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 601 – 740 of 740 Newer› Newest»

Andy said...: @js

And what did I omit?; June 17, 2012 at 4:10 AM
James said...: I wish Herb Titus would testify at the Klayman Florida Ballot Challenge.He would make a fine expert witness on NBC since he is Constitutional professor as well as an attorney. Courts just love to make judgements based on “unrefuted Expert Testimony”.; June 17, 2012 at 1:26 PM
jayjay said...: Andy: (and others of similar intgelligence)

You omitted common sense and reading comprehension.

Please tell everyone where you find in English Common Law the use of the term "natural born Citizen" as used the single time in the Constitution.

Specifically, THAT'S what you omitted!!; June 17, 2012 at 2:11 PM
MichaelN said...: @ Andy.

You might also like to show where the US provides for temporary citizenship of alien visitors, so that if the aliens produce a native-born child, then the child can be "born under the ligeance of a citizen" and thus be a "natural born Citizen".

According to English common law,native-birth was not enough for one to be an English "natural born subject".

The English common law held that one necessarily had to be born "under the ligeance of a subject", to be a "natural born subject".

If the father was not a subject, then a child of that person could not be a subject, even though native-born.

Oh and maybe you might cite the specific text from the WKA case where the court states that the "English common law was the source" of the unique term of art, i.e. "natural born Citizen".; June 17, 2012 at 4:50 PM
Andy said...: @Michael

I love how you ask for sources, but don't provide any of your own. What is your source of "in the ligeance of a subject?"

My comment of "source" was that it was the "source" of the idea of natural born. This was a discussion with Mario about the English Common Law.

Please do keep up with the conversation, so you don't get lost again.; June 17, 2012 at 5:46 PM
Andy said...: @JayJay

If you have nothing but childish attacks, and aren't going to make historical or legal arguments, then you're presence here is pointless.

The term natural born citizen doesn't appear in the English Common Law, but as you can see from the sources I've provided, it is considered to have come from "natural born subject" which was in the English Common Law.

Where do you find the term "House of Representatives" anywhere in Common Law as it is in the Constitution? Nowhere that I know of, but that doesn't mean it was invented from whole cloth. The framers were well aware of the idea of "representation" before, and thus took an existing idea and improved upon it. Why is that so hard for you to acknowledge?; June 17, 2012 at 5:50 PM
Andy said...: @MichaelN

Nevermind, I found the source that you failed to provide.

It's amazing how you misunderstand the English Language.

First, we're talking about hostile forces, which the common law obviously stated would not create a natural born subject.

Second, they aren't referring to being "under ligeance to a subject" but "of a subject," meaning being being under the power of the King. (The great indicator is the full text, with the discussion of ligeance.)

It should also be pointed out that jus soli rules the day in Calvin's Case. (Which should have tipped you off that it doesn't agree with you.); June 17, 2012 at 5:59 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of III

Andy,

(1) Your reliance on the James Madison quote to prove the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is misplaced. “Mr. Smith founds his claim upon his birthright; his ancestors were among the first settlers of that colony." The last part of the quote has to be included because it goes to recognize that Madison did not only look to place of birth but also to parentage. He acknowledged that both place of birth and parentage are forces which produce allegiance. Why do you cut off important parts of quotes? Second, William Smith, who was running for the House of Representatives, only needed to be a “Citizen of the United States” for seven years under Article I, Section 2, not a “natural born Citizen.” With South Carolina not having any laws on the matter, Madison resolved the question of Smith’s citizenship upon “principles of a general nature” “established by the revolution” and not the English common law. State citizenship was not national citizenship after the Constitution was passed. The universal principles used by Madison were replaced with Congress’s naturalization laws. The Naturalization Act of 1790, 1795, and 1802 abrogated all English common law in any of the states. The James McClure 1811 citizenship case confirms that our national law on national citizenship changed and preempted any state laws when it came to defining national citizenship. States could only continue to define state citizenship, but not national citizenship. These Congressional Acts show that mere birth in the United States was no longer sufficient to make anyone a “”Citizen of the United States,” let alone a “natural born Citizen.”

(2) Regarding St. George Tucker Blackstone's Commentaries (1803), that quote is not his. Before, Obots were leaving off the first part of the quote to misrepresent that it was Tucker himself who was saying those words. I caught the Obots in the lie and so now they are compelled to include the first part of the quote which shows that it is a “very respectable political writer” that Tucker is quoting. The reference in the quote of this other person to citizenship before the constitution was adopted has nothing to do with the whole purpose of why Tucker quotes from this political writer. The issue that Tucker was addressing was whether the states had any power left to naturalize persons after giving that power to Congress in the Constitution. You cannot point to anything in Tucker’s Commentaries which suggest that Tucker adopted the definition of that “political writer” regarding how citizenship was defined before the constitution was adopted. On the contrary, Tucker said that the civil right to be elected President belonged only to the children born to “citizen” parents who inherited that right from those “citizen” parents. See my ongoing debate with John Woodman regarding the McClure case at http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/06/birther-bust-bombshell-prominent-legal-expert-st-george-tucker-directly-refutes-mario-apuzzos-crank-natural-born-citizen-claim/

(3) Regarding your quote of Justice Curtis’ dissenting opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857), he said:

“ ‘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.’

19 How. 576. And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.”

Continued . . .; June 17, 2012 at 6:28 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of III

Note that in your quote you left off the last part of what Justice Gray said: “And, to this extent, no different opinion was expressed or intimated by any of the other judges.” Again, why do you leave off parts of quotes? This part of the quote is important because it shows that Justice Gray misrepresents the Dred Scott decision. He says that no other justice on the Court disagreed with Justice Curtis. But his is not true. On the contrary, this is what Justice Daniels said on the definition of a “natural born citizen.” Justice Daniels concurring cites Vattel and The Law of Nations and provides his definition of natural born citizens and takes out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively, stated:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.” Again: I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Id. at 476-77. So we can see that Justice Daniels, in the majority but concurring, relying upon Vattel and the law of nations, surely did not express the same rule of citizenship as did Justice Curtis.

(4) Regarding Zephaniah Swift A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut (1795), Swift did nothing more than tell us what the law of the state of Connecticut was on citizenship. State laws on citizenship could produce only state citizenship, but not national citizenship. Note that Swift did not even use the correct term for citizenship which clearly the Constitution calls “natural born Citizen,” not “natural born subject.” Swift’s use of the clause “natural born subject” shows that he was dealing only with state citizenship and not national citizenship.

(5) Regarding your other sources James Kent, Commentaries on American Law (1826), William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States (1829), and the other state law cases that you cited, they are far from conclusive.

First, your sources are not very convincing. The major problem that your reliance upon such sources is that none of these sources are very close to the Founding like St. George Tucker, for example. So they are not a Founding source within their own right. Not themselves being founding source, they have to provide links to the Founding for their opinion to be convincing. But those sources fail to provide any link to the Founders or Founding era which supports what they wrote. All these commentators or courts simply give us their personal opinion without any evidence from the Founding era or shortly thereafter which supports their definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

Continued . . .; June 17, 2012 at 6:29 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: III of III

Second, so you have “some authorities” that suggest that birth in the country alone, without reference to the citizenship of the parents, is enough to make a “citizen.” How do you overcome what a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court Court (9 Supreme Court justices) said in Minor v. Happersett, after saying that:

“[a]t 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,” 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.”

Minor told us that despite what these “other authorities” advocated, “there have been doubts” whether they were correct. Minor confirmed what a “natural-born citizen” was, born in a country to “citizen” parents. So anything that these “other authorities” said did not go to establishing what a “natural-born citizen” was. If anything, according to Minor, these “other authorities” opinions only went to establishing whether a child born in the country to alien parents could be a “citizen.” And we know that under Wong Kim Ark, that question was answered in the affirmative with the Court holding that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Unlike Minor which did not need the Fourteenth Amendment to find Virginia Minor to be not only a “citizen” but also a “natural-born citizen,” Wong had to resort to that amendment and its “subject to the jurisdiction” clause which provides a relaxed standard for Fourteenth Amendment birthright citizenship (Fourteenth Amendment birthright citizenship whose member is called “citizen of the United States,” which is not to be conflated and confounded with Article II birthright citizenship whose member is called “natural born Citizen”). As you see, Wong never reached the “natural born Citizen” question because Minor had confirmed that children born in the country to alien parents could not hold that “perfect citizenship” (St. George Tucker) status. The only hope for citizenship for those children was the Fourteenth Amendment and it “citizen of the United States” status.

I thought that you would have presented something out of Wong Kim Ark which would have provided the evidential link between a “natural born Citizen” and a “natural born subject” but I see that you did not find anything in that opinion to help you. You have provided some source, but as I have shown these sources also do not provide any evidence that the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” the same as the English common law defined a “natural born subject.”

All this, along with other evidence that I have presented, shows that a “natural born Citizen” did not take its meaning from a “natural born subject,” but rather had a meaning all of its own which I have shown came from antiquity and was handed down through the ages as part of natural law and the law of nations which we adopted at the Founding as part of American “common law.” Under that American “common law” which was acknowledged and confirmed in Minor and Wong Kim Ark, the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” was a child born in a country to citizen parents. So we can see that the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” (not to be conflated and confounded with a Wong Kim Ark Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from birth) does not come from the English common law “natural born subject.”; June 17, 2012 at 6:30 PM
MichaelN said...: Puzo1 said ...

"This part of the quote is important because it shows that Justice Gray misrepresents the Dred Scott decision."

Seems like Justice Horace Gray liked to fiddle with what went on in the courts, when he wrote the opinions.

"Gray is well known for his decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co.

This case was heard twice, though only the second hearing resulted in a decision; THE JUSTICES, FEELING THAT THE OPINIONS WRITTEN HAD NOT ADEQUATELY EXPLAINED THEIR VIEW OF THE SITUATION(the case was about the constitutionality of a national income tax), WISHED TO REHEAR THE CASE.

After the first hearing, Gray wrote that he sided with the defendant (Farmer's Loan & Trust), arguing that the tax was indeed constitutional.

He was in the minority, however.

After the second hearing, Gray changed his stance, joining with the majority in favor of the plaintiff.

He chose not to write a dissenting or concurring opinion, in either hearing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horace_Gray; June 17, 2012 at 6:53 PM
Doublee said...: Re: The Original Constitution by Robert G. Natelson.

I should have also mentioned that the book was published by the Tenth Amendment Center.

I go to their web site quite frequently to get their take on constitutional issues. It would be interesting to know if they support Natelson's definition of natural born citizen.; June 17, 2012 at 7:31 PM
MichaelN said...: More from James Madison....

James Madison, House of Representatives
22 May 1789Papers 12:179--82

"What was the situation of the people of America when the dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence?

I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign:

If he was not a minor, he became bound by his own act as a member of the society who separated with him from a submission to a foreign country.

IF HE WAS A MINOR, HIS CONSENT WAS INVOLVED IN THE DECISION OF WHAT SOCIETY TO WHICH HE BELONGED BY THE TIES OF NATURE."

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html; June 17, 2012 at 7:49 PM
MichaelN said...: Andy said...

"@Michael

I love how you ask for sources, but don't provide any of your own. What is your source of "in the ligeance of a subject?" "
----------------------

Then you are really gonna love this Andy.

Lord Coke (Calvin's case)

"And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 NEITHER THE CLIMATE NOR THE SOYL, but ligeantia and obedientia THAT MAKE THE SUBJECT BORN: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is NO SUBJECT to the King of England, THOUGH HE BE BORN UPON HIS SOYL, and under his meridian, for that HE WAS NOT BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT, nor under the protection of the King."

and this from Coke...

"There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.

1. That the PARENTS, be under the actual obedience of the king.

2. That the PLACE of his birth be within the king’s dominion.

And 3. the TIME of his birth is chiefly to be considered;

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27; June 17, 2012 at 8:02 PM
MichaelN said...: Andy said
"My comment of "source" was that it was the "source" of the idea of natural born. This was a discussion with Mario about the English Common Law.

Please do keep up with the conversation, so you don't get lost again."

Response:
I am not lost at all Andy..... never was.

Ok now Andy, you cite precisely where the SCOTUS in the WKA court stated and explained in all the voluminous pages that the Framers got the "idea" for their unique term of art, i.e. "natural born Citizen", (which is intended to describe highest allegiance to a republic)from English common law.

You were exaggerating weren't you Andy.

The fact is that SCOTUS never said that the English common law was the source or that the Framers got the "idea" for the unique term of art, i.e. "natural born Citizen" which has no precedent or example to be found ANYWHERE in the English common law.

But since you keep insisting that English common law was somehow the "source" of the "idea", then it's only proper that it should be pointed-out to you, in your ignorance, that the English common law generally REQUIRES, PRIMARILY and ESSENTIALLY birth "under the ligeance of subject" PARENT for one to be a "natural born subject", and the place of birth is a secondary quality.

Coke (Calvin's case)

"The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, BUT ANY PLACE WITHIN THE KING'S DOMINIONS WITHOUT OBEDIENCE CAN NEVER PRODUCE A NATURAL SUBJECT.

And therefore if any of the king’s Ambassadors in forein Nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the Common Laws of England they are natural born subjects, and yet they are born out of the king’s dominions."; June 17, 2012 at 8:25 PM
MichaelN said...: Andy said .....

"First, we're talking about hostile forces, which the common law obviously stated would not create a natural born subject."

Andy you still don't get it, or you are pretending and acting dumb.

The POINT IS, that if the father was not a "subject" then his child could not be a subject, even if native-born.

It doesn't matter nor does it make any difference as to why or how the father is, or is not a subject.

The English embraced as "subjects" almost everyone within the dominion of the king, temporary or permanent, save a few hostiles and diplomats and clergy.

As "subjects", their children could be subjects also, but not because of how or why the parents became subjects, but BECAUSE they were subjects...... get it?

The US does NOT embrace as "citizens" almost everyone within US sovereignty by virtue of their presence, i.e. aliens to US must state an intention to immigrate, apply for US citizenship, gain approval and acceptance and swear an oath of allegiance, renouncing any other allegiances.

So if "subject" and "citizen" are analogous, then to be consistent, for a native-born child to be a US "natural born Citizen", the child would have to be "born under the ligeance" of a citizen.; June 17, 2012 at 8:51 PM
MichaelN said...: The Wong Kim Ark case was ONLY EVER about "citizen of the United States" and had NOTHING to do with Article II "natural born Citizen" eligibility for the office of POTUS.

From Leo Donofrio...

"Here’s the final holding of the case:

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties, were to present for determination the single question .. whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States…becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.

This is the core holding of the case.

It states that only one question is presented: whether the child is a citizen.

The single question presented is NOT whether the child is a natural-born citizen."

http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/07/30/justice-horace-gray-clearly-indicated-wong-kim-ark-was-not-a-natural-born-citizen/; June 17, 2012 at 9:05 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Should read:

See my ongoing debate with John Woodman regarding St. George Tucker at http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/06/birther-bust-bombshell-prominent-legal-expert-st-george-tucker-directly-refutes-mario-apuzzos-crank-natural-born-citizen-claim/; June 17, 2012 at 9:17 PM
jayjay said...: Andy:

Let's see ... so you think your childish reasoning on ECL being the basis of the term "natural born Citizen" is anything but childish. Several on this blog have taken you to task and pointed out the puerile locig you use as you strain to try to prove yous point - and you fail completely.

Don't give up your day job sonny. And don't get involved in debating grownups who know far more about the Constitution and its derivation than do you and your buds.

You're like a fish swimming upstream and not making much (or any) headway.; June 17, 2012 at 9:34 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of III

Andy,

You insist that the Founders and Framers defined an Article II “natural born Citizen” the same as the English defined a “natural born subject” under English “common law.” You attempt to prove your position by telling us that Wong Kim Ark defined a “natural born Citizen” the same as the English common law defined a “natural born subject.” There are at least five problems with your theory. This is not an exhaustive list of problems with your position.

First, the Founders and Framers needed a citizenship clause which would provide, due to the need to preserve the new republic, limitations on who could serve as President and Commander in Chief of the Military. Allegiance was king for the Founders and Framers. The historical record is replete with references regarding their fear of foreign and monarchial influence. St. George Tucker said:

“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, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague.”

Hence, they would have chosen an allegiance-based clause that provided the maximum amount of allegiance in the President and Commander. Coke’s and Blackstone’s English “common law” notion of allegiance was very broad and except for two small exceptions (diplomatic or invading army parents) all encompassing. They even accepted that aliens could somehow give to their children at the time of their birth citizenship in a country that was not that of the alien parents. Needless to say, such a notion produced conflicting and dual allegiances in a child at birth and did not and could not have provide them with that much needed limitation based on that very allegiance.

Second, the Founders and Framers specifically chose “natural born Citizen,” not “natural born subject.” We have direct evidence from the Founding and later which shows that the Founders and Framers adopted neither the clauses “subject” and “natural born subject” nor their meaning for the new republic, but rather selected “citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” Historical evidence of this change which applied to the national government may be found, among other sources, in the Declaration of Independence (Jefferson obliterated “subject” and replaced it with “citizen”); Thomas Jefferson’s 1776 draft constitution for Virginia (uses “persons natural born”); the Treaty of Peace of 1783 (distinguishes between English “subjects” and American “citizens”); the original U.S. Constitution (only uses “citizen” and “natural born Citizen” in referring members of the U.S.); all the Acts of Congress on naturalization (e.g. Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, 1804, 1855, and all other acts that followed) all use “natural born citizen” [only the 1790 Act] or “citizen”); the Fourteenth Amendment (only uses “citizen”); and case law from the United States Supreme Court (all uses “citizen” or “natural-born citizen”).

Third, there is a sizeable quantity of historical evidence which shows that the Founders and Framers gave a meaning to a “natural born Citizen” that is different from the meaning that the English “common law” gave to a “natural born subject.” They had a completely different philosophy of citizenship than did the English. They believed that children followed the condition of their parents and that upon the age of majority children could accept by tacit consent the citizenship they inherited from their parents or throw it off and adopt a new one. This political philosophy was based upon the teachings of, among others, John Locke. This political philosophy was also confirmed by Emer de Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations (1758). We can see that James Madison also accepted this political philosophy regarding children when he said:

Continued . . .; June 17, 2012 at 9:34 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of III

”What was the situation of the people of America when the dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign: If he was not a minor, he became bound by his own act as a member of the society who separated with him from a submission to a foreign country. If he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature.”

