizen.

What you're trying to say doesn't make sense because the Minor court WAS committed to excluding NBCs from the 14th amendment. It was a unanimous decision. They clearly said:

"it did not need this amendment to give them [women] that position [citizenship] ..."

The thing to understand is that NBCs are not excluded through the subject clause.

"To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership."

The "afterwards" part is determined through the law of nations definition of NBC.; June 15, 2012 at 5:19 PM
Unknown said...: If this were an intellectual matter, then Apuzzo would win hands down. But it is not. No one ever really addresses his position intellectually. I mean no one who disagrees. Sophism rules the day. Why some persons persist in arguing that birth in America suffices to make one a natural born citizen probably varies a bit. So few persons ever become candidates for the presidency that it is understandable that it has rarely been a public issue. Now John Woodman who characterizes himself as a conservative Tea Party member and Republican is also the author of a book on why the published birth certificate is authentic. That is another lost cause wherein I once heard him try to debate very knowledgeable persons, and he did not shine at all.
Perhaps a new addition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders will have a condition that will explain John and also what medications he needs to take.; June 15, 2012 at 7:27 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Ksdb,

I think that we are talking about different things.

1. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” The Slaughterhouse Cases 16 Wall. 36, 73 (1873).

Justice Gray criticizes Justice Miller for saying this in The Slaughterhouse Cases, arguing that the Miller Court did not think well upon what it said, and that in any event, what the court said was dicta. He attacks this statement as dicta, but then when he finds something that supports what he is intending to do, he has no problem if it is dicta.

2. It is a bit hard for Justice Gray to reconcile his decision in Elk with his new-found definition of “subject to the jurisdiction” in Wong. He says Elk involved American Indians born within the territory of the United States but within Indian tribes which is different from children born in the U.S. to aliens. If we accept that historically the prohibitive element to U.S. citizenship had always been being “born subject to a foreign power,” which Congress confirmed as being the American rule by including its prohibition in the Civil Rights Act of 1866 (“All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States”), Justice Gray is not able to distinguish Elk away or even to bring Wong within the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause. But then he is the U.S. Supreme Court so he can do whatever he wants.

3. Minor did not say that a “natural-born citizen” was encompassed within the Fourteenth Amendment. In fact, it said that the definition of a “natural-born citizen” is not found in the Constitution, which at that time already included the Fourteenth Amendment. Minor said that its definition was found in the “common law,” which given the definition that the Court gave, i.e., a child born in a country to “citizen” parents, we know could not be the English “common law,” but rather was the law of nations (“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”-Emer de Vattel, Section 212, The Law of Nations) that was adopted as national law and which became American “common law.”

4. Minor did not engage in “subject to the jurisdiction” analysis because Virginia Minor was born in the country to “citizen” parents which according to the Minor Supreme Court made her not only a “citizen” but a “natural-born citizen.” Being born under such circumstances, such a person is in all cases born within the full and complete legal and political jurisdiction of the United States. Wong Kim Ark did engage in “subject to the jurisdiction” analysis because Wong was born in the United States to “domiciled” alien parents which prevented him from being a “natural-born citizen.” Creating a new rule of birthright citizenship law, Justice Gray found Wong’s birth circumstances to be sufficient to make him born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Both Virginia Minor and Wong were “native born” citizens.” But Minor was a “native born” “natural-born citizen” and Wong was a “native born” “citizen of the United States,” with the degree of allegiance to the United States at birth being the factor that distinguishes one from the other. Only a “natural born Citizen” is born with sole and absolute allegiance to the United States. All other “citizens” who are “citizens of the United States” are born either with dual and conflicting allegiances owed to the United States and some foreign power (these are “citizens of the United States” at birth) or even with total allegiance to foreign powers (these are “citizens of the United States” after birth).; June 15, 2012 at 8:50 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of III

Andy,

You said: “There is no distinction to be found in case law between those born here o alien parentage and those born of citizen parents.” This statement is false. Consider the following cases which does not include other sources:

(1) In the James McClure citizenship case of 1811, Publius 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.” The Alexandria Herald, October 7, 1811.

James McClure was born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785. His father, a British subject, naturalized in South Carolina under that state’s naturalization statutes on February 20, 1786. Even though born in the United States, the James Madison Administration did not find James McClure to be a “natural born Citizen.” What is critical to understand about the McClure case and how Publius resolved the question of whether McClure was a “Citizen of the United States” is that it supports my position in which I have steadfastly argued that the early naturalization acts (Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855) applied not only to children born out of the United States but also to children born in the United States and treated any child born in the United States to alien parents to be an alien also. Given these Congressional statutes, we can reasonably conclude that our nation did not adopt the English common law jus soli concept of citizenship, but rather the law of nation’s jus sanguinis. There was not doubt that McClure was born in the United States. But he was not considered a “Citizen of the United States” by the force of being born on the soil of the United States. He was not declared to be a “Citizen of the United States” because the English common law had provided that any child born within the King’s dominions, not born to any diplomat or military invader, was automatically a “Citizen of the United States.” Rather, he was considered a “Citizens of the United States” under the Naturalization Act of 1802 only because his father naturalized to be a U.S. citizen after McClure was born when McClure was still a minor and McClure was “dwelling in the United States” with his father at the time of his father’s naturalization. Indeed, Publius explained that under the statute, the child, whether born in the United States or out of it, had to be “dwelling in the United States” with the father at the time of his father’s naturalization, the idea being that if he or she was with the father at that time he probably would remain in the United States for the rest of his or her life. So we can see from the McClure case that any child born in the United States to alien parents was born an alien and only became a “Citizen of the United States” upon his father’s naturalization if done during the years of minority and only if the child was dwelling in the United States at the time of the father’s naturalization. If the father did not naturalize within that time, the child would have to petition for naturalization on his or her own upon reaching the age of majority.