James Madison, House of Representatives 22 May 1789, Papers 12:179--82;
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html . Indeed, children did not have the capacity to consent and so the society in which they were born consented for them based on the ties of nature.

As another example, let us examine what U.S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson wrote in 1791. Needless to say, Justice Wilson was a highly influential Founder and Framers. He signed both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Wilson stated in 1791:

“I know that the term citizen is often applied to one of the more numerous party—to one of the people: and I shall be obliged to take the description of a citizen from the character which he supports as one of the people. But you will easily perceive, that the same person may, at different times, act or be viewed in different characters; and though his description be taken from one of them, the account of his duties and of his rights too may, on a particular occasion, be referred to the other. This I have chosen to do, rather than to introduce an unknown phrase, or to use a known phrase in a new signification. Besides, the expression is frequently employed also in the sense in which I now use it. “Generally speaking,” says the great political authority, Aristotle, “a citizen is one partaking equally of power and of subordination.” A citizen then—to draw his description as one of the people—I deem him, who acts a personal or a represented part in the legislation of his country. He has other rights ; but his legislative I consider as his characteristic right. In this view, a citizen of the United States is he, who is a citizen of at least some one state in the Union : for the members of the house of representatives in the national legislature are chosen, in each state, by electors, who, in that state, have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the state legislature. In this view, a citizen of Pennsylvania is he, who has resided in the state two years; and, within that time, has paid a state or county tax: or he is between the ages of twenty one and twenty two years, and the son of a citizen.”
See the works of James Wilson here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=g2uvAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA273&lpg=PA273&dq=to+use+a+known+phrase+in+a+new+signification+James+Wilson&source=bl&ots=yHHUlAtLGv&sig=yTG4-bRJNSj5QsLXgkEQEgXrZpI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=HLfDT5y1B4X76gHgu93RCg&ved=0CFEQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=to%20use%20a%20known%20phrase%20in%20a%20new%20signification&f=false

Continued . . .; June 17, 2012 at 9:35 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: III of III

Pennsylvania also passed an English common law reception statute but it treated the citizenship question differently. We know from Justice James Wilson that the Founders and Framers intentionally did not select an unknown term to describe the new membership in the republic. Justice Wilson also informs us that they also decided not to use the well-known clause, “subject” or “natural born subject,” because they would have had to be used with a different meaning. They decided upon “citizen” because the people were already using that term the way that the term was meant to be used and they knew that it did not mean what subjecthood had meant under English common law. For Wilson, the meaning of a “citizen” went back to ancient Greece where that civilization, like that of the Romans, adopted the practice that children followed the condition of their parents. He said that one could become a “citizen” of Pennsylvania by residing in the state for two years and in that time paying a state or county tax or if he was between the ages of twenty one and twenty two years and the “son of a citizen,” he would also become a “citizen” of Pennsylvania.

Fourth, Minor defined a “natural born Citizen” under American “common law,” not English “common law.” It could not have defined the clause under the English “common law” because it included as a constituent birth circumstances birth to “citizen” parents. Minor used the same American “common law” which granted the right to expatriate. The English “common law” denied that right.

Fifth, a reading of Wong’s question presented and holding shows that Wong did not define an Article II “natural born Citizen,” but rather a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth. Even Wong itself informed that a child born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents, while recognized under Congressional Acts as a “citizen of the United States” at birth, was still a person who was naturalized at birth under those acts. Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815(1971) said the same (J. Black dissenting in Bellei also said: "All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependent on congressional enactment are forms of naturalization"). Does it really make a difference if the citizenship is dependent upon the Fourteenth Amendment, which was the constitutionalization of Congress’s Civil Rights Act, or congressional enactment? Are they not both positive laws? So just on the strength of what both Wong and Bellei said about naturalization at birth we cannot conclude that a “citizen of the United States” at birth is the same as a “natural born Citizen.”

How do you refute these five points?; June 17, 2012 at 9:41 PM
MichaelN said...: Yes it was the "ties of nature" which was paramount in determining the allegiance of the native-born children.

It was about the "community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community".

It was about the "community" of the child's parents, NOT so much the place.
---------------------------

Puzo1 said...

”What was the situation of the people of America when the dissolution of their allegiance took place by the declaration of independence? I conceive that every person who owed this primary allegiance to the particular community in which he was born retained his right of birth, as the member of a new community; that he was consequently absolved from the secondary allegiance he had owed to the British sovereign: If he was not a minor, he became bound by his own act as a member of the society who separated with him from a submission to a foreign country. If he was a minor, his consent was involved in the decision of that society to which he belonged by the ties of nature.”

James Madison, House of Representatives 22 May 1789, Papers 12:179--82;
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_2_2s6.html . Indeed, children did not have the capacity to consent and so the society in which they were born consented for them based on the ties of nature.; June 17, 2012 at 11:50 PM
Andy said...: @Mario

(1) My reliance on the James Madison quote is perfectly applicable. While you may think that Mr. Madison is joining you on the side of parental descent of citizenship, you should probably realize that Mr. Smith's parents died before the Declaration of Independence. They were life-long subjects to the king.

The fact that Mr. Smith's appeal was accepted is superfluous - you asked me to point to sources that linked the "natural born citizenship" [jus soli] clause with the "natural born subject" phrase in English Common Law.

I did so. There is nothing in the quote that disparages that.

So would you agree that at least one Founder (who later was the President of the United States) agreed with me?

(2) "You cannot point to anything in Tucker's Commentaries which suggest that Tucker adopted the definition of that 'political writer' regarding' how citizenship was defined before the constitution was adopted."

True. Tucker didn't' say "I adopt this." But he did go to great lengths to quote that passage, and calling the comments "pertinent" and the author "very respectable."
In fact, Tucker treats the quoted passage as fact, and leaves it at that.

(3) I left nothing off the quote. I quoted a dissenting opinion from a Supreme Court Justice, just as you have used quotes from non-majority opinions. What Justice Gray said is irrelevant to the quote.

(4) Yes, it is Connecticut law, as citizenship at the time was decided by the states, not some Federal authority.

It's weird how even a respected jurist like Mr. Swift gets contempt from you. If such a respected jurist could interchange "subject" and "citizen," then I think it safe to say others may have done the same.

(5) Far from conclusive? You think that Minor vs. Happersett, which specifically AVOIDS THE QUESTION of children of alien parentage is conclusive, but that they are far from is beyond ridiculous. Those sources are much closer to the founding than Minor was, and by some of the most respected legal minds of their day.; June 18, 2012 at 3:38 AM
Andy said...: @Mario

As for your other commentary:

First, you just decided that James Madison wasn't close to the Founding. Being a whole 14 years removed (Tucker's Commentaries) isn't close? And yet Minor in 1875 is?

Second, because Minor does not limit it's decision, except to the extent as it applied to the circumstances of the case.

Read Minor again. Did it truly say "'natural born citizen' was, born in a country to 'citizen' parents,"

or did it say that "At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers 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 and foreigners."

See that - these "were natives, or natural-born citizens." Notice it didn't say, "these were THE natives, or natural-born citizens," or even saying, like you tried to do, that the opposite was true.

The court never defined or limited "natural born citizens" in any way. It DID declare that those born in the country to citizen parents fall into that category, but the court never closed the category.

I specifically avoided Wong Kim Ark, since you seem to think it means something other than what it says. Instead, I provided what you asked - connections between the idea of "natural born citizen" in the Constitution, with "natural born subject" in the Common Law.

Can you show me, Mario, how the Framers of our Constitution would have known about an American Common Law, which couldn't' have existed until after they were done framing the Constitution? This is the elephant in the room with your arguments - somehow the founders were familiar with a common law that couldn't exist until they were done founding our nation.; June 18, 2012 at 3:39 AM
Andy said...: @Mario (per your 9:34 comments)

First, if you decide that Tucker is too far removed from the Founding for arguments against you, you cannot, in candor, use him to support you later.

You have no support for the notion that birth in the United States was not enough for our founders. In fact, you have nothing at all in regards to Founders speaking differently as to our national citizenship.

Secondly, your own argument makes no sense. Arguing that subject and citizenship weren't used fairly interchangeably, then stating that Jefferson substituted one for the other in the Declaration of Independence? That's just silly.

I've demonstrated just what you have, that they considered the terminology not equal, but equivalent.

Third, you provide no evidence of this. In fact, Madison held that the minor had to consent, not that he couldn't.

As to Wilson, so Connecticut law is not worth your time, but you'll provide Pennsylvanian law? Not only that, but Mr. Wilson doesn't even consider that children or women can be citizens, which we know from Minor alone, can't have been true.

You then go on a diatribe about things not contained in the text. He isn't talking about any of the terms we know, he's talking about people acting, at different time, by different characters. He choses not to create or misuse terms that aren't used in those lights.

Fourth, how can an American Common Law have existed before there was a United States of America?

Fifth, there is no difference between what the 14th Amendment tells us, and what the rest of the Constitution does, in regards to citizenship. Previously, as you should be aware, there had been laws disallowing citizenship for those born in this country who weren't white. The 14th Amendment made clear that the Constitution would not allow such laws, as they should never have been allowed under the ideals of the revolution.; June 18, 2012 at 3:53 AM
bdwilcox said...: Just finished watching Larry Klayman in his presentation of Voeltz v. Obama. Thought he did a commendable job as he basically made Obama's defense look like a bunch of hacks. Was super glad he mentioned Binney in WKA and how it clearly demonstrates Wong might have been a citizen from birth but his alien parentage precluded him from NBC status. Obama's defense of his eligibility was a mumbled: "Mr. Klayman quoted a lot of old court cases and they're not factual." Then he goes on to lie that more recent Supreme Court cases supersede MvH yet he fails to mention a single one...imagine that (this reminded me a lot of Masin when he disparaged MvH as "from the 19th century" - guess the Constitution's outdated as well since it's older). The greatest is when they claim Obama isn't the nominee when he's the only one on the ballot. LOL. And Mr. Klayman called out exactly what the defense was advocating: kicking the can down the road which everyone will do until he's in office and the voters' election choice has been nullified.; June 18, 2012 at 10:25 AM
ksdb said...: @Andy: You've just exposed yourself with either an outright lie or absolute ignorance. You claimed: "The Minor Court didn't say that Minor wasn't a citizen under the 14th Amendment." Wrong. The Minor court said very specifically:

"The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her."

That's very straightforward. The 14th amendment did NOT confer citizenship on Virginia Minor because she fit the court's definition of natural-born citizen. And sorry, but the Minor court did NOT cite ANY English common law. It's time to stop lying and making excuses for the Kenyan Coward™.; June 18, 2012 at 10:38 AM
bdwilcox said...: I was a little alarmed that the judge kept asking hypotheticals about NBC parentage because he was curious rather than sticking to the facts on hand. It definitely threw Larry Klayman and you could hear in his answer that he was getting a little perturbed. He even said to the judge, "I don't know, that scenario's never come up before and I would't want to make a decision that the court would have to make." (or something to that effect) but the judge kept asking.

Anyway, the defense's lawyer was so red and sweaty I hope he's going to be OK. I was totally annoyed by the pasty-faced woman on the defense who kept making all these condescending facial expressions; I'd hate to be her husband... And I'm not sure who the Edgar Winter / Allman brother hybrid with the bad haircut was to the side of the defense but I think he may have been an observer from the defense's law firm.; June 18, 2012 at 10:50 AM
bdwilcox said...: You can watch the video of the Voeltz v. Obama proceedings here.; June 18, 2012 at 11:13 AM
Andy said...: @KSDB

I never said it granted citizenship. In fact, I argue that it simply codified what was already happening in citizenship law. But, under the 14th Amendment, she is a citizen. Notice the court says:

"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."

Her citizenship is protected and guaranteed by the Amendment.

You can say they didn't cite English common law, and while agree they didn't cite it correctly, no court has ever held they were citing any other common law. In fact, the Supreme Court later took their statement at face value, and consulted the English Common law extensively.

So no, I didn't lie. And I'm not ignorant. I'm sorry we don't agree. I guess we'll have to let the courts decide.; June 18, 2012 at 11:29 AM
Carlyle said...: NEWS UPDATE
FL Elig. Hearing

There was a formal judicial hearing earlier today in Florida to deal with Obama's eligibility to be placed on the Florida ballot.

No matter what you think the relevant precedents and definitions are, or whether you think Obama is eligible or not, you should find what happened to be exceedingly strange. Why do Obama's lawyers keep fighting disclosure? Why don't they just provide the proof and be done with it. It almost leads one to think they have something to hide!?

As far as I can tell, in this case, the two primary defense arguments were:

1. Obama is not yet the nominee of the DNC so that no one yet has standing to criticize his bona fides.

2. None of the case law cited by the prosecution applies to Obama - yet they failed to explain why not, or provided references or citations. It was just a bold random statement.

The judge listened carefully and asked some pointed questions of both sides. He has taken all under advisement and will issue a ruling soon. I do not know when.; June 18, 2012 at 12:22 PM
js said...: Andy said...
@js

And what did I omit?

June 17, 2012 4:10 AM

what did you do, ignore 90% of what Puzo1 posts over the last year so you could prove you were right all along...

get real...stupid question...its prosed as if you were born last night...really...stop playing games; June 18, 2012 at 1:44 PM
jayjay said...: bdwilcox & Carlyle:

All of the previous kangaroo courts simply cold not wait to declare El Presedente Wetback beyond the reach of our laws.

Since this judge seems to be giving it a week to reflect, perhaps there will be a more reasonable outcome ... we certainly hope so. Getting the much needed discovery would be just fine - though the Kenyan Kid and his cohorts would no doubt just continue to ignore any lawful decision if not in his favor and discovery surely would not be.

Ear to the ground ...; June 18, 2012 at 1:50 PM
Andy said...: @Carlyle

The Defense provided citations to the pertinent law in both their briefs and oral arguments. They are arguing that the law the discusses Presidential Preference Primaries is governed by a separate chapter of the law than that of normal elections, given that no one is elected in PPPs.

They argue their position from a pragmatic point of view: never in the history of the United States has a Presidential candidate been forced to "prove" eligibility to each of the states. In fact, the way our system works, anyone can run, but the political parties are responsible for nominating their candidates at their nominating conventions.

I'm fairly certain that any presidential candidate/national party official would argue the same way, given that it is in their interest to keep the system uniform for the entire country, and to elevate the possibility of having to produce documents to 50 different jurisdictions, given that it is a federal election. Hence the Republican Secretary of State in Florida being part of the Defense.

(In fact, the Defense also makes the argument that the proper place for this type of contest is within the Congress, after the Electoral College submits their votes, or in the Electoral College itself.)

[I am not arguing either position, just clarifying the position of the Defense.]; June 18, 2012 at 1:58 PM
js said...: On the Florida Hearing...hypotheticals...

two Jewish citizens have a child in the USA...that the child is an NBC is of no doubt...even if the parents returned to Israel...the Consitutional requirements were established AT BIRTH...not at maturity or any other time...

that the DNC has not nominated BHO..hogwash...the letter to the Sect' of State certified his name...they didnt have a 2nd name...the debate surrounded an issue also in this loop...about private citizens who were registered as Demoncrats not having any say in this...that clearly isnt so...as registered Democrats they have a duty and responsibility to present the party with any candidate that they want to see on the ballot...this is completely an INTERNAL DNC issue, the Democrat Party has its own internal rules for selection of candidates and DNC members must comply with those rules to present thier own candidate for consideration...the State of FLorida did not infringe on the voters rights...

if this gets kicked down the road...the defense will claim that BHO isnt the one being elected...that the name on the ballot is only representative of the Electors the State sends to Congress...then after the election...they claim no standing...this has to end...the cases over the last 3 years all were denied because of timing...if the courts kick this down the road using technical BS...which equate to judicial errors...they are effectively denying us the right to be heard because they use technicalities before and after the election to prevent the case from being properly litigated...as well as...denying the voters of this country...the right to vote on a qualified candidate...because they refuse allow the case to be litigated in its entirety...

They use lack of standing...timeliness...and accusations of legal errors in thier filings to evade justice.; June 18, 2012 at 2:00 PM
James said...: Mario,

Any chance you can file an Amicis Brief in support of NBC as well in support of your arguments that Obama and SOS have the duty to determine Obama's eligiblity to be on the Florida Ballot.; June 18, 2012 at 2:31 PM
ksdb said...: @Andy: It's no surprise you cut your Minor citation short. The very next two sentences say: " But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several States, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision."

The court is saying that there are citizens WITHOUT the citizen clause of the 14th amendment. Again, YOU said: "The Minor Court didn't say that Minor wasn't a citizen under the 14th Amendment." Why does the court say they don't women don't need the amendment?? Why do they NOT accept Virginia Minor's argument?? Why does the syllabus say: "women, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution as since." That last word is a killer for Foggers and Faithers. The court is saying NBCs do not need the 14th amendment. They didn't need it before its adoption and they didn't need it since it was adopted. Why is the court saying this?? Why say ANYTHING about citizen parents, especially when Virginia Minor didn't say anything about being born to citizen parents??; June 18, 2012 at 2:58 PM
Andy said...: @KSDB

I was cutting the citation short because the other part was not relevant:
I have never once said that the 14th Amendment made Virginia Minor a citizen. But the court agreed that it does cover her, as the law always has. It guarantees the rights of all citizens, regardless of how that citizenship is acquired.

Why did the court not agree with her arguments? It has less to do with the 14th Amendment, and more to do with the fact that voting rights are not guaranteed to citizens in any part of the Constitution.

Why did the court say anything about parent citizens? Because they wanted to? There was no question Virginia Minor was a citizen. It was never contested in any of the previous courts. The reason for the discussion of citizenship was to show that voting wasn't related to it directly. Contrary to what Mario argues, citizenship isn't the holding in the case, but its relation to voting rights is.

Citizenship wasn't the question before the court. The rights of a citizen were. Does that clear things up for you?; June 18, 2012 at 5:26 PM
Andy said...: @JS

I haven't ignored anything with relevance. Mario likes to make a lot of arguments, but not all of them are actually applicable to the discussion.

So what of the relevant arguments did I ignore. I'd be happy to address those.

Though I am still waiting for anyone to take the real issue with asserting that Minor is referring to an "American" common law:

How could the founders be familiar with a common law that couldn't have existed before they were done founding the nation?; June 18, 2012 at 5:28 PM
jayjay said...: Andy:

The preposterous defense to attempt to argue the entire thing is about the FL presidental nomination/election process - a merely procedural matter.

That's NOT what is being contested and you full well know that. No one gives a rat's ass how the FL Dems go about trying to get their boy's name on the ballot to give him another term to further destroy our country but it's about the guy himself - the person; not the procedure - as being ineligible under the Constitution since they have clearly shown under the FL election laws that the man is, indeed, the intended candidate whether yet "nominated" or not. The fact of "nomination" is trivial so long as the appointed/intended candidate is clearly known.

Of course if you don't know the nbC clause is located in A2S1C5 I suppose it doesn't matter.

You seem to miss the fact that very early in his defense presentation that Obama's attorney misquoted the location in the Constitution of the nbC clause. Really sharp guy, eh??

With barristers like that and biased judges already inclined to keep the guy in office, El Presidente Wetback doesn't even NEED to worry ... right??? Facts don't matter - laws don't matter - just get the guy ack in office since these attorneys are not right enough to realize the guy is NOT eligible. They are merely complicit in the felonious acts of the man who has never shown himself to be eligible to hold the office he now occupies.2; June 18, 2012 at 5:33 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of II

Andy,

You keep peddling this thing that Minor was not about citizenship. You state: "Contrary to what Mario argues, citizenship isn't the holding in the case, but its relation to voting rights is. Citizenship wasn't the question before the court. The rights of a citizen were. Does that clear things up for you?”

You lie and state that Minor was about women’s right to vote and not about citizenship when the truth is that the case was just as much about citizenship as it was about women’s right to vote.

First, what you just wrote makes absolutely no sense. Your argument is as dumb as someone arguing that the Dred Scott case was about the jurisdiction of the court and not about citizenship. The Court simply would not analyze the rights of a person who claims to have such rights by virtue of being a citizen unless it first decided that the person is in fact a citizen. You and others in your camp keep repeating that the question answered by the Court assumed she was a citizen and therefore the court’s discussion about citizenship was not necessary. But you fail to understand that the question was not the Court’s question, but rather the question presented to the Court by the parties. The Court did not assume that Virginia Minor was a citizen. While the Court showed that it has been assumed that “women have always been considered as citizens the same as men,” the Court went further and showed why women were by law “citizens.” It then devoted about 9,924 words to the question of whether women were “citizens” and 16,965 words to the question of whether women as “citizens” had the right to vote under the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV which the States of Missouri could not abridge either through is constitution or statutes. This means that 40 percent of the Court’s decision was devoted to the citizenship question. That the Court ultimately decided that a “citizen” did not have the constitutional right to vote does not take away the fact that the Court spent a considerable amount of time and effort analyzing the question of citizenship and gave us a thorough and well-reasoned decision on the development of citizenship in the United States.

Continued . . .; June 18, 2012 at 7:23 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

Second, as I have told you here before, there are later cases of the Supreme Court that have considered the Minor case a case about citizenship and not just about women’s right to vote. In Lockwood, Ex Parte (Ex Parte Lockwood), 154 U.S. 116 (1894) the U.S. Supreme Court said: “In Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, this court held that the word 'citizen' is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since; but that the right of suffrage was not necessarily one of the privileges or immunities of citizenship before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and that amendment did not add to these privileges and immunities. Hence, that a provision in a state constitution which confined the right of voting to male citizens of the United States was no violation of the federal constitution.” Id. at 117). We can clearly see how Lockwood presented the two holdings of Minor, the first on citizenship and the second on women’s right to vote. Lockwood again emphasized the importance of the status of being a citizen when it commented on the case of Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. 130, which the Court said “held that the right to practice law in the state courts was not a privilege or immunity of a citizen of the United States.” Lockwood, at 117. So, not only did Minor emphasize that citizenship was a threshold issue on the question of voting, regardless of how the Court ultimately decided the voting rights issue, but Lockwood, Ex Parte also explained that it was a threshold issue on the question of whether a woman has the right to practice law. See also Wong Kim Ark. (citing Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 166-168 and stating: “The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.” Id. at 679-81). Finally, this is what Luria said and cited Minor and not Wong Kim Ark in support of its statement:

“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. "

Therefore, Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” which it gave in the context of resolving the question of whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen” is one of the holdings of the case and binding precedent. See also Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856) (the Court had to first resolve the question of whether Scott was a “citizen” before it could determine if he could sue under Article III in federal court which would give the Court jurisdiction over the matter). So, these cases not only show that Minor was about citizenship but that it is also binding precedent on that issue.

So if you want to keep pushing the lie that Minor is not about citizenship, you had better do it either on Obot blogs or in an Obama brief to the courts, but not here.; June 18, 2012 at 7:24 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of II

Andy,

You have very little knowledge of what “common law” means. You think that only the English made “common-law.” I can understand why you are ignorant on the subject. You were probably taught that in school. Did you know that there was also Roman “common-law?”

On Minor’s use of the phrase “common-law,” that phrase did not refer to English “common-law.” Rather, it referred to “common-law” that had its origins in natural law and the law of nations which was incorporated as part of our Article III “Laws of the United States.” Thus the law of nations became part of our national law and one basis of American “common-law.”

First, let us consider what Minor said. If you read what the Court said about citizenship, it is all based on natural law and the law of nations. There is no English common law found in the words of the Court. Given the definition that the Court gave of a “natural-born citizen,” i.e. a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country, it could not have been relying on Blackstone’s English common law which did not require that a child born in the King’s dominions and under his obedience be born to “subject/citizen” parents.

Second, now let us consider what the Constitution itself says regarding “common-law.” Article VI declares, that "[t]his Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the Land." The framers made no mention of the English common law here. On the other hand, the law of nations was incorporated into “the Laws of the United States.” We know that the law of nations made it into the Constitution because Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 tells us so. In 1789, the Continental Congress expressly resolved that the United States would cause the “‘law of nations to be strictly observed.’” 14Journals of the Continental Congress 1774-1789, at 635 (1909), cited in Harold Hongju Koh, Is International Law Really State Law? 111 Harv. L. Rev. 1824-25 (1998). So the law of nations did become applicable and enforceable in the United States as national law.

We also know that very limited parts of the English common law were brought into the Constitution through the Bill of Rights. The “natural born Citizen” clause was inserted into the Constitution in 1787. The Bill of Rights were ratified in 1791 and they do not address the issue of national citizenship in any event. So, we cannot reasonably argue that the Framers’ insertion of the Bill of Rights, with their English “common-law” content into the Constitution, is evidence that the Founders and Framers based the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” on the English common law.

Continued . . .; June 18, 2012 at 9:14 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

Third, there are numerous examples in which Founders told us that the English common law was not incorporated into the Constitution or national laws. See, for example, George Mason on July 19, 1788, stating: “The common law of England is not the common law of these states;” James Madison in Federalist 42 wherein he called the English common law “a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” for defining terms in the Constitution and his letter to George Washington on October 18, 1787, stating: “If they had in general terms declared the Common law to be in force, they would have broken in upon the legal Code of every State in the most material points: they wd. have done more, they would have brought over from G.B. a thousand heterogeneous & antirepublican doctrines, and even the ecclesiastical Hierarchy itself, for that is a part of the Common law;” and Thomas Jefferson who wrote to J.Cartwright in 1824: “Our Revolution commenced on more favorable ground. It presented us an album on which we were free to write what we pleased. We had no occasion to search into musty records, to hunt up royal parchments, or to investigate the laws and institutions of a semi-barbarous ancestry. We appealed to those of nature, and found them engraved on our hearts.”

Fourth, let us consider if there are other examples of the Founders and Framers and our U.S. Supreme Court making reference to the “common-law” which was not and could not have been the English “common-law.” The Founders and Framers and our U.S. Supreme Court also found the natural right to expatriate in the “common-law.” Again the right to expatriate could not have been found in the English “common-law” because there was no such right in the English “common law.” Rather, that right was found in natural law and the law of nations.

We did not adopt the English “common law” into the Constitution or as part of the “Laws of the United States.” On the other hand, we did so adopt the law of nations. Natural law and the law of nations also produced “common-law.” And this “common-law” not only became American “common law,” but was incorporated into “the Laws of the United States” found in Article III and became binding on the nation through the supremacy clause of Article VI. And per Minor it is in that American “common law” that we find the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” which, again per Minor and Wong Kim Ark has not been changed by the Fourteenth Amendment and continues to be a child born in the country to “citizen” parents.; June 18, 2012 at 9:15 PM
MichaelN said...: First it is to be noted that in the bench-mark case in the English courts, i.e. Calvin's case, it was all about rights to land holding/ownership and NOT about eligibility for the office of president of a republic.

So Andy think about your "logic" this when you argue that Minor was about suffrage and not about citizenship.

Moving on.

Lord Coke (in Calvin's case) said this on the Law of Nature....

"The Court, considering arguments based on the nature of allegiance, majesty, conquest, natural reason, and an unalterable law of nature, held that Calvin was not an alien, and he could hold land in England."

Ergo: Even the English courts did not rely exclusively on their own common law.

Then Coke further said this ....

"For the Laws:
1. That ligeance, or obedience of the subject to the Sovereign, is due by the Law of nature:
2. That this Law of nature is part of the Laws of England:
3. That the Law of nature was before any judicial or municipal Law in the world:
4. That the Law of nature is immutable and cannot be changed."

And here we have Coke speaking on the Law of Nature and how it applies to paternity.

"If a man hath a Ward by reason of a Seigniory, and is Outlawed, he forfeiteth the Wardship to the King: But if a man hath the Wardship of his own Son or Daughter, which is his heir apparent, and is Outlawed, he doth not forfeit this Wardship; for NATURE HATH ANNEXED IT TO THE PERSON OF THE FATHER,...."

Andy, it's all about the ALLEGIANCE of the FATHER of the child, in determining a "natural born Citizen".
---------------------------

Puzo1 said...

"Andy,

You have very little knowledge of what “common law” means. You think that only the English made “common-law.” I can understand why you are ignorant on the subject. You were probably taught that in school. Did you know that there was also Roman “common-law?”

On Minor’s use of the phrase “common-law,” that phrase did not refer to English “common-law.” Rather, it referred to “common-law” that had its origins in natural law and the law of nations which was incorporated as part of our Article III “Laws of the United States.” Thus the law of nations became part of our national law and one basis of American “common-law.”; June 18, 2012 at 11:08 PM
js said...: June 18, 2012 5:26 PM

Andy said...
@JS

"I haven't ignored anything..."

(and the cow jumped over the moon...ya we got ya...); June 18, 2012 at 11:25 PM
ksdb said...: @Andy: You're backpedaling and make ridiculous excuses now. If the Minor decision wasn't about citizenship, then why was half the decision written about all the known ways to become a citizen?? Why did the Wong Kim Ark decision say that the Minor court held Virginia Minor to be a citizen because she was born in the country to citizen parents?? The court isn't going to waste time and effort discussing an irrelevant issue for half the decision. It's okay to admit you're wrong.

Virginia Minor argued she was a 14th amendment citizen and that that gave her a right to vote. In the end, the court, by rejecting her citizenship argument, denied that right to vote, but made her eligible to be president. In contrast, Wong Kim Ark could vote but could not run for president. Obama can do neither under these two decisions.; June 18, 2012 at 11:49 PM
Unknown said...: I of II

The Presidential Electors are the Solution to the Eligibility Question

Every four years the American people go to the polls thinking they are casting their vote directly for the President and Vice President of these United States. In reality, they vote for a representative in their State called an elector. Each of the political parties, in the several States and the District of Columbia, appoints a slate of electors pledged to vote for their candidate. It is the electors of the party that wins the popular vote in each State who vote for the President and Vice President, not the people. The election in each State is simply the method adopted by the State legislatures to determine which parties slate of electors will be elected to vote for their State.

The electoral process is set forth in Article II, Section I, Clauses 2-4 of the Constitution for the United States. Clause 3 has been superseded by the 12th Amendment as ratified by the several States in 1804. Provisions of the 12th Amendment have been superseded by the 20th Amendment as ratified by the States in 1933.

“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.”

The power vested in State legislatures by this clause is the key to preventing illegible candidates from getting elected. A State legislature simply needs to pass a statute that disqualifies any votes for a candidate who does not meet the natural born citizen definition per the language in Minor v. Happersett and Vattel’s treatise of 1758.

Since Obama is a democrat, it is unlikely that members of his party, in States where they control the legislative and executive branches of government, would pass a statute as described above. Thus, that duty would fall on States controlled by republicans. It would be intellectually dishonest to challenge their creditability because the statute would disqualify two of their rising stars, Bobby Jindal and Marco Rubio, from ever being elected President or Vice President of the United States.

If a State passed this type of statute it would put an offending political party in a Catch 22. The party would either have to take the issue to court and argue the definition of a natural born citizen or do nothing and have their elector’s vote negated if the individual did not meet the definition in the statute. In my opinion, they would be forced to choose the former and take the issue to court. This would resolve the natural born citizen issue sooner rather than later.; June 18, 2012 at 11:53 PM
Unknown said...: II of II.

Sue a State when its Electors Vote for an Ineligible Candidate

If a State certified the electoral votes for an ineligible candidate, a State or States should immediately sue in federal court. At a minimum, this would force a ruling on the natural born citizen issue because one or more of the United States would have standing to pursue the issue and it would constitute an important federal question. Also, since the time from election to taking office is less than 3 months, a suit on certifying the electoral vote for an ineligible candidate would force an expedited decision.

Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution states:

“The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States…to Controversies between two or more States…”

The States could also invoke Article VII to establish standing:

“The Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.”

Since the Constitution is “between the States,” the individual States, as parties to the compact, have the duty and standing to intercede when another State violates the terms of the compact. If a State certifies electoral votes for an ineligible candidate, it should immediately be challenged for a blatant unconstitutional act.

When Congress Fails to do its Duty the States Must Act

Once the electoral votes have been certified by the individual States, the process shifts to Congress. This is when Congress enters the game and gets to determine whether the electors from the individual States voted for a natural born citizen.

Following the November presidential election, Congress, in joint session, meets on the 6th day of January to tally the electoral vote. Any objection to the vote must be raised at this time. The objection must be made in writing and state, clearly and concisely, without argument, the ground thereof and signed by at least one member of the House and Senate. If a member objects to the electoral vote, both bodies are required by statute to withdraw to their respective chambers and debate the merit of any objection. This process is a safeguard and allows Congress to nullify any electoral votes for an ineligible candidate.

Since that body failed to enforce the eligibility requirement in 2009, the individual States have the power to enforce the natural born citizen requirement through the electors. A constitutionally grounded State must be prepared to immediately sue every State that certifies electoral votes for an ineligible candidate.; June 18, 2012 at 11:54 PM
Andy said...: @Mario

RE: Minor

No Mario, I say that Minor is about rights of citizenship, but not of Minor's citizenship. There was no challenge to Minor's citizenship in any of the lower courts or the Supreme Court.

As per other cases:

Lockwood: about the rights of citizens

Wong Kim Ark was about citizenship, since it was the direct question.

Dred Scott: had to determine citizenship for standing

Minor didn't have to determine citizenship for standing, as her husband was involved. In fact, each time the Defense conceded her citizenship. Therefore, there was no reason to determine citizenship, except in relation to the rights of citizens.

Minor is about the rights of citizenship, not about citizenship itself. You don't see that difference, and I think that's why you make meritless arguments in front of the courts.; June 19, 2012 at 3:29 AM
Andy said...: @Mario

RE Common Law

You stated that natural law and law of nations is Article III. Please show me where.
It isn't implied, it isn't expressed at all. So that would mean you're lying?

(First) What was said by the court in Minor is true in the English Common law.
Let's look at the statements individually:

"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 statement is true under English common law, there was no conflict here - hence the phrase "it was never doubted."

Now the second statement:

"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."

Here, as we know, there had been cases and controversies in the English Common law, and the Court acknowledges that. But they also specifically say that they need not look into it:

"It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea."

(Second) Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10 is referring to criminal matters, not civil matters. You cannot, with a straight face, actually argue that that makes any specific treatise incorporated into the Constitution. What it does, though, is incorporate established doctrine as to "Piracies and Felonies committed on the High Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations" meaning international law.

"So, we cannot reasonably argue that the Framers’ insertion of the Bill of Rights, with their English “common-law” content into the Constitution, is evidence that the Founders and Framers based the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” on the English common law."

We also cannot reasonably argue that the "natural born citizenship" clause comes from Vattel, since it didn't appear in the English translations from the time. Instead, they didn't translate the term.

(Third) Mr. Mason surely makes that assessment, but Mr. Madison, in the same letter you cite disagrees:

"This [Mason's] objection surely was not brought forward in the Convention, or it w[oul]d have been placed in such a light that a repetition of it out of doors would scarcely have been hazarded."

As for your Jefferson quote, not only is it in the wrong context (that actually being of the history of the English Constitution). In fact, Jefferson uses the term "us" when referring to the placing into the English Common law the whole of Christianity (which he admits cannot be the case).

(Fourth) Find an example of a founder talking about expatriation and the common law, and we'll talk. Though I don't think you'll like to learn that it was a Congressional act in 1868 that actually granted that right in the United States. Even then, it was based on a "natural and inherent right of all people," not any common law.; June 19, 2012 at 4:30 AM
Andy said...: @ksdb

I'm not backpedaling at all.

Minor is about the rights of citizenship. And Wong Kim Ark didn't say "that Minor court held Viriginia to be a citizen because she was born in the country to citizen parents." It said:

"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."

Notice they include the whole "rights" thing - since it is the focus not only of the case, but the citation above it. (You should read the decision, it's pretty well-written!)

And Minor never argued that she was a 14th Amendment citizen. That's ridiculous. There was never any contest to her citizenship. The contest was about whether the 14th Amendment guaranteed the right to vote in any of its sections. The court ruled that voting rights are not tied to citizenship.