(2) Chief Justice John Marshall concurring in The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253, 289 (1814) (relies on Vattel’s definition of “natives, or indigenes” with the English translator of Vattel’s The Law of Nations in the 1797 English translation changing “indigenes” to “natural-born citizens”). So, if the child was born in the country to alien parents, the child would have been an alien.

Continued . . .; June 15, 2012 at 10:40 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of III

(3) “2. If born after the 4th of July 1776, and before the 15th of September of the same year, when the British took possession of New York, his infancy incapacitated him from making any election for himself, and his election and character followed that of his father, subject to the right of disaffirmance in a reasonable time after the termination of his minority; which never having been done, he remains a British subject, and disabled from inheriting the land in question.” Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 120-27, 3 Pet. 99. (1830). The child was born in the United States to alien parents and the Court declared him an alien.

(4) The majority of the U.S. Supreme Court with Justice Story in Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (children follow the citizenship of their parents no matter where born). Justice Story, who is considered a very influential jurist in American history, wrote the opinion in Shanks. He found that Ann Scott was a citizen of the South Carolina, for she inherited “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. . . .” This rule for citizenship is exactly what Vattel wrote in The Law of Nations. Here is what Justice Story said:

“Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. 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.”

Id. at 245. Here, Justice Story actually provided the same rule for citizenship as did Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations but did not cite him. Note that Justice Story speaking for the Court in stating the citizenship rule that applied to children did not distinguish whether the child was born in the United States or out of it. Rather, he said that “children born in a country” simply followed the nationality of the father. “[A] country” signifies the universality of the rule and that it did not matter what country it was. Rather, what controlled was the citizenship of the father, which at that time under the prevailing rule that the wife acquired the citizenship of her husband upon marriage, meant both that of the father and mother. We can see that this statement of what constitutes citizenship followed what Jefferson had written in his Virginia citizenship statutes. There is absolutely no connection to the English common law in his rule for determining citizenship. This rule was also followed by early Congress when it wrote the early naturalization acts, except for children born out of the United States, Congress made sure by expressly referring to children born out the United States that everyone knew that those children also followed the citizenship of their parents. So, if the child was born in the country to alien parents, the child would have been an alien.

5. Justice Daniels in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856) (cites and quotes Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen”). So, if the child was born in the country to alien parents, the child would have been an alien.

Continued . . .; June 15, 2012 at 10:42 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: III of III

6. The phrase, "subject to its jurisdiction" was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.” The Slaughterhouse Cases 16 Wall. 36, 73 (1873). So, if the child was born in the country to alien parents, the child would have been an alien.

7. The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 167 (1875) (provided a paraphrased version of Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” and said “there have been doubts” whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a “citizen”). Minor v. Happersett (1875) said that “[t]he 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. . . .” This is the same rule expressed by Justice Story in Shanks. Note the Court even used the same exact language, “children born in a country” followed with being born to “parents” who were “citizens” of that “country” and then stating that such “children” followed the citizenship of the “parents” and were considered the “natives or natural-born citizens.” So, the Court was not willing to say that a child was a “citizen” if the child was born in the country to alien parents.

8. Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) (cites and quotes Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen”). So, if the child was born in the country to alien parents, the child would have been an alien.

9. United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (cites and quotes Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen”). So, if the child was born in the country to alien parents, the child would have been an alien.

10. Savage v. Umphries (TX) 118 S. W. 893 (1909). As a man is a “citizen” of the country to which his father owes allegiance, it was incumbent on one alleging in an election contest that a voter was not a citizen of the United States to show that such voter’s father was not a citizen thereof during his son’s minority.

As far as your attacks upon me personally, they only show that you are an utter failure. You have not been able to provide one convincing argument. So you have to resort to attacking me personally. I have watched you and your Obot buddies continued for 4 years with the DWI and traffic law lie. Andy, I have given you a fair chance to prove here what you know and what you can bring here that is borrowed from your Obot buddies and even from John Woodman. I have to tell you that you have failed so far to prove me wrong.; June 15, 2012 at 10:43 PM
Frank Bailey said...: I would ask those who support Mario Apuzzo to inquire why he is unwilling to take the bet offered by Thomas Brown at John Woodman's blog. Mr. Brown offered to bet Apuzzo $1000 that no court would ever find that President Obama is ineligible to hold the office of president of the United State.