The court never denied Wong Kim Ark could run for President. If you read the reasoning, in fact, you will find they would very much have allowed him. (The dissent is even argues that they would!); June 19, 2012 at 4:36 AM
Carlyle said...: @ Andy June 18, 2012 1:58 PM

I agree that the primary responsibility for eligibility vetting is with The Parties, The Electors, and Congress. Each in turn should double-check, as it were.

We also have the several SOSs of the states who are chartered with ensuring a righteous election. Only a moron (of the kind who hates Voter ID because it would reduce the fraud they count on) would argue that such an SOS has no jurisdiction or authority.

But when all this fails, we MUST have access to due process and be able to legally challenge the bad behavior of officials. So, yes, the courts can have a critical role to play.

(Remember also, The Parties are not official government entities - they are just private clubs with essentially no oversight or enforceable rules. Personally I think that makes them unreliable as vouchers for anybody or anything.)

Finally, the history of forcing Presidential candidates to demonstrate their bona fides is irrelevant. Never in the history of the US has there ever been a candidate with such a complex past with conflicting accounts. Furthermore even his admitted past include a number of details that uniquely determine that his eligibility be especially thoroughly vetted.

For instance it is a known and uncontested fact that the State of Hawaii did 'creative things' in enrolling it's initial citizens and for at least a few years thereafter. If nothing else that basically leaves us with two options:

1. Look the other way on any candidate from Hawaii born around those years because the state records are unreliable or worthless. i.e. selective non-enforcement eligibility requirements,

2. Dig especially hard for those particular kinds of candidates.

I know which I choose. Which do you choose?; June 19, 2012 at 11:44 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Andy,

Stop your lying about me making meritless arguments before the courts.

Round 1, the court’s denied my clients relief based on a finding of no standing. Hence, the court never reached the merits of the definition of a “natural born citizen.”

Round 2, not one court has yet to address in a meaningful way any of my arguments on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.”

You make distinctions that are not material.

You just keep lying about Minor. This is what Minor actually decided:

Part 1: What is a “citizen?” What is a “natural-born citizen?” Is Virginia Minor, a women, a “citizen” which also made her a "natural-born citizen?"

Part 2: Does Virginia Minor, a “citizen” and a “natural-born citizen” have the constitutional right to vote under the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV which neither the constitution nor laws of Missouri can abridge?

It really is that simple. But of course, you have to twist and manipulate the meaning of Minor to serve your political agenda.

And then you give us a meaning of Wong Kim Ark, making the outlandish claim that it not only defined a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth, but that it also changed Minor’s definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Having to only construe and apply the Fourteenth Amendment, there was no issue in Wong Kim Ark as to what is an Article II “natural born citizen.” We also know that Wong did not change Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen,” for it actually cited and quoted Minor for that very definition and did not comment on it in any way.

With what “face” do you keep your deceit going?; June 19, 2012 at 1:53 PM
Andy said...: @Mario

So, you're saying that the Superior Court in New Jersey didn't say your arguments are without merit?

That would be classified as a lie.

Not only were they meritless, but they didn't even warrant discussion (the court cited R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(E)).; June 19, 2012 at 2:15 PM
ksdb said...: LOL @Andy: Why does Minor bring this up??

"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."

This is saying that the court had to figure who the citizens were and how they were admitted to citizenship. That simply destroys your claim.; June 19, 2012 at 3:29 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Andy,

It really is worthless debating with you.

The ALJ found: (1) Obama has no constitutional or statutory obligation to provide any evidence as to who he is or as to where he was born because he has no such obligation to show that he eligible to run for the Office of President. He said that even Mickey Mouse can get on the ballot in New Jersey and run for President; (2) Obama was born in Hawaii; and (3) Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” The Appellate Division affirmed without opinion. I said that the court did not address “in a meaningful way” any of my arguments on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” Dismissing a case without telling us what the reasons are is not addressing it “in a meaningful way.”

We do not know what the Appellate Division concluded because they did not have to reach the issue of the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” They could have dismissed on issue (1) alone and never reached the “natural born Citizen” constitutional issue. Courts will not reach constitutional issue unnecessarily when they can dispose of a case otherwise. In fact, during oral arguments, when the Attorney General started to argue the “natural born Citizen” issue, Justice Carchman told him that it was not necessary for the Court to reach that issue and so the Attorney General then stopped talking about it. Finally, given the highly compressed time frames, I doubt that the Appellate Division gave much study to the issue of what is a “natural born Citizen.” Remember that even the ALJ said that he did not have the time to write a “law review article” on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.”

So Andy, you just continue to distort and lie about everything under the sun. You just do not know where to stop.; June 19, 2012 at 4:17 PM
bdwilcox said...: Andy is akin to a masochistic mosquito. He is an annoying buzzing about the ears that only becomes more emboldened the harder you swat him down.; June 19, 2012 at 4:23 PM
cfkerchner said...: Mario,

IMO, Andy is not in your blog to really logically debate you. He is in your blog simply to spread seeds of disinformation and misinformation in your blog and to argue you with you in circles over and over the same Obot talking points. He maybe even a team working a swing shift to spread disinformation in your blog and other targeted key Article II patriot blogs. He is an Obot internet troll or a paid or volunteer operative of the Obama campaign. I think he should provide his full real name and state of location to continue his malarky so he can be made to stand behind words and tripe. You have been very patient with him. But he refuses to be intellectually honest and engages in circular arguments. He she either fully identity himself, profession (is he a lawyer?), and provide the state of his location ... since you have and he knows everything about you ... so he can stand behind his arguments and words as a real person instead of a partial name or pseudonym. Being quasi anonymous he can say or write anything he wants in your blog without any consequence. You are obviously his full time target. Thus, again, I believe he is a paid (directly or indirectly) Obot Obama campaign team operative. Either paid directly or 2 steps removed from the Obama campaign at most and/or with a financial interest directly or indirectly the Obama and Soros operations and/or the campaign. JMHO. What do other's here think about (Andy? or Team-Andy?), his/her/their tactics, and purpose for being here?; June 19, 2012 at 4:24 PM
ksdb said...: A fe more quotes for Fogger Andy:

"The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge."

The first half of that sentence is where Virginia Minor is arguing that she is a citizen via the 14th amendment. The Minor court UNANIMOUSLY rejected this argument:

' But, in our opinion, it did not need this amendment to give them that position. " ... "The amendment prohibited the State, of which she is a citizen, from abridging any of her privileges and immunities as a citizen of the United States; but it did not confer citizenship on her."

And the Wong Kim Ark case CONFIRMS that Minor, through this UNANIMOUS ruling EXCLUDED the children born of citizen parents from the birth clause of the 14th amendment, by noting that the Supreme 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 ..."; June 19, 2012 at 6:16 PM
Andy said...: @Mario

What you consider meaningful is irrelevant. What the courts consider meaningful is. They don't want to waste time with your arguments, because they are without merit. I'm sorry if you don't see it that way, but they do.

Have fun believing what you believe. I'll leave you in peace now.; June 19, 2012 at 6:23 PM
js said...: The word is Troll Mario.; June 20, 2012 at 4:55 AM
jayjay said...: All:

It's really ironic - and funny as hell - that the OOPS Troops (or obots if you prefer) still continue to try to defend the indefensible. It's almost as though they do not realize that the entire Obama defense mechanism is crumbling as we speak.

It's obvious they are not well read but you'd think that they would at least have read "one of their own" ... the David Maraniss book "Barack Obama: The Story" and recconize they've been lied to frequently all along by the man who has never shown himself to be eligile to hold the office he now occupies.

The Emporer not only has no clothes; he has no Birth Certificate either.

This latest leftist book peels a few more layers the onion off the onion in the sad saga of the greatest fraud ever committed against our country - and many of these OOPS Troops are complicit in helping in the commission of the crime(s). Let's just hope that a goodly numer of them are caught in the same mousetrap (rattrap??) and pay the price.; June 20, 2012 at 2:10 PM
MichaelN said...: Andy said...
"@Mario
What you consider meaningful is irrelevant.
What the courts consider meaningful is.
They don't want to waste time with your arguments, because they are without merit.
I'm sorry if you don't see it that way, but they do.
Have fun believing what you believe. I'll leave you in peace now."
---------------------

@Andy.

The SCOTUS haven't even considered the arguments to arrive at whether they have merit or not.

THAT is whole POINT, in regard to court behavior.

But court behavior does not change to true and correct definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen".

Andy, if you were "normal", you would be pushing for this matter to be heard by the SCOTUS.

But instead you are focused on character assassination and chanting the default mantra of the trash-the-Constitution brigade.

Your argument has been demolished, and it has been proven to you that Article II "natural born Citizen" is one native-born to US citizen parents.

The SCOTUS, by introducing and giving merit to unsolved doubts as to if native-birth alone would suffice to make a "natural born Citizen", is PROOF that the SCOTUS was NOT referring to any English common law definition of "natural born subject" in the Minor court.

Even the English common law holds that the principle of natural descent is paramount.

Andy, you don't want to recognize the truth on this matter, because it is is inconvenient to your cause and you are not only intellectually dishonest, but also a coward in the sense that you are HIDING in the shadows behind a pseudonym and throwing rocks at those who are genuine and prepared to put their reputations and good characters on the line to have complete transparency and disclosure.

It's all about the allegiance of the parents, when it comes to recognizing an Article II "natural born Citizen".

The truth is Andy, you are AFRAID this matter of the definition of Article II 'natural born Citizen" will get to SCOTUS to be determined on the merits.; June 20, 2012 at 9:33 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Obama’s supporters maintain that Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) is only a case about women’s right to vote and not about U.S. citizenship. They so maintain because, given that it is a decision of the United States Supreme Court whose treatment of citizenship (not to be confused with its now overruled holding that the constitution did not grant to women the right to vote) has never been altered or changed, they want to deny its authority and force and the fact that it confirmed by binding precedent the original and presently continuing definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Clearly Obama’s supporters are wrong in stating that Minor is not about citizenship.

I have already cited U.S. Supreme Court cases that recognized the case as being about citizenship. See In Lockwood, Ex Parte (Ex Parte Lockwood), 154 U.S. 116 (1894); Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898); and Luria v. United States, 231 US 9, 24 (1913) (citing and quoting Minor on citizenship). Here is more evidence.

In his authoritative treatise on international law and citizenship, John Bassett Moore explains the fundamental basis of what citizenship in the United States is. He does not cite or quote from the English common law. Rather, he quotes extensively from Minor v. Happersett thus:

"There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community, such as a nation is, implies an [p166] association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are, in this connection, reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.

For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words "subject," "inhabitant," and "citizen" have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more. Waite, C.J., Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 165-166"

(cited and quoted in 3 John Bassett Moore, A Digest of International Law 274 (1906)).

There is little doubt that Mr. Moore’s treatise is authoritative and highly respected. Mr. Moore's credentials can be reviewed by going to his treatise. The Government Printing Office published Mr. Moore’s work in 1906 which is after the Wong Kim Ark decision. The treatise was incorporated into the official documents of the House of Representatives as, “56th Congress, 2d Session, House of Representatives, Document No. 551.” When Mr. Moore wanted to tell us what the fundamental nature of our citizenship was, he cited, among other sources, to Minor v. Happersett, not to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. So we can see that there is a great quantity of authority which shows that Minor is, indeed, a case that explains and confirms the roots of our national citizenship. This respect for the decision and its treatment of citizenship shows that the case is binding precedent in its explanation of that citizenship which includes its definition of a “natural-born citizen.” That definition is "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." Id. at 167.; June 21, 2012 at 11:26 AM
Carlyle said...: @ MichaelN

June 20, 2012 9:33 PM

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

In fact, it is 'worse than that'!
Consider:

1. One must also apply Common Sense in deciding things. Legal decisions may hold, at least for a while, but if legal decisions are incredibly non-sensical, then one can hope that eventually Common Sense will prevail. R v W is such an example. Whatever ones personal opinions and beliefs on the topics of choice and life, it is impossible via Common Sense to support R v W as designating a Constitutional Right. So I predict that it will eventually overturned. (I do not wish to debate right and wrong on this topic - eventually something may be established which turns even harder to the left or maybe pull things back a bit to the right - I only argue that as an exercise in Consitutional Theory, R v W is beyond pathetic.)

2. In regards NBC, consider the INTENT. It was to LIMIT or EXCLUDE certain situations. In that regard, I find the OBOTs fascination with 'dirt' to be incomprehensible. Let me argue that perhaps the NBC clause could be or even should be amended in the future. In that regard I can imagine that the dirt requirement might be removed but the parentage and environment aspects MUST be upheld. Why? Simply this. In the world of global economy and global politics the place of actual birth is totally irrelevant (per Common Sense). One could be born in XYZ and immediately adopted into a deeply traditional and patriotic American family and raised in that context. For such a person to become President makes a lot of sense. The reverse, however, is patently wrong. Imagine a child born in America but adopted or otherwise raised by hostile savages. How could that person even understand America, let alone become a reasonable President.

I am very frustrated that this whole thing seems to have devolved into a sort of "how many angels dancing on the head of pin" discussion and argument. We are obsessed with trees while failing to look at the forest.

Regardless of specific definitions and history of the concept of NBC, what was the purpose of putting it in the constitution? Shouldn't we understand that purpose and apply it today?

That can ONLY lead to the 'blood'-related issues as being far more important than 'dirt'.; June 21, 2012 at 12:14 PM
jayjay said...: Puzo1 etal.:

Talk about confusatory, conflicted "logic"!!

Our "good bud" Kevin Davidson (Dr. Conspiracy) over on his blog makes the following mind-twisting bit of logic:

"I think we all agree that an ineligible person may not serve as President of the United States, but I see nothing in the Constitution that precludes such a person from running." WTF???

The shining rationale above from one of the Big Dog anti-birthers ... who doesn't even seem to realize that the entire "birther" nomenclature nonsense is just that and that the true issue is eligibility since it does not matter where the guy was born.

It's no wonder that the guy and all of his pals froth at the mouth and fume like rabid butterflies whenever they get a chance to misstsate the issue as anything other than eligibility - ANYTHING!! Any Red Herring is better than none it seems.; June 21, 2012 at 12:58 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: jayjay,

Kevin Davidson's (Dr. Conspiracy) fraud lies in his advocating, in the name of egalitarianism and democracy, that Obama be able to freely run for public office, at the same time that he, from day one and continuing to the present, has steadfastly resisted and continues to obstruct reasonable efforts to properly vet him so that the public may make an informed and intelligent decision about whether to vote for him.; June 21, 2012 at 1:35 PM
cfkerchner said...: And as we constitutionalists here know full well, and I'm sure Doc Spread Confusion knows full well too the United States of America is NOT an egalitarianism Democracy but is instead a Constitutional Republic. Hiding that fact is what the Obots and their progressive forefathers have been spreading around for the last 100 years or so. They want the USA to be a pure democracy and to allow a temporary 51% vote to achieve their fascist socialist agenda and as history shows, once the fascist socialist like Mussolini and Hitler (two renowned and infamous fascist socialists which the Obots socialist brethren try to forget or adopt off to some other point on the political spectrum) get into power they ignore the constitution and the people's unalienable rights. As someone in history said, pure democracy is a stepping stone on the was to socialism. Doc Confusion and Professor Twilight Zone are two disinformation, misinformation, and social engineers plying their mind game trade online for years now trying to confuse the masses. But it don't work in this forum. Their B.S. internet troll talk can't walk the walk in this forum. All they can do here is spin the comment counter dial, which is of course what some of them internet trolss are paid directly or indirectly to do.; June 21, 2012 at 2:11 PM
jayjay said...: All:

I wonder now that Gary Kreep has won a Superior Court judgeship in SoCal if someone whould bring a ballot (or other) challenge before him???

(Quick - before Orly does).; June 21, 2012 at 7:16 PM
Carlyle said...: @ jayjay said...
June 21, 2012 12:58 PM

@ Puzo1 said...
June 21, 2012 1:35 PM

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

Actually, you have struck a raw nerve - one I have been fretting over (and occasionally posting about) for a couple of years.

You, see, while not part of Common Sense, this train of logic is mathematically defensible and correct according to the Laws of Logic of the great Aristotle.

Andy and other OBOTs here have also proven effective at crafting righteous-sounding drivel.

My fear is that 'the opposition' (or, if you will, 'the plants', like Kagan) will spin a fairy tell of gag-worthy logic to defend the reign of F. King Obama.

The key idea is to use the logic of Running vs. Winning to prevent standing for any officials or citizens to challenge anything early in the process. These leaves only some feeble safeguards that are hard to activate so late in the process when the momentum has become strong. But - the court is off the hook because they have upheld the legality of the constitution.

Don't believe me? What about electoral voting? Does it even remotely today meet the intent of the constitution? But yet the details do match using this sort of pedantic logic. Therefore we probably have no way of ever returning to a really constitutional electoral process.

I am afraid our nemeses are much better at this sort of shading then we give them credit for.

FKO could have been rather easily and painlessly set aside early in the long process, but with the passage of time and the momentum of an actual presidency, I don't see any court de-legitimizing him. I think the best we can hope for is some clarity for future elections.

At a minimum, should a decision be required during his term(s), he will of course be grandfathered as a simple recognition of fait accompli.

PS - that does not rule out that if we can unearth enough facts that the Court of Public Opinion will bury him. That is why the documents from Fast and Furious are so important and why Sheriff Joe's posse is so important. And even in the court cases of such as Mario The Patriot, while I don't think the court will judge against FKO, the facts that come out under discovery could be damaging with the public.; June 21, 2012 at 7:33 PM
MichaelN said...: It is clear that the SCOTUS did NOT agree with the nation that the 14th Amendment or any other "creeping" change, repealed or re-interpreted Article II POTUS eligibility clause.

It remained in tact according to the SCOTUS.

See:

"Hassan v. NH, State of et al - Document 12"

“Hassan argues that the standard disfavoring repeal by
implication is inapplicable in this case because the Natural Born Citizen Clause is discriminatory on its face and subject to strict scrutiny.

He argues therefore that “there is no need to show ‘irreconcilability’ or ‘intent’ to repeal.”
Hassan offers no support for this argument, however, and does not cite any case that suggests that the applicability of principles of implied repeal depends on the content of the earlier statute.
Therefore, the principles of implicit repeal apply to the Natural Born Citizen Clause.

Hassan has not carried the high burden necessary to demonstrate that the Natural Born Citizen Clause has been
implicitly repealed by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Hassan argues that Congress intended the Fourteenth Amendment, when enacted, to abrogate the Natural Born Citizen Clause. Hassan, however, does not provide any support for his argument, and the Supreme Court cases he cites merely discuss general equal protection principles.

As such, Hassan has not overcome the presumption against implied repeal.

In addition, articles discussing both the Natural Born Citizen Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment have noted that in the few years following the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress considered and rejected numerous proposals to amend or repeal the Natural Born Citizen Clause.”

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-hampshire/nhdce/1:2011cv00552/37382/12; June 22, 2012 at 5:51 AM
Frank Bailey said...: Jake Walker has written the first two of a multipart series of articles on the definition of NBC at the conservative blog RedState.com. Here is the link to Part I: On this “Natural Born Citizen” Issue, Part I: From Alexander Hamilton to Lynch v. Clarke

Mario will not like these articles. This is from Part 2:

Additionally, in my studies, I have found the arguments put forward by the various birthers, including but not limited to Orly Taitz, Mario Apuzzo, and Leo Donofrio, are fraught with misinterpretations, misquotes, quotes taken out of context, and generally shoddy scholarship that demonstrates a lack of understanding of United States legal thought. I suspect that their method consists of grasping at whatever little quote they can, regardless of the context, and insisting it says what they say it does. Unfortunately for them, a modicum of applied research would disprove their arguments. They are a disgrace to the legal profession, a profession which has more than its share of disgraces, and to Constitutional law, and they are rightfully treated as pariahs. We on the Right are better than this, and liberty-mined Constitutional conservatives are right to reject them utterly. I would pull a William Buckley and kick them out of the conservative movement if I could. They do us no favors. I am not exactly excited to be defending the likes of Barack Obama (though I am happy to defend people like Nikki Haley, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, etc.), but a corrective to their false narratives has to be supplied. I understand very well that I might not persuade a single birther, but if I can keep those on the fence from falling away and bolstering those of us who are sure of our beliefs that the birthers are wrong, I will be satisfied; June 22, 2012 at 10:05 AM
jayjay said...: Carlyle:

The scheme you allude to is certainly one that is being followed by the defenders/fans of El Presidente Wetback at present ... however, it is actually worse than that as we are already seeing the results of a VERY well-pled case getting to SCOTUS and pitched at that point (with, certainly, no explanation).

The case was, of course, Kerchner et al v Obama et al and it was actually filed after the national "election" was balloted but before the President-elect (Obama) was sworn in; he was still a private citizen at that point. Of course, one can see how all of the pathetic "safegards" in the Constitution were jettisoned by the "two" (in quotes advisedly) parties that wished to grease the skids and did so. At the point where the call for objections was made by the pol running the assemled bodies, there was a single individual sitting in about the center of the seating arrangements about 7 or 8 rows from the front who was frantically waving his arm to try to get the attention of the guy operating the meeting as though he might wish to be heard - perhaps with an ojection. He was ignored and the "approval" of our new CIC (Chief IslamoCommunist) was gaveled as being over; a fait accompli. The video showing this is still around on the web but no one has ever ID'd the waving person.

This process is what the various states (including FL) are trying to push us into AGAIN and they know damned well the result will be the same as last time. Haven't we learned that voters don't mean crap???

In FL (and other states, too) keep in mind that these various state/political party/court actions are all seemingly colluding to make an end run around the Constitution since all of those types despise it (just ask Ruth Ginsburg). Since these folks collectively draft and pass the state laws relating to the election process in the states, all they need do is what they have done which is to say no one needs to legally qualify to run and anyway those running are not "nominated" until that nomination process is completely over and also not elected until the national election process is finished and we have a President Elect ... whoops - that was just commented upon; are we in some sort of ghastly loop here?

I sort of think that putting Mickey Mouse on the ballot as the defense suggested in the ballot challenge Mario just argued would be an improvement ... at least we KNOW when and where Mickey was born and all about his parents.

Why should the eligibility clause of the Constitution be vitiated by such a political shenanigan? The Constitution may not be changed by state rules and elections yet that is exactly what this process has done. You can see NO politician objecting (and that's just what the Founders envisioned; several, including paraphrasing what Franklin said after the Convention "... you have a Constitutional Republic - if you can keep it"; it looks like we can't).

We have allowed the states and the judicial system to amend the Constitution without amending it. Shame on us!!!; June 22, 2012 at 11:43 AM
Unknown said...: The expense of running is such that who would support a candidate they knew could not serve if "elected"? The problem is that the maturity level in America is very low currently. I am often surprised by the comments at various blogs. They seem to be written by persons stuck back in a bad high school.
Often persons we don't care for have valuable things to say, while the people we like a lot are talking nonsense. Maturity has something to do with being able to discern what is worthwhile and what is not without totally going on emotion.
Unfortunately many liberal progressive type persons forget to reflect. They have college degrees, even advanced ones, but are dominated by emotion in certain areas and conclude ridiculous things. For example, that anyone who challenges Obama is just a racist even if he is himself black.
My guess is that only 1 or 2% of the population is capable of grasping what is placed here and seeing also why it matters.; June 22, 2012 at 5:32 PM
jayjay said...: Frank Bailey:

I'm unsure why you are championing the person named Jake Walker, but you apparently have some motive.

Speaking of "... fraught with misinterpretations, misquotes, quotes taken out of context, and generally shoddy scholarship ..." it is fair to say that your Jake Walker exhibits a hudge admixture of all of these things not to mention clearly misstating some things as well.

In addition he does not seem to realize the difference between ECL as used in England and ACL as used for American citizenship. As with most of the Obotic stripe he equates "subjects" with "citizens" for example.

I'll wait and see the next part - if it arrives but the first part does not live up to your hype. You seem to be one of the OOPS Troops yourself and you now go back to your old failed trick(s) or trying to trash anyone making a legal case against your hero (employer?).

Won't work Frank and you should have learned that by now. Go hate on some other blog. Your material is nonsense and you don't seem to know it.; June 22, 2012 at 10:22 PM
bdwilcox said...: jayjay,

You can read the hack's second bilge eruption here.

This adds credence to what we've suspected all along. The establishment Republicans have avoided Obama's NBC problems like the plague because they want to run their own ineligible candidates. That is, without interference from us pesky "birthers". The timing of this Mockingbird article is just too coincidental.

I nice addition to this moron's college essay is his Alinskyite dig at Mario and Leo Donofrio. (Why he included Orly in there I don't know since she more or less concentrates on the phONEy's fake bona fides.) For such a learned scholar as he, you wouldn't think the "author" would stoop to levels so low.

I warn anyone thinking of commenting there. If you bring up actual facts to counter the hack's half-truths and out-right lies, they'll ban you immediately. This should come as a complement when you are banned by people so stupid as to proudly adopt the media's reassignment of conservatives as "red state" from their traditional blue in order to distance the leftists from their intrinsic color.

In this case, the Ron Paul followers are right. Between the establishment Republicans and the left, there is no distinction. They have both made themselves enemies of the Constitution in order to fulfill their political agendas.; June 22, 2012 at 11:27 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I responded to Jake Walker at John Woodman’s blog, accessed at http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/06/birther-bust-bombshell-prominent-legal-expert-st-george-tucker-directly-refutes-mario-apuzzos-crank-natural-born-citizen-claim/ For those who may be interested, you may read my response there.

This is how freshman John Woodman responded to me:

“Then how come you’re zero for eight in the courts?

And why did the last court — The US federal Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals — specifically admit your brief (indicating they were listening to you) and then dismiss the case without so much as a written discussion, citing a section of the law that allowed them to do so in cases in which:
“…some or all of the arguments made are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion.”

[Edit: I am withdrawing a portion of my comment, as it smacks too much of ridicule. The fact is, most of Mr. Apuzzo's claims in the long passage above have already been refuted. Some of the few additional claims will be refuted in my final article.]”

Apuzzo response:

John Woodman,

We are debating a rule of law here. It is highly pathetic and indicative of the weakness of your position that you expect to win this debate by pointing to some courts which did not only not provide any reasons for their decisions but also advised us that their decisions are not to be published and are non-precedential. If you want to prove me wrong, then you will have to give us your rationale rather than solely rely upon the silence of the courts.; June 23, 2012 at 12:51 AM
bdwilcox said...: When a court rules someone is a natural born citizen after admitting there wasn't a single shred of evidence before them, is being dismissed by the likes of them really a loss? I'd have to say it's more like a win; who takes pride in being praised by fools?

By Woodmouse's logic, Dred Scott was baseless in claiming he wasn't someone's property. I guess his loss in court meant his argument was without merit, as well.; June 23, 2012 at 1:15 AM
Teo Bear said...: The 14th amendment expressly creates "a citizen of the United States" and Title 8 1401 creates "a citizen of the United States at birth."

Article II does not say "citizen of the United States at birth," it says citizen of the United States at the time of adoption.

If the only avenue for a person to claim US citizenship at birth is via either the 14th amendment or Title 8, that person is citizen of the United States and not a natural born citizen.

Obots, you cannot escape the clear wording of the 14th amendment and title 8 making a person a "citizen of the United States," nor can you escape the clear wording regarding those who are "citizens of the United States" in Article II.

Again, for the kool-aid impaired, if you are a citizen of the United States and all you can point to is 14th Amendment, Title 8, or a naturalization law, then ALL you are is a citizen of the United States. you became a citizen of the United States after the adoption of the Constitution, you are ineligible!!!

Natural born citizen is defined in Minor v. Happersett read Justice Waite carefully.; June 23, 2012 at 7:30 AM
Teo Bear said...: Mario, Woodie (aka Woodman) would call Montgomery Blair a looser, because he lost the Dred Scott case. Loosing in a noble cause (i.e. defending the Constitution from being amended by fiat is a noble cause) proves throughout the annals of history you were no collaborator to a usurpation of power.

Mario, it should give you great satisfaction to see them here trying to destroy your moral, for they know that the arguments you put forth are what the average person is accepting as the definition of a natural born citizen.; June 23, 2012 at 7:53 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: bdwilcox,

How right you are.

And let us also not forget that our courts have said that there was no merit in the arguments of those who maintained that, among the so many other constitutional rights cases that exist in our judicial history:

slavery as an institution was immoral and a violation of one's natural right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness;

blacks and American Indians deserved to be U.S. citizens just as much as any other qualifying white person;
women had just as much a right to vote as men did;

separate is not equal. The 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is perhaps the most far-reaching decision of this century. The Court declared racially segregated schools unconstitutional and overruled the "separate but equal" doctrine of its infamous 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson;

a fetus is a life deserving of protection; and

so many of the opinions of the Court of Appeals for the 6th and 9th Circuit deserve to be affirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court. In 2010, the Supreme Court affirmed 29 percent of the cases it reviewed from the 9th Circuit, which was slightly above the affirmation rate of the rest of its docket. The years biggest loser was the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/01/30/AR2011013003951.html; June 23, 2012 at 11:16 AM
jayjay said...: Puzo1:

TYVM for the link to the Jake Walker response (I had in fact already read it and enjoyed watching you dismember the OOPS Troops). You didn't even have to use their dishonest tactics.

they, of course, hate you for that which certainly univormly shows in their responses.; June 23, 2012 at 11:48 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Teo Bear,

How right you are. Obama and his Obots have scammed the system and the courts through their silence have so far allowed them to get away with it. At best (assuming he was born in Hawaii), Obama is a "citizen of the United States" “at birth” under the positive law of the Fourteenth Amendment (also codified by Congress in 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a)), as construed by Wong Kim Ark. But because his “citizen of the United States” citizenship status came into being by virtue of his birth that occurred after the adoption of the Constitution, today, that standard is not the correct constitutional standard for presidential eligibility. Today, the correct constitutional standard under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which has since applied and will continue to apply to all those who were or will be born after the adoption of the Constitution, is a "natural born Citizen." That constitutional standard needs no positive law for its being. And we know that, because he was born to an alien father, Obama cannot meet that constitutional standard which Minor v. Happersett confirmed to be “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens.”; June 23, 2012 at 12:10 PM
bdwilcox said...: In Voeltz v. Obama, the pretender to the throne's main defense is that Florida law isn't applicable since he's not the Democratic nominee yet. So much for that defense.

Now to plan B. Maybe they'll simply accuse Larry Klayman of being mean and a big jerk. Perhaps they'll simply hold their breath until Mark Herron goes from his alarming red to an orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and finally violet complexion. I'm counting on more mumbled idiocies that MvH doesn't say what it says and that by uttering the magical incantation "Wong Kim Ark" they invoke NBC Magik like Alistair Crowley uttering his infamous Abrahadabra.

It will be fun watching them trying to weasel out of this one. Speaking of which, has anyone noticed how Eric Holder's spivey mustache bounces around like a weasel's snout when he's cornered? I guess when you have as much American blood on your hands as Holder does (Waco, Ruby Ridge, Brian Terry, Jaime Zapata, etc) it's bound to manifest in weird ticks and twitches.; June 23, 2012 at 1:26 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Bdwilcox,

The political parties are notorious for inventing fictions (e.g., the party is only a private person which is supposed to be some type of license to violate people’s rights and our election laws) as a means by which to violate minorities’ voting constitutional rights or in the Obama case that he is not a “candidate” for the Office of President as a means by which to violate the “natural born Citizen” clause and thereby defraud the American people.

In the Purpura-Moran New Jersey ballot access challenge, Obama’s lawyer (on behalf of the Democrat Party) argued that Obama was not a “candidate” in the New Jersey primary election and that the voters were only electing electors and delegates. I argued to the court that was pure bunk, for all the state statutes speak about “candidate” running in the primary and general election, the official nominating petitions and state instructions refer to “candidate,” and the voters when they vote in the primary know no other person other than “candidate” Obama. The ALJ did not accept Obama’s lawyer’s argument and so I overcame that ploy by Obama.

Despite the Constitution requiring the president to be a “natural born Citizen” and New Jersey statutes requiring that a candidate running in New Jersey for public office must be “eligible” for the office he or she seeks, the ALJ accepted Obama’s other scamming argument, i.e., that he has no constitutional or statutory duty to present any evidence of his identity or eligibility for the office he seeks to the State of New Jersey where he will be on the ballot for direct (primary) and indirect (general) election in that state. The ALJ issued his decision on April 10, 2012. The reason that the ALJ gave for his decision is that Obama had until April 12, 2012 to withdraw his nomination to the Office of President. But while Obama had to date not withdrawn his nomination in any state and April 12, 2012 came and passed, on April 12, 2012, the New Jersey Secretary of State still adopted the ALJ decision.

And also let us not forget that the ALJ found that Obama was born in Hawaii with absolutely no evidence of that alleged fact before the court. Obama’s lawyer even conceded and the ALJ confirmed that there was no such evidence before the court. Upon my request that she so stipulate, Obama’s lawyer also conceded that the April 2011 internet electronic imaged birth certificate was also not before the court as evidence. Additionally, the ALJ, while telling us that he did not have time to write a law review article on the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” found that he met the definition.

Candidate Obama concedes that he has not withdrawn his name as a nominee/candidate for the Office of President and that he is actually running for that office. The Democrat Party has not given the American people any candidate other than “Barack Obama” for the upcoming general presidential election. Yet, both Obama and the Democrat Party, to continue Obama’s sham election, argue that:

(1) Obama is not a “candidate” for the Office of President and

(2) Obama has no constitutional or statutory duty to present any evidence of his identity or eligibility for the office he seeks to a state where he will be on the ballot for direct (primary) and indirect (general) election for the Office of President.

And what is shocking in all this mess is that our courts have so far allowed them to get away with it.; June 23, 2012 at 4:48 PM
Mick said...: bdwilcox said...

"In Voeltz v. Obama, the pretender to the throne's main defense is that Florida law isn't applicable since he's not the Democratic nominee yet. So much for that defense."

BD-- unfortunately for them, the Florida statutes regarding "contest of elections" are much more detailed than most. The criminals probably did not expect me to know this statute, Fl ss. 101.252, which EXPLICITLY says that one in Obama's position, as the only one "qualified" for the Primary ballot, will not be placed on the ballot, and that he will be considered "NOMINATED" for the office. Clearly that statute serves as a bridge to allow a contest of eligibility, since I can contest ANY "election OR NOMINATION" (ss. 102.168). By not having an "election" they thought that they could freeze out any "contest".

101.252 Candidates entitled to have names printed on certain ballots; exception.—(1) Any candidate for nomination who has qualified as prescribed by law is entitled to have his or her name printed on the official primary election ballot. However, when there is only one candidate of any political party qualified for an office, the name of the candidate shall not be printed on the primary election ballot, and such candidate shall be declared nominated for the office."; June 23, 2012 at 4:59 PM
jayjay said...: Mick:

The link given by bdwilcox above to the UASA Today article not only says and shows he's the official Dem nominee, but claims that the verbal acceptance at the Sep 6 convention is merely a formality.

I'm sure that's true ... or maybe he'll say "No thanks, I'm going back to Kenya!!!"; June 23, 2012 at 6:33 PM
Frank Bailey said...: Mr. Apuzzo, it is the "Democratic" party and your claim that President Obama is already the nominee of the party is further evidence why you lost and will continue to lose.; June 23, 2012 at 11:03 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Frank Bailey,

I understand that logic is not your forte.

Mitt Romney is a Republican. He belongs to the Republican Party.

Barack Obama is a Democrat. He belongs to the Democrat Party.

I am also not interested in your frivolous word games.; June 24, 2012 at 12:06 AM
Unknown said...: Constitutionally, the electors are the ones being elected and they vote for the President and Vice President. They are free agents and when elected can vote for anyone they please even if that individual is not running for office.

If Obama won the mythical national popular vote and all 538 electoral votes, the electors could vote for Ms. Clinton instead and it would be constitutional. Hypothetically, you could get a Clinton 270 and Obama 268 result even though Clinton did not run.

Even though it is not constitutional, some States have passed laws requiring their electors to vote for the party's candidates.

If Florida and/or New Jersey are in this class, then it could be argued that Obama IS the candidate.

In some States, the people vote directly for the party's electors, not the party's candidates; the names of the so-called candidates do not appear on the ballot. Only the names of the party's electors appear on the ballot.