It seems Mr. Apuzzo is good at writing long winded blog posts and briefs but is not willing to risk a single dime of his own money to support his beliefs.

If I were a supporter of Mr. Apuzzo (who is not willing to risk a single dime) I would also like to know who has paid the filing fees for his cases and if he has been paid for his shoddy work in the courts. (Shoddy is an accurate assessment based on the results.); June 15, 2012 at 10:56 PM
ksdb said...: @ puzo1: I don't believe we are talking so much about different things. I agree with much of your analysis, I just think it's important to emphasize that Gray only objected to the inclusion of consuls in the Slaughterhouse decision as being incorrect. It wasn't really a matter of attacking it as dicta, but that the inclusion was specifically contradicted by another decision that used the law of nations to distinguish consuls from foreign ministers. By contrast, Gray finds no problems with the Minor decision, and was compelled to respect it because that decision was made unanimously. It's why he resorted to a completely different term for 14th amendment birth citizenship. The Minor decision did exclude NBCs from the 14th amendment because they didn't need it ... AND it excluded the children born of foreign subjects from the amendment because they needed naturalization. Gray works around this by satisfying the subject clause with permanent residence and domicil, but he never suggests that anyone whose citizenship is from the 14th amendment is a natural-born citizen. And several years later, the absence of a Wong Kim Ark citation is very conspicuous in Luria v. United States. This latter decision, IMO, is key to making current courts respect the legal precedent in Minor. It deals specifically with presidential eligibility and it cites a decision that defined natives as those born in the country to citizen parents. There's NO legal precedent to make Obama an NBC, and there's no higher judicial authority than these three Supreme Court cases that agreed on how to define NBC.; June 15, 2012 at 11:52 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: “The essential problem is Collette is arguing that he is right, not that the law is with him. He tries to goad the court into ruling on the case, rather than following the law as to whether it must be dismissed or not. I find it funny that Collette repeats that no court has looked at the 400 years of law on natural born citizen. However, the courts DID look at US v. Wong and that case summarizes the 400 years of law on natural born citizen (including Minor v. Happersett). Wong is now precedent, that that 400 years is water under the bridge, unless the intent is that the Supreme Court revisit the Wong decision. That is very unlikely.” Dr. Conspiracy.

This is an example of the intellectual dishonesty practiced by the Obot camp. Dr. Conspiracy claims that Wong Kim Ark already looked at all the law (400 years worth) that could possibly inform on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” Of course, we know this to be a huge lie. Additionally, Dr. Conspiracy tells us that it is not necessary to look at our history to determine what is a “natural born Citizen.” He calls all the information that is available “water under the bridge.”

Sure, Dr. Conspiracy wants the historical record to remains hidden so that we cannot discover the truth about what is a “natural born Citizen.” In keeping with Dr. Conspiracy’s wish, no court that has decided the merits of whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” has analyzed the historical record. So, Dr. Conspiracy just wants everybody just to point to Wong Kim Ark and end there. But even that suggestion should be a failure in the eyes of any honest decision maker, for Wong Kim Ark only defined a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” That Dr. Conspiracy wants to keep our history buried like Obama wants to keep his records sealed. Both are acts of cowardice.; June 15, 2012 at 11:54 PM
Carlyle said...: Mario - in re:

It appears that Obama is defending only on a state issue in the Florida ballot challenge. Correct me if I am wrong.
June 15, 2012 12:48 PM

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

I think you are right - but even if it is *only* a 'state issue', they could withhold him from the ballot until he shows proper credentials.

How cool would THAT be?; June 15, 2012 at 11:55 PM
Carlyle said...: Mario -

Earlier at June 10, 2012 7:47 PM, I asked a couple of questions hoping to get some right answers.

You didn't respond, I'm hoping you just missed seeing them. They could become very important.; June 15, 2012 at 11:57 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: “The very essence of a natural born citizen is that he or she becomes a citizen ‘at once’ upon birth, and not at some time later.” This is what Obama argues and Dr. Conspiracy and some courts have accepted as the definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

And then we have more from Dr. Conspiracy’s blog:

“The problem you have is you believe the 14th Amendment created a new class of citizens (14th Amendment citizens) that is not the understanding of the court. If you are a citizen by birth in the US, you are natural born period.” Gorefan.

Here is more:

“The 14th Amendment refined Article II, Section 1 by spelling out definitively that there are two types of American citizens, and only two: born citizens and naturalized citizens. Born citizens can become President, naturalized citizens cannot become president . . . . There is no distinction in law that has ever been drawn between a Citizen of the United States at birth and a natural born citizen..” Jamese777

That this “born Citizen” definition is not correct can be proven very easily. A basic rule of constitutional construction is that we have to give meaning to every word in the Constitution. If the presidential eligibility clause said “born Citizen,” this proposed definition would also define that clause. What this means is that the proposed definition does not account for the word “natural” which qualifies “born Citizen.” The error that these commentators commit is in breaking the word or art, the idiom, “natural born Citizen,” into pieces and trying to define it by those parts. This is error because the word “natural born Citizen” as a unitary clause has only and only one definition that has ever exited and that is a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. So, we can easily see that Obama, Dr. Conspiracy, gorefan, and Jamese777 are wrong.; June 16, 2012 at 12:15 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: The pathetic Frank Bailey is back. He has nothing intelligent to offer, only his and Reality Check's silly bets.; June 16, 2012 at 12:34 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Carlyle,

You asked:

“What do you think is the proper NBC categorization for someone who is, either:

1. Born off-soil, to non-citizen parents, but is immediately adopted into the US by citizen parents?

2. Born on-soil to citizen parents, but is immediately adopted out of the US by non-citizen parents? Especially, should they resurface later and become a US citizen. Could they then say they were/are a NBC?”

1. Not NBC. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875). Adoption is an act of positive law and not of nature. No one can acquire “natural born Citizen” status by positive law alone. It must be both inherited from natural parents (“citizen” parents) and acquired by positive law (place of birth). While an adopted child’s birth certificate lists the adopted U.S. parents as the only parents the child comes to know, the birth certificate still lists the child’s foreign country of birth. Alienage is acquired from birth in a foreign country.

2. Not NBC with a qualification. Again, the child’s birth certificate would have as the place of birth the United States, but it would also list as the parents two aliens. The child would not come to know his or her U.S. citizen parents. The child would be reared by aliens in a foreing country. That person would under normal circumstances not know that he or she was at birth a “natural born Citizen” and therefore would surely not act and think like one. That adopted person could later make a valid Elg claim for “natural born Citizen” status if he or she could prove birth in the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents.

In Perkins v Elg, 307 U. S. 325 (1939), the Court said that a U.S-born citizen who later in life acquires another nationality through acts of the parents (making that person a dual national) does not lose his/her U.S. citizenship by that act alone. The Court said that, in the absence of some qualifying voluntary affirmative act by the child, treaty, or Congressional Act, children do not lose their U.S. birthright citizenship simply because their parents in later years and when the children are minors cause them to acquire some other nationality. The Elg Court acted to protect a U.S. born child's right of election as to what nationality he or she wants to be, a right that it said belongs to the child upon reaching the age of majority. So, what the Court said is that a “citizen of the United States” who is a minor will not lose that status simply because the child’s parents might do some act causing that minor to acquire another citizenship. The natural parents causing that child to acquire some other nationality by way giving that child for adoption to aliens would fall within that category of acts which would not cut off that child’s right of election to maintain his or her U.S. citizenship which right the child needs to exercise upon reaching the age of majority.

With such proof that the person was really born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents, the person could successfully argue that “natural born Citizen” status is unalienable by anyone other than the holder of the status who acquires it at birth. Under such circumstances and satisfying the age and residence requirements, while that person could technically be eligible to be President, the voters would have to weigh the impact on that person of his or her life experiences being raised by alien parents in a foreign country.; June 16, 2012 at 1:50 AM
Andy said...: @Mario

Lovely citing as caselaw, unfortunately, you failed to cite the caselaw that actually refutes what I said. None of these distinguish between those born here of alien parents, and those born here of citizen parents.

1) Is this caselaw? Provide the courts opinion in the matter, please.

2) Irrelevant, as the concurring opinion is not the most prevalent, and most importantly, because the majority opinion shows that when one is domiciled in a foreign country for an indefinite amount of time, they take on the national character of that country. (As would their children born there, one could suppose.)

3) Actually, the court never determined that he was born in the United States - he was born in New York around the time that that British controlled it. And they recognized that he had a right to American Citizenship if he would have affirmed it at the age of majority.

4) Not quite. The actual quote is:
"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." Is this the same national character that The Venus cited? We won't know because he was an American citizen, as well.

5) Concurring opinion - and one that declares that the plaintiff is property.

6) The Court found in Wong Kim Ark that the Court in the Slaughterhouse Cases did not mean to exclude children of aliens.

7) What the Minor Court doesn't say means nothing. The Court never stated that children follow the condition of their parents. You are misquoting and distorting the ruling, Mario.

8) Can't find the text of the opinion, so no discussion.

9) Can't find the text of the opinion, so no discussion.

10) Can't find the text of the opinion, so no discussion.

Since you accuse me of lying again, Mario, please do explain what your practice was before your "birther" cases.

My goal is not to prove you wrong, Mario. The courts have already done so on numerous occasions. My hope is to eventually persuade you that you are distorting and misquoting what the courts have said. I'll keep at it though, because I know under all of the "birther" stuff is a rational, well-educated person. We just have to let him come to the front.

(I also find it strange that you are responding to posts that you don't let through moderation. That doesn't speak well of you.); June 16, 2012 at 4:09 AM
MichaelN said...: Well it's quite straight forward.