If Florida and/or New Jersey are in this class, then it could be argued that Obama is NOT the candidate because the electors were the ones elected and can cast their votes for anyone; even the candidate from an opposing party.

The Constitutional question that is not being addressed is-can the electors vote for a candidate who is not a natural born citizen irrespective of whether he or she is a declared candidate and on the ballot of a State or the District of Columbia?

If yes, then where do they get the authority to violate the Constitution and vote for an individual ineligible to hold office?

If no, they cannot violate the Constitution, then what is the procedure to challenge and negate their violation before Congress certifies the electoral vote?; June 24, 2012 at 12:27 AM
Carlyle said...: @ Bob Greenslade

EXACTLY!

We cannot be expected to police the process by trial and error - i.e. keep throwing things at the wall until something sticks.

There MUST be a specific definitive place in the process where all agree that a verification step takes place. A constitutional provision without a process for applying it nor a mechanism for enforcing it, is for all practical purposes non-existent.

We may never be able to fix this during FKO's reign (as I have said before, he will be grandfathered, if nothing else). But we MUST fix it for the future.

Interestingly, FKO himself has proven what vermin can crawl through the cracks if this hole is not plugged.

NBC clause was originally intended to be RESTRICTIVE and EXCLUSIVE, not multi-culturally sensitive and inclusive. Modern times of global politics and global economics make it even far more important to use the tightest possible form of protection and guarantees of conflict-free allegiance. Not the other way around.

God help us! For we clearly are all our own worst enemies!!; June 24, 2012 at 1:23 PM
Mick said...: Florida statutes definition of "Primary election" proves that Obama was "nominated", since it says the PURPOSE of the Primary is to "NOMINATE" a candidate. Defendants can play word games all they like, but plain words prove them wrong.

Fl. ss. 97.021(28):

(28) “Primary election” means an election held preceding the general election for the purpose of nominating a party nominee to be voted for in the general election to fill a national, state, county, or district office.; June 24, 2012 at 1:49 PM
Carlyle said...: Did you read the results from the latest lawsuit in Tennessee? Here, rather than saying that Zero was not or not yet the nominee, they just boldly claimed that they could nominate anyone they wanted, and put them on the ballot, regardless of their eligibility or qualifications.

They are getting exceptionally bold, and the courts are still aiding and abetting. The final ruling from this court was published last Wed and the scoundrels let the Demorats get away with this.; June 24, 2012 at 3:39 PM
Unknown said...: @ Mick

Florida's electors could all vote for you irrespective of a primary election or whether you appeared on any party's primary or general election ballot.

The so-called general election in November elects electors not candidates. The naming of a candidate simply gives the people a name to associate with for electing their State's electors because it is presumed that is who the electors will vote for in November.

After the general election, the Mayor of the District of Columbia and the Governor of each State prepare a document called a Certificate of Ascertainment. This document is also referred to as a Certificate of Determination. The Certificate lists the names of the electors chosen to vote and the number of votes received by each. It must also list the names of all the electors not chosen and the number of votes received by each. The Certificate is signed by each chief executive officer and must contain their official seal.
The Governors and Mayor of the District of Columbia prepare seven Certificates of Ascertainment. One original and two authenticated copies are sent to the National Archives by registered mail. The remaining six originals are used by the electors and delivered to the place where they meet to vote. This is usually the state capitol building. They must be received on or before the date the electors meet to cast their vote.

The electors meet on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December following the general election. These meetings are called colleges.

What happens on this day is the key because the electors could say even though we are democrat electors and Obama won the primary and general election of this State, we have determined he is ineligible and are casting our votes for someone else.

Thus, even if Obama is ineligible, there is no constitutional issue until an elector casts a vote for him.; June 24, 2012 at 4:02 PM
Unknown said...: @ Mick

You wrote:

“Primary election” means an election held preceding the general election for the purpose of nominating a party nominee to be voted for in the general election to fill a national...office.

Obama is NOT the candidate under this law because he will NOT be voted for in the general election; each party's electors will be the one's voted for and the electors of the winning party will vote for Florida and cast votes for 2 individuals to fill national office.; June 24, 2012 at 4:43 PM
Frank Bailey said...: mick is incorrect. Section 103 covers the elections for president and vice president. That section recognizes that the major parties nominate their candidates at national nominating conventions. In 2012 there no primary for president was held for the Democratic party since there was only one candidate.

In 2008 Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary in Florida and she was not the nominee of the party .

It is all explained in the motions in the Voeltz case.; June 24, 2012 at 5:13 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of II

Obama’s enablers are playing with the words “nomination” and “election.” Of course, they play their little game to flout the rule of constitutional law.

A candidate for President has various hurdles to overcome to make it to the White House. He or she has to win two public “elections” which are really indirect “elections.’

First, he or she has to get nominated by his or her party so he can continue to the general election where he or she will face off with the other party’s selected candidate. Second, he or she has to win the general election and get confirmed by Congress as the legitimate winner and then get sworn in so he or she can start work. How does he or she accomplish all this?

(1) At the primary level, voters in each state present to the Secretary of State nominating petitions with the candidate’s name on them. Note that primaries are not in the constitution and are a creation of the states and parties. If he or she received the requisite number of signatures and complies with other federal (like being an Article II “natural born Citizen) and state requirements (like proving to the Secretary of State) that he is a “natural born Citizen”), he or she earns the constitutional right to get on the state official ballot that will be used for the primary election at great expense to the taxpayers of the State. Should an individual not want to follow those rules but still desire to politically express himself or herself under the First Amendment and run in the primary, he or she can still participate in any party caucus or can print his or her own ballots and distribute them to the people of the State, all at his or her cost and not that of the state’s taxpayers. This rule should not present any problems given that presidential election tickets already do not list every candidate running for President, but only those who have garnered a major party nomination or whose size of their political party warrants having been formally listed on the ballot.

At the actual primary election, he or she wins by individual state “elections” (whether the state has the election or not) his or her party’s nomination which then the party will usually just confirm through formality at the party’s National Convention. At the primary, voters, by casting a popular vote for their party’s candidate whose name appears on the primary election ballot, are actually voting for a slate of delegates who are, depending on state law, politically bound or not bound to that presidential candidate. These votes for these delegates serve to send these delegates to the party’s nominating convention. Also, most states have rules that only a member of that party can vote for candidates from that same party. In other words, no cross party voting is allowed in the primaries. So even though in the primary, a voter is really voting for delegates, he or she is still voting for a presidential candidate. What the voter is actually doing is voting for both. And regardless of for whom (candidate or elector) a voter is voting, the presidential candidate’s name still appears on that ballot and uses all of the state’s public resources for purposes of getting elected to the office he or she seeks.

(2) At the party’s national convention, the delegates, pledged and unpledged, will “elect” the party’s nominated presidential candidate. Like the primaries, national conventions are also not in the constitution and are a creation of the states and parties. By being so “elected” at the party’s national convention, the party’s candidate can run on the party’s line, for example, as a Democrat or a Republican.

(3) The party’s elected candidate then has to run in the general election which is again an indirect election. Voters in the general election again cast their popular vote for a slate of electors. These electors will sit on the Electoral College. Each state is allotted a different

Continued . . .; June 24, 2012 at 5:22 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

number of electors. Each state will receive a number of electors equal to the total number of federal Senators and Representatives that state has. Washington D.D. is given the same amount as the smallest state and U.S. territories have no votes. Additionally, a person who wants to run for president and who did not fulfill the legal requirements to be pre-listed on the voting ballot can have his or her name written in in the voting booth. And it is here that Mickey Mouse’s name can be written in, not that we should allow Mickey Mouse’s name to appear on the pre-printed election ballot.

(4) It is the Electoral College who will do the direct election of the presidential candidate in December of that year (December 2012). These electors can vote for anyone they want. But with rare exceptions, like with an “unpledged elector” or “faithless elector,” these electors are bound to vote for their designated candidates under many strict state laws. “Numerous constitutional amendments have been submitted seeking to replace the Electoral College with a direct popular vote, but none has ever successfully passed both Houses of Congress. Another alternate proposal is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, an interstate compact whereby individual participating states agree to allocate their electors based on the winner of the national popular vote instead of just their respective statewide results.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election#cite_note-clause_1-1 . 24 states have laws to punish faithless electors, (http://www.fairvote.org/e_college/faithless.htm ) who do not cast their electoral votes for the person whom they have pledged to elect. These state laws may probably be unconstitutional.

So getting nominated and going on to win the Office of President in the end involves various “elections,” although they are indirect in nature. The only direct election for President is done by the Electoral College in December of that year.

(5) And finally, the incoming Congress (elected at the same time as the President) in joint session (House and Senate combined) in January of the following year (January 2013 for the November 2012 general election), receives the Electoral College votes from each state, counts them state by state, receives and considers any objections thereto by any Representative or Senator, and finally, after having gone through that process and making sure that the President-Elect is qualified, confirms who is the winner of the office of President and Vice President. A president-elect must receive at least two-thirds of the Electoral College vote to be declared the winner (270 votes).

(6) The new President then is sworn into office and at that time he or she can start executing his or her executive powers, hopefully for the betterment of the nation.

So what all this shows is that Obama’s enablers are trying to slip Obama through the electoral process by saying that he is not a “candidate” because as they contend voters actually vote for electors who may or may not vote for Obama and not Obama. But the truth of the matter is that Obama is still a “candidate” people will be voting for, although indirectly by voting for electors. What is more, Obama, by being placed on any state ballots as a “candidate” for president is benefiting from enormous public funds needed to run an election, all for the purpose of winning the Presidency. So he is receiving the benefit of public funds when he is not eligible for the office he seeks. So this whole thing about whether Obama is a candidate or not is nothing but typical Obama enabler fraud designed to get around the problem that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore should not be appearing on any official state ballots to be used during publicly funded and state-run elections.; June 24, 2012 at 5:24 PM
Mick said...: Greenslade said,
"Thus, even if Obama is ineligible, there is no constitutional issue until an elector casts a vote for him."

Nonsense. There is NOTHING in Title 3 US Code 15, or the 12 A that says the Electors should vet the Presidential candidates for eligibility. US Code 3 s. 15 stipulates that electors may make "objections", but does not define what those "objections" may be, even then, those objections are only considered by the full chamber upon sponsorship by both a Representative AND and Senator. Only then does it become a political question.
Likewise, Fla. statutes say that the Presidential Preference Primary should not be treated by Fla. statutes any differently than any other election (Fl ss. 103.101(4)). If a contest of eligibility of a POTUS candidate were not allowed, then it would say so.

A Presidential Elector has been held many times by SCOTUS to be NOT agents or members of the government (In re green, McPherson v. Blacker, et al), and are deemed to be on the same level as a voter, voting for members of Congress. Therefore Presidential electors who may or may not challenge a POTUS candidate's eligibility are on the same level as an elector (voter) at the state level challenging eligibility of a winning candidate of a primary.

Further, it has been deemed by the SCOTUS that Electors may (not shall) not vote for a candidate "who may have become disqualified" (Ray v. Blair). Meaning that determination may be made prior to the electoral college.

Go ahead and continue to spin, and I will stop the wheel.

Greenslade also said,
"The so-called general election in November elects electors not candidates. The naming of a candidate simply gives the people a name to associate with for electing their State's electors because it is presumed that is who the electors will vote for in November."

We are not talking about a "general election", we are talking about a PRIMARY. Duh.; June 24, 2012 at 6:18 PM
Carlyle said...: The Citizenship of FKO - Part I

I continue to harbor grave doubts that FKO is any kind of US citizen at all. I know that this blog is devoted mostly to the legal history and definition of NBC and the proof beyond all doubt that FKO cannot possibly be eligible according to the NBC clause of the constitution.

But please allow me to lay out this short story. Everything here can be documented or referenced to credible sources, but for the sake of brevity I omit them. My primary purpose in this essay is not to enlighten any of you, but rather to solicit your input if you feel I have misrepresented or left anything out.

My argument against FKO having current US citizenship summarized below. It contains some provable facts and some circumstantial evidence. Rather than taken as proof of anything, the CE should be taken as indication of "reasonable doubt" and a crying need for further investigation. I further maintain that all of the burden of proof is on FKO. Without such the baseline assumption has to be that he is not a citizen. This is no different from any other situation in which you or I have to provide birth certificates or any other sort of identification.

1. We do not know where FKO was born, under what circumstances, given what name, or who are his parents. There is no credible source(s) for any of this. Interestingly enough, even his fabulous discredited autobiography does not claim where he was born.

2. There are plausible reasons to believe that his parentage and birth name may be different than he claims. If that is the case, a whole range of possibilities is opened up that complicates analysis. Therefore, let us concentrate on scenarios that are the closest to what he himself claims. To wit:

Father: BHO Sr., a citizen of the British colony of Kenya
Mother: SAD, an underage US citizen
Date: Approximately Aug 61
Place: Unknown

3. There have emerged only three likely places of birth - Hawaii, Kenya, and Canada. There is also a more distant possibility of Indonesia. We will examine each of these possibilities. If he was born outside of Hawaii, the following paragraphs will demonstrate that he never was any kind of US citizen and is not to this day. A key element being that his underage mother would not have been able to pass citizenship to him in any of these scenarios. His citizenship would have been dominated by his father or country of birth, or the combination of those two.

Part II to follow.; June 24, 2012 at 6:39 PM
Carlyle said...: The Citizenship of FKO - Part II

4. So let us consider the most FKO-friendly scenario that he was indeed born in Hawaii. At his birth he was therefore a multi-citizen: a) British via his father, and b) US via the soil. Whether or not he was a NBC is of course the major outstanding argument. Both the dual-citizenship and father's citizenship aspects argue strongly against this. But even if he was NBC at this point, you will see below that he no longer is.

5. In 1964 (if I remember correctly, but the exact date is not important) Kenya became independent. At which time all Kenyan British citizens were conferred Kenyan citizenship. They seem to have also retained a level of being a British subject. So at this point, little FKO might have then acquired a Kenyan citizenship. This is however subject to the timing of the events of the next paragraph.

6. There are no completely credible sources, but it seems clear that sometime between FKO's 2nd and 6th years, he became the adopted son of Lolo Soetoro. At which time both he and his mother lost all their previous citizenships and became solely Indonesian citizens. There are credible records from schools in Indonesia showing him as a Muslim Indonesian citizen.

7. During his high-school years he seems to have returned to Hawaii and lived with his grandparents. This seems to have nothing to do with the citizenship argument except as to provide some credible cover for "raised in Hawaii" or other strong Hawaiian connections.

8. For college he initially went to Occidental in California and then to Columbia in New York. Here things get extremely more murky in light of the fact that FKO will not permit the release of any school records. There is strong and credible suspicion however that both of these places accepted him as a foreign student from Indonesia. This will not be definitely cleared up until the records are examined.

9. Adding to the suspicion, but of course proving nothing, is that never during this time is there any indication of him doing anything remotely patriotic or remotely mainstream American. Even his own narrative pictures him as being an anti-establishment malcontent and agitator.

10. During this time, if he were an American citizen, he would have been required to sign up for the draft. The only evidence we have that he did this is a hotly contested 1980 Selective Service registration that appears to be a forgery. Failure to properly sign up could have of course been a protest, but may have simply been that as a non-citizen he was not required to do so.

Part III to follow.; June 24, 2012 at 6:40 PM
Carlyle said...: The Citizenship of FKO - Part III

11. Up to this point in time, there have been no records found of FKO having a US passport. In fact, in 1981 he took a trip to Pakistan. This was at a time when such a trip for a US citizen would have been very difficult and unusual but relatively easy and commonplace for an Indonesian.

12. In early 2008, the passport office was broken into and FKO's records vandalized. Clearly somebody was trying to hide something or place false information.

13. Overall, a very credible scenario is that FKO's international travels were under his Indonesian passport until very recently when he was presumably issued an ex officio passport as a Senator.

14. Finally, there have been no records found of FKO becoming a naturalized citizen - i.e. going through the normal process, renouncing his Indonesian citizenship, etc. Similarly, there are no records of a conversion or formal transition from Islam to anything else.

15. Overall, there is no evidence whatsoever that has ever been found or provided for FKO ever being a citizen. This coupled with a number of suspicious circumstances leads one to question his citizenship status and to heartily wish that more documentary evidence were available. It is also incredibly worrisome that no one in the FKO camp has voluntarily come forward with definitive information that would clear this up.

16. And, almost as an afterthought, the adoption of FKO by Native Americans must rank as one of the most bizarre events of his campaign. Especially as it was so widely publicized. It sounds like a misguided attempt to get some credibility or even backdoor citizenship. No other palatable explanation for the details of that event has ever been put forward.

We end with the plea that (considering the burden of proof) we cannot consider FKO a US citizen until all these odd circumstances are cleared up and firm credible documentary evidence is provided. 'Birthers' get accused of either disavowing a Hawaii birth or believing a twisted version of the NBC requirement. I have shown in this essay that even given a Hawaii birth and a liberal interpretation of NBC that there is a far bigger concern of his US citizenship that has not been resolved. To coin and attach my own disparaging nickname, I guess that makes me not a 'birther' but a 'citizenshipper'!

Lacking credible proof otherwise, FKO is at present a Muslim Indonesian, not a Christian American.; June 24, 2012 at 6:42 PM
Carlyle said...: I would like to modify my last sentence.

"Lacking any credible circumstantial evidence, let alone any believable proof otherwise ...".; June 24, 2012 at 7:16 PM
jayjay said...: Carlyle:

Yep, just about any of those things are possible - along with other scenarios.

Certainly he has presented no definitive proof that he is legally eligible to hold the office he now occupies.

One of the other seet of scenarios is that his Pappy might be Frank Marshall Davis, the Communist.

Until one honest judge and a court system willing to begin to take the baby steps to bring this guy to justice, I like to think of him as El Presidente Wetback ... and he or his OOPS Troops buds are welcome to show proof to the contrary - but of course they won't.; June 24, 2012 at 7:26 PM
Frank Bailey said...: Mario Apuzzo said "Obama’s enablers are playing with the words “nomination” and “election.” Of course, they play their little game to flout the rule of constitutional law."

No, they are doing what real attorneys do and taking the most expeditious path to getting a frivolous case dismissed. The have much bigger weapons they could pull out if the judge allows the case to proceed (and he won't). The main assertions of the Voeltz case are patently false. Obama was born in Hawaii and he is a natural born citizen.