If one is a minor child (WHERE EVER born) of an alien and dwelling in the US when daddy gets naturalized, then that child is also NATURALIZED TO THE SAME EXTENT as daddy.

i.e. as a "citizen of the United States" NOT a "natural born Citizen".

"United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790)."

"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 citizens of the United States."; June 16, 2012 at 9:23 AM
Doublee said...: I just received a copy of the book The Original Constitution, What it Actually Said and Meant by Robert G. Natelson. According to his brief bio he "is one of America's best known constitutional scholars... He is now Senior Fellow in Constitutional Jurisprudence at the Independence Institute in Golden, Colorado."

I begin with a quote from his web site:

Lawyers are not necessarily historians, and sometimes it shows.

So despite the obvious importance of deducing what the Constitution really meant, legal writers attempting to do so often have reached conclusions based on astonishingly few sources. And very often they misinterpret the sources they do use. Among the malefactors, alas, are some Supreme Court justices and contributors to the nation’s most prestigious law reviews.
http://constitution.i2i.org/sources-for-constitutional-scholars/

On page 127 of his book he gives us the definition of natural born citizen.

Most importantly, the President and Vice President had to be natural-born citizens or citizens at the time of the ratification. We know exactly what the Founders meant by the phrase “natural born citizen” because they adapted it from the British legal term “natural born subject,” which in Britain defined one who could serve on Parliament or the Privy Council. Essentially, a natural born citizen was one who met either of two requirements. First, a person qualified if born within the United States or within American territory, even if the person’s parents were aliens. Alternatively, an individual qualified even if born outside the country if the individual’s father was an American citizen and not then engaged in traitorous or felonious activities.

These birth and residence requirements were designed better to assure that these officers were truly “sympathetic” to those they were to govern and to guard against the risk that they might be “sympathetic” to a foreign power.” [Emphasis added]

My question for Mr. Natelson:

Can a person who is raised in a household of foreign born parents who are not citizens be free of foreign influences?

It seems to me that this is what concerned John Jay in his letter to George Washington, July 25, 1787 in which he "hinted" that the president should be a natural born citizen.; June 16, 2012 at 10:05 AM
js said...: Did the Fla. case document the fact that BHO was born with British Citizenship?; June 16, 2012 at 10:10 AM
Carlyle said...: Mario -

Thank you so much for your extensive replies to my NBC scenarios.

However, I think there is a considerable opportunity for confusion. What records do States keep on adoptees? What remain official and subpoena-able and which remain permanently hidden? Are not these matters determined by each State?

And yet the definition and application of the concept of NBC must be consistent at the National level.

I am highly suspicious that The Truth about The Obama is lodged firmly somewhere in this particular quagmire.; June 16, 2012 at 10:28 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I just noticed this gem. This is how pro-Obama commentator “Jim” (internet I.D.) quotes
Luria v. United States, 231 U. S. 9 (1913):

”Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; 22 U. S. 827."

This is what Luria really said:

“Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827. "

Notice how Jim left off the case name Minor v. Happersett and only included its volume and page citations. Such a citation does not alert the reader to the importance of Minor. Only if one actually looks up the volume and page citations will one learn that they refer to Minor and that our U.S. Supreme Court in 1913 actually cited to Minor on a question related to presidential eligibilty.; June 16, 2012 at 1:39 PM
jayjay said...: Puzo1:

Kevin Davisdon (Dr. Conspiracy) on his blog is up to his old tricks and tries to use the wording of Obama's legal defense team in Voeltz v. Obama in the FL challenge case to declare Minor null and void by including their words from the action so far:

"contrary to the Plaintiff’s characterization, Minor did not exclusively define "’natural-born" citizen’ as ‘all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.’" Indeed, the court expressly left open the question of whether a child born to alien parents is a "natural born citizen" because it was not necessary to the disposition of the case." followed by Kevin's comments -
"The problem birthers have understanding this is that they think the court defined “natural born citizen” but left open the question of “citizenship.” This interpretation makes no sense in the context of the entire paragraph, but birthers are not big on understanding context when it goes against them."

If you read this not even carefully I think you'll see the protypical misstatement of the OOPS Troops (which now seem to inclde not only the "classical" obots such as K. D., but the - probably - taxpayer paid defense lawyers).

Ain't life grand; June 16, 2012 at 2:16 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: “Verba a liquid operari debent; debent intellegi ut aliquid operantur.” This is translated to mean: “Words ought to have some operation; they ought to be interpreted in such a way as to have some operation.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1396 (5th ed. 1979).

Or,

“Verba a liquid operari debent; verba cum effectu sunt accipienda.” Words are to be taken so as to have effect.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1396 (5th ed. 1979).

See also, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803), in which Chief Justice Marshall said: “It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and, therefore, such a construction is inadmissible…” Indeed, Chief Justice Marshall told us that we have to give meaning and effect to every word the framers wrote in the Constitution.

Now apply these maxims and case law to the Obot thesis that “natural born Citizen” is any “born Citizen.”

What ever happened to the word “natural” which is clearly a part of the unitary clause “natural born Citizen?” The Obots simply do not give any “operation” or “effect” or meaning to the word. In the Obot world of “natural born Citizen,” the constitutional word “natural” just simply disappears and is never heard from again. Is this what the Founders and Framers intended with the clause which provides the most important part of eligibility for the President and Commander in Chief of the Military? I think not. They could have written “born Citizen.” But they wrote “natural born Citizen.” Should we not give meaning to the word “natural” as they intended?; June 16, 2012 at 3:00 PM
Andy said...: @Mario

Please make note that he said "clause" and not "word."

And, as was noted in Wong Kim Ark, "natural born citizen" is a reference to the English Common law of "natural born subject." Just because you won't recognize that fact doesn't take it's meaning away.

The Court found that relationship quite compelling, as have more recent courts.; June 16, 2012 at 3:03 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Doublee,

First, Robert G. Natelson's book is published post-Obama eligibility controversy. Hence, we have to be careful as to why Natelson treats the subject matter the way he does.

Second, I think the more important question to ask is what historical sources or case law does Natelson cite to support his definition of a "natural born Citizen." Can you take a look in his book that you have and provide those sources here? That would be very much appreciated by all of us. After all, without providing any such sources, Natelson's opinion is just his personal opinion which does not really carry any weight.; June 16, 2012 at 3:11 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Andy,

So what.; June 16, 2012 at 3:22 PM
Andy said...: @Mario

You're arguing that it would have been easier for our founders to have removed the word "natural" from the eligibility clause if they wanted to make all those born here eligible.

I was just pointing out that since they were all familiar with the English Common Law, having lived with it, and in the case of the lawyers, argued with it, using the analogous phrase "natural born citizen" for "natural born subject" should have been perfectly clear.; June 16, 2012 at 3:33 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Andy,

Your reliance on the English “natural born subject” clause is nothing more than your effort to boot strap your “born Citizen” definition into becoming the “natural born Citizen” definition.

But you fail to present any historical evidence which links the “natural born Citizen” clause to the “natural born subject” clause. Other than Wong Kim Ark, which does not support your thesis in any event, provide here what your evidence is linking the two clauses together.; June 16, 2012 at 3:49 PM
cfkerchner said...: The preeminent constitutional scholar, historian, and attorney Dr. Herb Titus explains the true meaning the founders and framers intended, i.e., the natural law meaning of the legal term of art, "natural born Citizen of the United States":
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/05/02/herb-titus-constituional-scholar-and-attorney-corrects-bret-baier-of-fox-news-on-natural-born-citizen-definition/

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
ProtectOurLiberty.org; June 16, 2012 at 4:56 PM
cfkerchner said...: The historical and legal record shows that the founders and framers considered the legal term a "born Citizen" suggested by Hamilton and instead chose the more restrictive natural law legal term a "natural born Citizen". See the details here:
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

The author of that new book needs to heed his own advice and study the true history and source and intent of the natural born Citizen clause in Article II Section 1. The author is obviously steeped in the Fabian Society progressive era version of U.S. constitutional history, i.e. post circa 1880 rather than the true meaning of the term in the SCOTUS case of Minor v Happersett decided in 1875. Any books written in the last 50 years need to be looked at carefully since the progressives have been trying to get around the constitution by changing the meaning of words and clauses since they have been unable to successfully amend Article II Section 1's natural born
Citizen clause, and they have tried to several times. See the above links for examples of such tries. The progressive, fascist Obots in this blog are trying to do the same thing. Change the meaning of words to what they want them to mean today instead of interpreting them they way the meant when the Constitution was written and in the preeminent legal treatise of that era, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law by Emer de Vattel.

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
ProtectOurLiberty.org; June 16, 2012 at 5:08 PM
Andy said...: @Mario
Part 1 of 1

Well, we can take it from a Founder, if you'd like:

“It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States; it will therefore be unnecessary to investigate any other.”

James Madison, The Founders' Constitution (1789)

Or from a writer at the time:

“It is an established maxim, received by all political writers, that every person owes a natural allegiance to the government of that country in which he is born. Allegiance is defined to be a tie, that binds the subject to the state, and in consequence of his obedience, he is entitled to protection" [emphasis added]

and…

"The children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects, and have the same rights with the rest of the citizens.”

Zephaniah SwiftA System of Laws of the State of Connecticut (1795)

Or some commentaries on our laws:

"A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”

(And just for kickers, though not natural born subject related:)

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted) is a happy means of security against foreign influence…"

St. George Tucker Blackstone's Commentaries (1803); June 16, 2012 at 6:04 PM
Andy said...: Part 2 of 2

“And if, at common law, all human beings born within the ligeance of the King, and under the King’s obedience, were natural-born subjects, and not aliens, I do not perceive why this doctrine does not apply to these United States, in all cases in which there is no express constitutional or statute declaration to the contrary" [emphasis added]

and

"Subject and citizen are, in a degree, convertible terms as applied to natives, and though the term citizen seems to be appropriate to republican freemen, yet we are, equally with the inhabitants of all other countries, subjects, for we are equally bound by allegiance and subjection to the government and law of the land.” [emphasis added]

James Kent, Commentaries on American Law (1826)

"Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. It is an error to suppose, as some (and even so great a mind as Locke) have done, that a child is born a citizen of no country and subject of no government, and that be so continues till the age of discretion, when he is at liberty to put himself under what government he pleases. How far the adult possesses this power will hereafter be considered, but surely it would be unjust both to the state and to the infant, to withhold the quality of the citizen until those years of discretion were attained. Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us."