The Democratic Party will affirm at the proper time that the President is eligible and will file a certification for the general election. The Florida Secretary of State will accept that certification because there is not a shred of evidence that President Obama is not eligible.

I am not sure why Mr. Apuzzo wrote the rest of his long two part dissertation on the electoral process that we could have all just read from Wikipedia.; June 24, 2012 at 8:55 PM
Unknown said...: Carlyle--excellent summary of important facts. I did not detect any errors. You may be aware that there are additional parentage theories; one involves his mother being Soetoro's sister Ann! My own feeling is that Obama himself may not even know who his parents were or where he was born.; June 24, 2012 at 9:15 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of II

Frank Bailey,

You really are dim-witted if you cannot see the difference.

Also, maybe you or a real lawyer can respond to this. I hope the two parts do not go beyond your brain capacity:

“3. Civil rights, taken in a strict and confined sense, as contradistinguished from natural and social rights, are such as appertain to a man as a citizen or subject, of this, or that, particular state or country; in his private and individual capacity as a free agent, and member of the body politic or state, in respect to the state or body politic; and contradistinguished from such as might be due to him as a magistrate, legislator, judge, or other public agent, character, or functionary. The right of electing, and being elected to, any public office or trust, may be considered as among the most important of these rights. These civil rights may be inherited, or acquired, in the United States: they are acquired by a foreigner who is naturalized; they are inherited by all whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens.

***

Persons naturalized according to these acts, are entitled to all the rights of natural born citizens, except, first, that they cannot be elected as representatives in congress until seven years, thereafter. Secondly, nor can they be elected senators of the United States, until nine years thereafter. Thirdly, they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States. Persons naturalized before the adoption of the constitution, it is presumed, have all the capacities of natural born citizens. See C. U. S. Art. 1, 2.”
St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (1803) http://constitution.org/tb/tb2.htm .

Tucker explains that civil rights belonged only to a “citizen.” The right of being elected to public office was one of the most important of these rights. The right to be elected President was included in these civil rights. Anyone who was naturalized was forever incapable of being chosen to the office of President.

Civil rights were either acquired or inherited. That means that there were only two ways that a person could come to possess such rights. They were acquired by a foreigner upon being naturalized or inherited by all those who were born to “citizen” parents. This means that Tucker divided “citizens” into those who were born to “citizen” parents and those who were not. The former would be “natural born” and the latter naturalized. If we apply what Tucker said to the civil right to be elected president, we can see that one could not acquire such a right by naturalization, for a naturalized citizen was forever barred from being President. So, the only other way one could obtain the civil right to be elected President was through the only other way to obtain such a civil right. That was by inheriting the right being born to “citizen” parents.

Continued . . .; June 25, 2012 at 12:15 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

We know from the Constitution that, for those born after its adoption, only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. Hence, if follows a fortiori from Tucker’s explanation that, since the Constitution informs that a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be elected President, a “natural born Citizen” can only be a child born to “citizen” parents. Tucker explains that the only exception to this rule was for those who were naturalized before the adoption of the Constitution. These would have been children who were not born to “citizen” parents, but who were nevertheless allowed to be chosen to be President. We know that these persons were who Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 calls “Citizens of the United States,” and who it grandfathered to be eligible to be President, but who Tucker explains, given that they were born after the adoption of the Constitution and were not born to “citizen” parents, were forever barred from being chosen to the office President.

Obama was not born to “citizen” parents. He therefore at birth could not have inherited the civil right to be elected President. He may be a “citizen of the United States,” if born in Hawaii, which allowed him to acquire his civil rights just as any other naturalized citizen, but he cannot be a “natural born Citizen” who inherits his civil rights by being born to “citizen” parents.; June 25, 2012 at 12:16 AM
bdwilcox said...: "The main assertions of the Voeltz case are patently false. Obama was born in Hawaii and he is a natural born citizen." - Spank Daily

- Further proof that liberalism is a mental illness. Here, a textbook case of magical thinking. In this example, an irrational belief that repeating an unfounded statement over and over will somehow make it true.; June 25, 2012 at 12:17 AM
Unknown said...: @ Mick

Title 3, Section 15---Counting electoral votes in Congress---pertains to objections by members of Congress, not electors as you stated.

See---http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/3/15

Electors do not make objections. Electors cast votes based their independent judgment after accessing all the qualifications of the individuals being considered. They have the power and duty to consider the character and constitutional eligibility of every individual before casting their vote. If they determine Obama is not a natural born citizen they can withhold their vote for him on that basis alone irrespective of the popular vote in their State.

You stated: “We are not talking about a ‘general election’, we are talking about a PRIMARY. Duh.”

In an earlier post you cited Fl. ss. 97.021(28):

“Primary election” means an election held preceding the general election for the purpose of nominating a party nominee to be voted for in the general election to fill a national…office.

Constitutionally, electors are the ones being voted for in the general election not a party nominee from the primary election. As the section states, the primary election is only for candidates who can be voted for in the general election so please explain how Obama’s eligibility or the lack thereof is applicable under this section.

Even though I believe Mario’s position on the natural born issue is the correct one, Obama’s people are winning this round of the fight because they know how the electoral process functions and how to use it to Obama’s advantage.; June 25, 2012 at 1:06 AM
Robert said...: Justice Scalia cites Vattel in today's landmark Arizona immigration case:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2012/06/25/supreme-court-ruling-on-arizona-immigration-law/; June 25, 2012 at 11:37 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Robert,

Thank you for that. Here are some quotes regarding Vattel form Justice Scalia:

“As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty. Emer de Vattel’s seminal 1758 treatise on the Law of Nations stated:

‘The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases,or to certain persons, or for certain particular pur- poses, according as he may think it advantageous to the state. There is nothing in all this, that does notflow from the rights of domain and sovereignty: every one is obliged to pay respect to the prohibition; andwhoever dares violate it, incurs the penalty decreed to render it effectual.’
The Law of Nations, bk. II, ch. VII, §94, p. 309 (B. Kapossy & R. Whatmore eds. 2008).”

Here is more reference to Vattel:

“In Mayor of New York v. Miln, this Court considered a New York statute that required the commander of any ship arriving in New York from abroad to disclose “thename, place of birth, and last legal settlement, age and occupation . . . of all passengers . . . with the intention of proceeding to the said city.” 11 Pet., at 130–131. After discussing the sovereign authority to regulate the entrance of foreigners described by De Vattel, the Court said:

‘The power . . . of New York to pass this law havingundeniably existed at the formation of the constitution, the simply inquiry is, whether by that instrument it was taken from the states, and granted tocongress; for if it were not, it yet remains with them.’ Id., at 132.

And the Court held that it remains. Id., at 139.”

Arizona v. United States, 567 U. S. ____ (2012) (J. Scalia, concurring in part and dissenting in part) , accessed at http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/372443/supreme-court-decision-on-arizona-immigration-law.pdf .

Note that Justice Scalia referred to Vattel's treatise as a "seminal" treatise. Compare Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana which hardly even knew who Vattel was.; June 25, 2012 at 12:33 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of III

John Woodman,

You asked me at your blog:

“Hey, Mario. I have a couple of questions for you.

First, you’ve never answered this one.

If Emer de Vattel was the source of the concept for “natural born citizen,” why did the Framers of the Constitution choose a term that was virtually identical to “natural born subject” from the English common law?

Part B: Why didn’t they use Vattel’s terminology — and say “a native or indigene?”
And here’s another question for you as well:

If the Framers of the Constitution were referring to Vattel’s concept, then why is it that Vattel and his book The Law of Nations were not referred to in relation to citizenship even ONE SINGLE TIME

in ANY of the notes or proceedings of the Constitutional Convention,
in ANY of the 85 essays that make up The Federalist,
in the notes and proceedings of the Ratifying Convention of Delaware,
in the notes and proceedings of the Ratifying Convention of Pennsylvania,
in the notes and proceedings of the Ratifying Convention of New Jersey,
in the notes and proceedings of the Ratifying Convention of Georgia,
in the notes and proceedings of the Ratifying Convention of Connecticut,
in the notes and proceedings of the Ratifying Convention of Massachusetts,
in the notes and proceedings of the Ratifying Convention of Maryland,
in the notes and proceedings of the Ratifying Convention of South Carolina,
in the notes and proceedings of the Ratifying Convention of New Hampshire,
in the notes and proceedings of the Ratifying Convention of Virginia,
in the notes and proceedings of the Ratifying Convention of New York,
in the notes and proceedings of the Ratifying Convention of North Carolina,
or in the notes and proceedings of the Ratifying Convention of Rhode Island?”

Here is my response:

1. A “natural born Citizen” is not “virtually identical” to a “natural born subject.” The distinction is based on: different forms of government; participation in government; who is sovereign; sharing of sovereign power; consent to citizenship and the obligations and duties that comes with it, to name a few.

A “subject” is subject to laws. A “citizen” has power and rights which he or she exercises for the purpose of controlling and pursuing his or her happiness.

Just as you badly blunder in taking a “citizen of the United States” for a “natural born Citizen,” now you badly blunder in taking a “subject” for a “citizen.”

2. Many of the Founders and Framers were fluent in French. In fact, they studied many books that were written in French. Vattel in French said: “Les naturels, ou indigenes.” The words are interchangeable. The first English translation of Vattel translated these word thus: “The natives, or indigenes.” Again, these words are interchangeable. When quoting Vattel, Chief Justice Marshall, concurring and dissenting in The Venus, referred to the original citizens of a society as “citizens.” When referring to their children, he called them the “natives or indigenes.” See Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus, at p. 289. Note that any prize case such as The Venus, Justice Marshall showed that the court must first start with the question of what is the national character of the parties and only after having established that national character, then consider questions of commercial domicile in a foreign country in which one may be found during time of peace and intentions to remain there or come home to one’s nation once war has broken out.

But the historical record shows that the Founders, when writing the Constitution, actually translated “naturels” into “natural born.” Indeed, the Founding generation knew that “les naturels, ou indigenes” meant “natural born Citizen.” Here is some strong historical evidence of this.

Continued . . .; June 25, 2012 at 5:51 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of III

“But the French “naturels” was also translated into “natural born.” In a 1781 treaty between France and the United States, “naturels” was translated into “natural born.” In 1781, France and the United States entered into the “treaty of amity and commerce.” Article III of the treaty as written in French said: “Les consuls et vice consuls respectifs ne pourront etre pris que parmi les sujets naturels de la puissance qui les nommera. Tous seront appointes par leur souverain respectif, et ils ne pourront en consequence faire aucun trafic ou commerce quelconque ni pour leur propre compte, ni pour le compte d’autrui.” Treaty of Amity and Commerce, Article III, Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, Friday, July 27, 1781 (underlined emphasis supplied). This memorial and plan of convention were entered only in the manuscript Secret Journal, Foreign Affairs. The following translation, in Charles Thomson’s hand, was the paper considered by Congress. It is in the Papers of the Continental Congress, No. 25, II, folio 21. Here is the translation into English of Article III: “The respective Consuls and Vice Consuls shall only be taken from among the natural born subjects of the power nominating them. They shall all be appointed by their respective Sovereign, and in Consequence of such appointment they shall not exercise any traffic or commerce whatsoever either on their own account, or on account of any other.” English translation of Treaty of Amity and Commerce, Article III, Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, Friday, July 27, 1781 (underlined emphasis supplied). So the French word “naturels” was translated into either “natives” in various English translations of The Law of Nations or as Thomson did in 1781 into “natural born.” For more information see
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2539663/posts ; Absolute proof the Founders knew and accepted Vattel`s French “naturels” to mean “natural born” , accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/10/absoloute-proof-founding-fathers-knew.html.

Then in the 1797 English translation, the word “indigenes” was changed to “natural born citizens.” Hence the sentence read as: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Vattel, Section 212.”
Source: From my brief filed with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in Kerchner and Laudenslager v. Obama.

So if “naturels” means “natural born” so does “indigenes.” So there is no problem with Marshall using “indigenes” rather than “natural born Citizen.” The words meant the same thing.
The Republic rejected calling its members “subjects.” Rather, it called them “citizens.”

Hence, when describing the members of the new republic and with reference to Vattel’s The Law of Nations, the Founders said “natural born Citizen,” “natural born” coming from “naturels,” and “citizen” coming from “citizen” replacing “subject.”

Note that the 1797 English translation of Vattel Section 212 eventually inserted the correct translation. That translator would have been in a position to know how the Founding generation defined a “natural born Citizen” and from where the term came. That translator specifically made a direct link from Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 to Vattel’s Section 212. Hence, he changed “natives or indigenes” to “natives, or natural-born citizens.” This is incontrovertible evidence that Article II’s “natural born Citizen” has a direct link to Vattel’s Section 212. On the contrary, there does not exist any contemporaneous historical evidence linking the “natural born Citizen” clause to Blackstone’s “natural born subject.”

Continued . . .; June 25, 2012 at 5:53 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: III of III

3. The Constitutional Convention was conducted in secrecy. The “natural born Citizen” clause was not debated in the Convention, so we are told. You also say that the state conventions did not mention either Vattel or The Law of Nations in reference to citizenship. So what? Nor did they discuss the English common law’s or Blackstone’s “natural born subject” in reference to citizenship. We know that citizenship is a vital and fundamental part of his The Law of Nations. Various U.S. Supreme Court and lower court cases have cited Vattel when defining U.S. citizenship. Are you going to even say that the law of nations is not in the Constitution when the big elephant is sitting right in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10? I guess such an important clause as giving Congress the power to “define and punish. . . Offenses against the Law of Nations” just magically appeared out of thin air. I guess you are going to foolishly tell us that no one in the conventions would have even cared about what all that meant or that they did not know what the law of nations was all about. And what is better yet, where do you think the Founders and Framers would have gotten their knowledge of what that law of nations was? Did they just invent it in their own minds? The historical record is replete with references to the Founders and Framers looking to Vattel for an explanation of what the law of nations was. In any event, there is plenty of other historical evidence, including case law from our U.S. Supreme Court, which informs on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and which directly links that term to Vattel and not to Blackstone or the English common law. You can visit my blog at http://puzo1.blogs.com for that evidence. Thank you for that. Here are some quotes regarding Vattel form Justice Scalia:

Finally, consider this:

“As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to exclude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress. That power to exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty. Emer de Vattel’s seminal 1758 treatise on the Law of Nations stated:

‘The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases,or to certain persons, or for certain particular pur- poses, according as he may think it advantageous to the state. There is nothing in all this, that does notflow from the rights of domain and sovereignty: every one is obliged to pay respect to the prohibition; andwhoever dares violate it, incurs the penalty decreed to render it effectual.’
The Law of Nations, bk. II, ch. VII, §94, p. 309 (B. Kapossy & R. Whatmore eds. 2008).”

Here is more reference to Vattel:

“In Mayor of New York v. Miln, this Court considered a New York statute that required the commander of any ship arriving in New York from abroad to disclose “thename, place of birth, and last legal settlement, age and occupation . . . of all passengers . . . with the intention of proceeding to the said city.” 11 Pet., at 130–131. After discussing the sovereign authority to regulate the entrance of foreigners described by De Vattel, the Court said:

‘The power . . . of New York to pass this law having undeniably existed at the formation of the constitution, the simply inquiry is, whether by that instrument it was taken from the states, and granted tocongress; for if it were not, it yet remains with them.’ Id., at 132.
And the Court held that it remains. Id., at 139.”

Arizona v. United States, 567 U. S. ____ (2012) (J. Scalia, concurring in part and dissenting in part) , accessed at http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/372443/supreme-court-decision-on-arizona-immigration-law.pdf .

Note that Justice Scalia referred to Vattel’s treatise as a “seminal” treatise. Compare Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana which hardly even knew who Vattel was.; June 25, 2012 at 5:57 PM
cfkerchner said...: Hi Mario,

And we know what Vattel meant when he wrote both words (being disputed by the Obots) in French because he defined their meaning in that very sentence. So we know what Vattel meant when he wrote it. And the founders knew what he meant because they read his works in French in which they were fluent since it was the diplomatic language of that time and again Vattel told him what he meant in the 1758 edition and in the contemporaneous 1775 French edition which the founders were using to justify the revolution and write the founding documents, and which was clearly and properly translated for all to read in English in the 1797 edition. Regardless of which edition one is reading and which language it is in, Vattel tells us what he meant by the words in the Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law, Vol.1, Chapter 19, Section 212, :Des citoyens et naturels". And as you point out we know that the Americans in the colonies translated "naturels" to "natural born" in the treaty communications. So the revolutionary founders and framers clearly knew what a "natural born Citizen" meant, suggested by Jay, when the framers wrote it into our Constitution instead of "born Citizen" suggested by Hamilton, and that is a person born in the country to parents who our citizens.

The Obots cannot tell us what the words in that sentence meant using today's progressive twisted interpretations and games ... since Vattel told us what he meant. He defined the words in the very sentence they are used in.

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org; June 25, 2012 at 6:15 PM
MichaelN said...: Scalia starts at page 30 of 76

"SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________
No. 11–182 _________________
ARIZONA, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. UNITED STATES ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT [June 25, 2012]

JUSTICE SCALIA, concurring in part and dissenting in part. The United States is an indivisible “Union of sovereign States.” Hinderlider v. La Plata River & Cherry Creek Ditch Co., 304 U. S. 92, 104 (1938).

Today’s opinion, approving virtually all of the Ninth Circuit’s injunction against enforcement of the four challenged provisions of Arizona’s law, deprives States of what most would con- sider the defining characteristic of sovereignty: the power to exclude from the sovereign’s territory people who have no right to be there.

Neither the Constitution itself nor even any law passed by Congress supports this result.

I dissent.

I As a sovereign, Arizona has the inherent power to ex-clude persons from its territory, subject only to those limitations expressed in the Constitution or constitutionally imposed by Congress.