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1829)

And a case from the time:

"The country where one is born, how accidental soever his birth in that place may have been, and although his parents belong to another country, is that to which he owes allegiance. Hence the expression natural born subject or citizen, & all the relations thereout growing. To this there are but few exceptions, and they are mostly introduced by statutes and treaty regulations, such as the children of seamen and ambassadors born abroad, and the like.”

Leake v. Gilchrist, 13 N.C. 73 (N.C. 1829)

But you would argue that they couldn't be confused, right?

“It requires all senators to be thirty years old, and prohibits any but a natural born subject from being president.”

State v. Foreman, 16 Tenn. 256, 335-36 (1835)

"[A]nd that no person except a natural born subject can be a governor of a State, or President of the United Stats."

The Law Library, Vol. 84, pg. 50 (1854)

“The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, ‘a natural-born citizen.’ It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth.”

Justice Curtis, dissenting, Dredd Scott, v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857); June 16, 2012 at 6:04 PM
MichaelN said...: Andy.

You keep spinning around.

It is impossible for it to be the English "common law" which the Minor court was referring to.

If to the SCOTUS generally, "natural born Citizen" was derived from the English common law's "natural born subject" which was supposed to hold that native-birth sufficed to make a "natural born subject", then why would the SCOTUS in the Minor court introduce and recognize doubts if native-birth alone was sufficient to make a citizen?????

Why would the SCOTUS acknowledge the doubts to have merit and were yet to be solved????

Any, you keep wandering off down the track as if the SCOTUS believed and held that native-birth sufficed to make a "natural born Citizen" and that this has it's basis in the English common law, when CLEARLY it DOES NOT, according the SCOTUS.; June 16, 2012 at 6:14 PM
Andy said...: @Mario

And yet the SCOTUS spends quite a few pages in the Wong Kim Ark decision doing that - stating that the English Common Law was the source.

Why would the SCOTUS acknowledge doubts? Because Minor's citizenship wasn't even a question in the 1875 ruling. The court said so itself:

"The question is presented in this case, whether, since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, a woman, who is a citizen of the United States and of the State of Missouri, is a voter in that State, notwithstanding the provision of the constitution and laws of the State, which confine the right of suffrage to men alone. We might, perhaps, decide the case upon other grounds, but this question is fairly made. From the opinion we find that it was the only one decided in the court below, and it is the only one which has been argued here. The case was undoubtedly brought to this court for the sole purpose of having that question decided by us, and in view of the evident propriety there is of having it settled, so far as it can be by such a decision, we have concluded to waive all other considerations and proceed at once to its determination."

They glossed over her citizenship very quickly, with a nod to the 14th Amendment, and one to the Common Law. They did spend a lot of time on political theory, though, holding that suffrage was not a right granted by the Constitution and guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

Given the state of the English Common Law, were there ever doubts about someone born here of citizen parents? The Courts answer, "no."

Does the English Common Law have any doubts about "children born…without reference to the citizenship of their parents?" Not really, but as you've pointed out, there may have been some disagreement by their sources, especially since they seem to be quoting a non-English book, thinking it the common law.

Now, my questions for you, Mario.

You have this thesis that there was an "American Common Law." Given than the Constitution was written before the United States was here, how could the "framers of the Constitution" be familiar with the "nomenclature" of an "American Common Law" that didn't exist yet?

Why do you call the "natural-born citizenship" part of the opinion as holding, when it wasn't a question before the court?; June 16, 2012 at 6:55 PM
Andy said...: @Mario

How is supporting my argument "spinning?"

What do you have on your side to over-ride Wong Kim Ark?; June 16, 2012 at 6:56 PM
js said...: Omission is a lie Andy. Thats probably why he considers your arguement "spinning".

Are you that naive?; June 16, 2012 at 9:21 PM
Doublee said...: @Mario, June 16, 3:11 P.M.

Re: The Original Constitution

Robert Natelson has no references for his definition of natural born citizen. There is a bibliography for each chapter. For chapter 7, where the definition of natural born citizen is found, he has notes referencing books regarding the “vesting clause,” but no notes regarding NBC.

I did note that the two editions of his book were copyrighted in 2010 and 2011.; June 16, 2012 at 9:57 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Doublee,

Natelson said: “So despite the obvious importance of deducing what the Constitution really meant, legal writers attempting to do so often have reached conclusions based on astonishingly few sources. And very often they misinterpret the sources they do use. Among the malefactors, alas, are some Supreme Court justices and contributors to the nation’s most prestigious law reviews.
http://constitution.i2i.org/sources-for-constitutional-scholars/

Most importantly, the President and Vice President had to be natural-born citizens or citizens at the time of the ratification. We know exactly what the Founders meant by the phrase “natural born citizen” because they adapted it from the British legal term “natural born subject,” which in Britain defined one who could serve on Parliament or the Privy Council. Essentially, a natural born citizen was one who met either of two requirements. First, a person qualified if born within the United States or within American territory, even if the person’s parents were aliens. Alternatively, an individual qualified even if born outside the country if the individual’s father was an American citizen and not then engaged in traitorous or felonious activities.”

You said after checking his book a copy of which is in your possession: “Robert Natelson has no references for his definition of natural born citizen.”

Now is that not just disgusting. Here, he is telling us that one needs “sources” to support one’s position. He says that “[w]e know exactly what the Founders meant by the phrase “natural born citizen” because they adapted it from the British legal term “natural born subject.” But he makes such a sweeping and outlanding claim about what a “natural born Citizen” is without providing one single source.

So much for Professor Natelson. “Another one bites the dust. And another one down . . . "; June 16, 2012 at 11:14 PM
MichaelN said...: Andy said ....

"And yet the SCOTUS spends quite a few pages in the Wong Kim Ark decision doing that - stating that the English Common Law was the source."

No it doesn't say it's the "source".

It says "it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution."

It doesn't even say "English" in the first instance.

The US Constitution must be interpreted "in light" of A LOT MORE than the English common law.

From Wong Kim Ark case...

"The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States."

In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162; Ex parte Wilson, 114 U. S. 417, 114 U. S. 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 624, 116 U. S. 625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. Kent Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States, 91 U. S. 270, 91 U. S. 274."; June 16, 2012 at 11:27 PM
cfkerchner said...: Mario,

The Natelson book looks like another disinformation book like the Woodman book. Woodman claims to be a Tea Party Conservative Republican. What a joke. It's almost as bad as ... "Hi, I'm from the government and I'm here to help you and the other two big whoppers". And Natelson is claimed to be this renowned constitutional expert. He tells people to do the research and cite historical sources and intent in regards to the Constitution and doesn't do any such things himself. It appears both their books (written post Obama's unconstitutional and illegal assension to the Oval Office) were written and commissioned with an agenda and a mission to spread disinformation and misinformation to help the Obama fraud and cover up. The network behind Obama will go to any length and spend any amount of money to protect Obama and keep the truth of the fraud in chief from being revealed to the world and to confuse the masses. Many such writings have been done by the progressive academic type in an effort to change original intent and meaning to suit their political agenda ... in both political parties. Both major political parties want to ignore Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and both have tried to change the meaning of NBC instead of tackling the amending of the constitution the legal way, if they can. They know they cannot. The people won't allow it once they know the true purpose of the NBC clause, a national security clause. Thus both parties have been trying to do an end run around it. but the disinformation and misinformation campaign is in a full court press the last few years. The Natelson book is a prime example, it appears.; June 16, 2012 at 11:43 PM
Unknown said...: “The term ‘citizen’ was used in the Constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the Constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common-law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President: ‘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.’ etc. The only standard which then existed of a natural born citizen was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since.” Lynch v. Clarke, (1844) 1 Sandf. Ch. (N. Y.) 656.

Senator Howard of Michigan, who authored the citizenship provision of the Fourteenth Amendment stated:

“This amendment [the Citizenship Clause] which I have offered is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is…a citizen of the United States.”

Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, p. 2890.

If the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was consistent with the Constitution as originally written, then it appears to me the common law standard the court recognized in Clark relative to a natural born citizen is still in effect because a different standard was not adopted with the ratification of the Amendment. If it had been, then Senator Howard could not have made that statement.

Since the Framers were designing a system of government that eliminated Kings and subjects, it is inconceivable that English common law would be the standard used to establish the qualifications to be President of the United States.; June 17, 2012 at 2:56 AM
bdwilcox said...: "The Natelson book looks like another disinformation book like the Woodman book. Woodman claims to be a Tea Party Conservative Republican. What a joke."

Commander Kerchner, don't you know that when John Woodmouse was born he was wrapped in a swaddling cloth made from the American flag, then went on to name his first daughter Betsy and his first son Ross? He's not only a computer expert, he's also a graphics expert, a documents expert, a legal expert, a historian, a researcher, an author AND a Constitutional scholar. Oh, and at night he puts on a cape and fights crime in the city, as well. (his cape is, of course, made from the American flag).

Perhaps Robert Natelson is his sidekick and together they make up the dynamic duo called "The Stars and Stripes" as they fight for truth, justice and the American way (insert American flag waving in the background)...

Woodmouse forgets the first rule of creating a legend. If you make it too perfect, it's not believable. You'd think his handler would have stopped him from making such an amateurish mistake. Nonetheless, his phony history is laughable.; June 17, 2012 at 3:30 AM