That power to exclude has long been recognized as inherent in sovereignty. Emer de Vattel’s seminal 1758 treatise on the Law of Nations stated:
“The sovereign may forbid the entrance of his territory either to foreigners in general, or in particular cases, or to certain persons, or for certain particular purposes, according as he may think it advantageous to the state. There is nothing in all this, that does not flow from the rights of domain and sovereignty: every one is obliged to pay respect to the prohibition; and whoever dares violate it, incurs the penalty decreed to render it effectual.” The Law of Nations, bk. II, ch. VII, §94, p. 309 (B. Kapossy & R. Whatmore eds. 2008). See also I R. Phillimore, Commentaries upon Internation-al Law, pt. III, ch. X, p. 233 (1854) (“It is a received maxim of International Law that, the Government of a State may prohibit the entrance of strangers into the country”).1 There is no doubt that “before the adoption of the consti-tution of the United States” each State had the author- ity to “prevent [itself] from being burdened by an influx of persons.” Mayor of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 102, 132– 133 (1837). And the Constitution did not strip the States of that authority. To the contrary, two of the Constitu-tion’s provisions were designed to enable the States to prevent “the intrusion of obnoxious aliens through other States.” ....."

Read the rest here....
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2012/06/25/supreme-court-ruling-on-arizona-immigration-law/; June 25, 2012 at 6:55 PM
bdwilcox said...: Commander Kerchner,

Your post reminded me of a something I read when looking up the etymology of the term "lingua franca".

From Wikipedia: "The popularity of languages changes over time, and there are many lingua francas that are of historical importance. For example, French was the language of European diplomacy from the 17th century until the mid-20th century."

Now, let's see how long it takes the Obots to obliterate that sentence from Wikipedia and stuff it down the memory hole.; June 25, 2012 at 7:29 PM
Carlyle said...: Mario and Commander -

People like John Woodman, who are looking for references to Vattel commit a very basic error. There are thousands of words in the constitution, including many terms of art. There is not a reference for each one because their meaning was clear to them and their readers. There was no confusion.

That is why it is so important to analyze things in context of the time and place of writing.

NBC has never meant under any circumstance anything different than what Vattel said it meant. And if you listen carefully to Vattel's words and tone, he was not inventing the phrase for the first time. He was was writing a 'dictionary' and was simply jotting down the known meaning of the term.

You really have to stand on one leg and twist yourself in a pretzel to come to any other conclusion. THERE IS NO DOUBT what the framers meant.

Now, a whole other question could be discussed - - Was it ever clarified or redefined by any newer authority. Of particular interest is whether the basic definition was ever augmented to handle special cases that might meet the spirit of the law but not the exact letter.

We know, for instance, of a recent Senate Resolution (SR511, was it?) that attempted to do this very thing. But it is non-binding. It is pretty clear from that resolution that it's authors know dang well what NBC means.

The only way anybody can come to grips with this is to elevate themselves above and outside their love for Obama and look at things objectively. I have had to do that (and, yes, I claim moral and intellectual superiority to those who can't or won't) in regards my favorite, Marco Rubio. Alas, he is not eligible.; June 25, 2012 at 8:02 PM
Carlyle said...: Hey Guys - can we get a new thread soon - we are well over 700 comments. Geez.

(sorry, out of line, not my blog, just sayin - - -); June 25, 2012 at 8:04 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: John Woodman over at his blog told me that there is no evidence that the Founders and Framers looked to Vattel for citizenship. Here is what I told him:

"That is a joke, right?. See:

a. In his own defense during the Smith-Ramsay debate of 1789, William Smith quotes Emerich de Vattel:

“The Doctor says the circumstance of birth does not make a citizen–This I also deny. Vattel says, ‘The country of the father is that of the children, and these become citizens merely by their tacit consent.’ [footnote omitted] I was born a Carolinian, and I defy the Doctor with all his ingenuity, arithmetical or political, to say at what moment I was disenfranchised—at what moment I lost my citizenship. The revolution which took place in America made me a citizen of America under the new government, though then resident at Geneva. I never by any act disqualified myself. There was never a moment when I was a citizen of any other country.”
http://books.google.com/books?id=sxS00wE2l5kC&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=%22Manner+of+Acquiring+the+Character+and+Privileges+of+a+Citizen+of+the+United+States%22+ramsay&source=bl&ots=RygvzaFnxH&sig=jbTmahSEVoMCMu6G4mhx9NiPqvg&hl=en&ei=FD62S-LhBsOclgeL2K1Y&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CBUQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=vattel&f=false

Now this is a member of the House of Representatives citing and quoting Vattel on citizenship in 1789 in his own defense. You would think that in defending himself, he would have cited and quoted the most authoritative source on the subject matter. Wow, Smith picked Vattel. It surely is telling that Smith picked Vattel and did not pick William Blackstone in his own defense.

b. 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”).

c. Speaker of the House Landon Cheves in 1814 (paraphrases Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen”).

d. 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”).

e. 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” as found in Section 212 and said “there have been doubts” whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a “citizen”).

f. 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”).

g. United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (cites and quotes Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen”).

h. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (cited and quoted Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” which is a paraphrase of Vattel’s Section 212).

So, as before, John Woodman, you lose again."; June 25, 2012 at 8:54 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Carlyle,

Ok, I keep promising (not on the blog) but just have not gotten to it. John Woodman has kept me so busy.

I will have a new article up.; June 25, 2012 at 9:05 PM
Teo Bear said...: Mario,

I was finishing some research on Binny and WKA and came across John Woody-Woodpecker's article and read it for a laugh. But I had a bigger laugh reading his professional site http://springfieldcomputerguy.com/?p=8#comments Seeing he is updating his site I looked at a cached copy. Here is a guy who spends all his time telling the residents of Springfield how smart he is and how much they need him. (hey I wonder if Homer Simpson is a customer, duh) I simply cannot believe he can claim he is an IT expert. Since you know me and my 20+ years in international IT development I am more than qualified to say this guy would not survive as a corporate Tier= 1 help desk Weinie. I cannot understand how he thinks he can compete with Ron Pollard or Mara Zebest. Well no accounting for egos.

What I find interesting is in his cached website he says he is a website designer, but I see he has a notice "major web site change in progress!" Well deploying over 40 websites myself for fortune 500's this is the work of an amateur, No one does this, they leave the old up as they make their changes and when switch over without missing a beat. No, not Woody, he needs to prove to his customers how right he is about being right in the NBC debate. I wonder how many customers he is going to loose?

As the so-called birther-birther-debunker is more erratic than his professional life would lead one to beleive, (and that is erratic)

I have always respected your your fairness Mario, but why are you engaged in a battle of wits with an unarmed man or woodpecker as the case may be?; June 25, 2012 at 10:18 PM
jayjay said...: All:

If you can read (and, of course, this cannot possibly apply to OOPS Troops - aka the Obotic Horde) you will note that in the U. S. Constitution not only is the "nbC' term used only once, but the term "immigration" or equivalent derivative word is NOT USED AT ALL!

The implications of this are quite clear; not only is Scalia correct in his dissent but he is too mild. The majority opinion is itself unconstitutional since matters not delineated in the Constitution are left to the States and immigration would be one of these matters.

The term "naturalization" IS used, but naturalization and immigration are two horses of different colors.; June 26, 2012 at 11:44 AM
jayjay said...: Teo Bear:

IIRC, Abe Lincoln said something applying to John Woodpecker (or whatever his name might be) to the effect of:

"Better to be thought a fool than to speak up and remove all doubt"; June 26, 2012 at 11:48 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Here is what Dr. Conspiracy has to say about Justice Scalia citing and quoting Vattel in Arizona v. United States:

“SCOTUS cites Vattel: a shot over Obama’s bow?

BY DR. CONSPIRACY ON JUNE 26, 2012 IN CITIZENSHIP, IMMIGRATION, LAWSUITS, SUPREME COURT

I really enjoy making up sensational headlines, and then backing down in the article. In this case the Supreme Court is the current one (not Taney’s racist pre Civil War court) and the opinion was issued just yesterday in Arizona v. United States, a case deciding the authority of the states in regulating immigration.
Justice Scalia, “concurring in part and dissenting in part,” cited Emer de Vattel’s Law of Nations on state sovereignty. I don’t know if Vattel would have approved Scalia’s conflation of “state of the United States” with “country,” but that’s beside the point.

What does this have to do with Obama? In practical terms, it will only excite the birthers who will go all hyperbolic about how important Vattel is. In practical terms, Justice Scalia is already on record saying presidential eligibility is jus soli (birth in the country) and so it doesn’t have any bearing on Obama’s eligibility.
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/06/scotus-cites-vattel-a-shot-over-obamas-bow/#comments

***********

Here is my response to him that I posted at his blog:

Dr. Conspiracy,

Contrary to what you say, Scalia did not improperly conflate “'state of the United States'” with “'country.'”

Evidently, you do not understand what "Free and Independent States" means.

The new states also relied upon the law of nations and there is no reason why they cannot continue to do so today to the degree that the Constitution allows them within the context of a federal system.

Under Article IV, Section 4, "The United States" is constitutionally obligated to guarantee every state "a Republican form of Government" and to "protect each of them against Invasion” and “domestic Violence."

Furthermore, the Tenth Amendment provides: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Both Article IV and the Tenth Amendment express principles of self-preservation. State or nation self-preservation is a fundamental precept of the law of nations. Indeed, Scalia was correct in citing and quoting Vattel.

What this means is that if a certain rogue federal regime is bent on denying a state the protection that it needs in order to survive as a republic, to ward off invasion from without, and domestic violence from within, there is no constitutional impediment for that state to act to protect itself and to join with other states to achieve that same end.

Finally, your hypocrisy shines ever so brightly. You are so concerned about Justice Scalia conflating “'state of the United States'” with “'country,'” but with impunity you conflate and confound a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” with an Article II “natural born Citizen.”; June 26, 2012 at 12:09 PM
jayjay said...: Here's a good laugh for all:

Over on Kevin Davidson's blog he posted in his lurid-headline-mode (he seems to be a failed arithmetic major wishing to be a journalist) something like:

"Cold Case Posse: tax exempt status attacked" - and diD so with huge bolding and underlining as though that were meaningful. He linked to the actual purported filing of the "Tax-Exempt Organization Complaint (Referral) Form" which is IRS Form 13909 (as you may have noted the IRS has a Form for everything - probably even going to the bathroom).

At any rate Kevin - the "good Doktor" as we know him - praises this presumed submission effusively so I suspect that it is something he did (which he tries to hide) or - more likely - it was done by some AZ lawyer perhaps like one of those local political opponents such as the ones refusing to authorize the payment of $5,000 in expenses for the recent CCP trip to HI.

Funny as hell is that it took a good bit of time to assemble this thing and it should be more correctly be entitled a "Hit Piece" (on Arpaio, Zullo, and Corsi) rather trhan an "Attack" as styled by the wannabe journoguy.

Kevin posted it on his blog the very same day it was (supposedly) subtted so he'll have a hard time convincing anyone that he just "found it" himself while casually browsing the web. At most he was obviously given it by one of his myrmidons to be publicized.

Who knows, perhaps they think they'll reap some huge reward from the IRS - the better to use to attack bithers. I believe their real intent was to throw as much mud and associated trash as possible since they should know that IRS "bounty" payments are QUITE few and far between - something like 2 or 3 in any given year out of 500 or 600 Referrals such as this one.

Since by their own accounting (suspect at best) that $10,000 to $40,000 is claimed a mamimum of a 3 figure or very low 4 figure sum would be involved (if entirely taken at face value by the IRS) - since no proof is provided in the submission; just irrational charges and claims that the CCP parties are using the income/assets for personal gain and that they are involved in a political campaign.

The goniff who drafted this piece of trash obviously doesn't know what a "political campaign" really is. At any rate, it's a funny read and gives a very good headsup on what the opposition really is (aside from stoopid!!; June 26, 2012 at 12:32 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: At Dr. Conspiracy’s blog:

Author: Dr. Conspiracy

Comment:

I didn't develop this point, but my remark was not prompted directly by his [Justice Scalia’s] citation of Vattel but the citation that follows immediately:

See also I R. Phillimore, Commentaries upon International Law, pt. III, ch. X, p. 233 (1854) (“It is a received maxim of International Law that, the Government of a State may prohibit the entrance of strangers into the country”).1

Being a southerner, I am very much aware of resolutions of "nullification" passed by states and localities in, for example, the area of school integration. The notion that a state can do whatever it damned well pleases except secede is a proposition that doesn't sit well with me. And if a State cannot do as it pleases, then it is not quite sovereign. I know that Justice Scalia made an argument drawing a line between what is permissible and what is not; however, I still have reservations.

As for the second part of your comment:

Finally, your hypocrisy shines ever so brightly. You are so concerned about Justice Scalia conflating “’state of the United States’” with “’country,’” but with impunity you conflate and confound a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” with an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

This is nothing more than a straw man. Since the beginning, all those born citizens of the United States were its natural born citizens. The 14th Amendment just restored the original status of those born in the country, erasing the pro-slavery decision of the Court in Dred Scott.

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

Response by Apuzzo:

Dr. Conspiracy,

You overstate my states’ rights point and thus put forth a straw man argument by injecting into the discussion the Civil War. Of course, that is what you do best, overstate and distort others’ positions (and appeal to race and color) so as to gain some advantage.

As far as your use of the Fourteenth Amendment to declare that Mr. Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen,” your argument fails quite easily. You have no evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment either expressly or by implication ever repealed or amended the Article II “natural born Citizen” clause. In fact, the amendment’s plain language uses the clause “citizen of the United States,” (and even includes into that class naturalized “citizens”) not “natural born Citizen.” Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 plainly informs that anyone who is a “Citizen of the United States” and who is born after the adoption of the Constitution is not eligible to be President. The only way that Mr. Obama can be eligible to be President is by showing that he is not only a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” per United States v. Wong Kim Ark, but that he is also a “natural born Citizen” per Minor v. Happersett.; June 26, 2012 at 1:31 PM
cfkerchner said...: An Open Letter from Article II Super PAC to presumptive Republican Presidential Nominee W. Mitt Romney about the lack of constitutional eligibility of Rubio and Jindal to be VP or Pres: http://wp.me/pPOcT-24o

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
ProtectOurLiberty.org; June 26, 2012 at 7:32 PM
Joe said...: Mario,

Is there any update to your case? I can't look through 700+ posts and I really don't enjoy the arguments back and forth.

Could you please put up a new post with an update on where your case is and if there are any further plans or if that is still under consideration, etc..

thanks; June 28, 2012 at 2:02 AM
Carlyle said...: Commander and/or Mario,

Please explain. It was my understanding that using Mario's work here, Rubio was ineligible but Jindal was OK.; June 28, 2012 at 11:59 AM
jayjay said...: Carlyle:

Actually neither Rubio nor Jindal are eligible as nbC's. Santorum also may not be (not yet certain at last report).; June 28, 2012 at 3:56 PM
cfkerchner said...: Carlyle: Neither Rubio or Jindal are eligible. This Open Letter to Mitt Romney by the Article II Super PAC Director details the reasons why both Rubio and Jindal are not constitutionally eligible to be VP or Pres. Their parents were not citizens of the U.S. when they were born. Not even close. In fact the parents had not even applied for U.S. Citizenship when these two were born. See the letter at this link:
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/26/an-open-letter-to-presumptive-republican-presidential-nominee-w-mitt-romney/

Now Santorum is still not clear. My research indicates his father still had an alien registry number in the early 1950s. Since Rick was born in 1958, it is possible that Rick's father, Aldo who was born in Italy, could have utilized one of several avenues open to him to become a Citizen and take the Oath of Allegiance to the USA, but up until about 1952, no record can be found of Aldo doing so. Rick's grandfather Pietro (aka Peter) also born in Italy, did become a naturalized U.S. Citizen. But there is no evidence that Aldo (born in Italy) availed himself of the avenues to citizenship open to him due to Aldo's father Pietro naturalizing, Aldo serving in the Army, etc. He had head of the line access to Citizenship via these two avenues. All he had to do was fill out the form and take the Oath of Alliance. But again their is no record of Aldo doing so up until the early 1950s. That is when the public records ran dry for me. Rick Santorum could easily clear this up by providing a copy of his father Aldo's citizenship certificate, if one exists, so we can see when it was issued and when Aldo took the oath. But Rick has not done so. Therefore he is likely covering up that Aldo did not naturalize before Rick was born.
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/03/06/rick-santorum-still-refusing-to-provide-copies-of-naturalization-papers-proving-his-father-was-a-u-s-citizen-when-rick-was-born/

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
ProtectOurLiberty.org; June 28, 2012 at 5:48 PM
Carlyle said...: I thought we all once believed that Jindal's parents had naturalized somewhat prior to his birth.; June 28, 2012 at 6:23 PM
MichaelIsGreat said...: As 99% of the courts refuse to tackle Obama's eligibility with concrete actions (full discovery on all documents,
as the Department of Health in Hawaii very likely forged a false Obama long form birth certificate,
there is only the Supreme Court of the USA to turn to but they also refused so far for several cases to make a legal decision on Obama's eligibility.

Conclusion:
---There is very little hope that the American legal system will decide to tackle fully Obama's eligibility with full discovery. Especially to have experts in forgery assess Obama's original long form birth certificate in Hawaii that very likely has been replaced by a forgery long ago.
---The only hope is to put as many cases in Florida as possible because the law on eligibility in Florida permits anyone to challenge who is on the ballot. There is currently one case with Judge Lewis in Florida.
---These remarks should open our eyes to a very scary observation. The American legal system is completely unfair and inadequate and it should be reformed very thoroughly ASAP.; June 29, 2012 at 9:19 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: At his blog, John Woodman is trying to prove that Wong Kim Ark held that Wong was not only a “citizen,” but also a “natural born Citizen” by relying upon Chief Justice Fuller’s dissent.

Here is my response to him posted at his blog:
*************

Your reliance on that dissent is misplaced.

First, we should note that you have to resort to relying on dissents to prove that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.”

Second, it is not disputed that a naturalized person is not eligible to be President.

The First Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790 allowed children who were born out of the United States to “citizen” parents to be “considered as natural born citizens.” Of the 79 members of the First Congress, 20 had been delegates to the constitutional convention, with eight of these being members of the Committee of Eleven which included the “natural born Citizen” clause as part of presidential eligibility. Based on the language of this act and who was responsible for enacting it, one could reasonably argue that it was the Founders’ and Framers’ intent and desire that such children could later in life be eligible to be President.

Justice Gray said in Wong Kim Ark that citizenship “at birth” granted by Congress by statute to a child born abroad to “citizen” parents is nevertheless naturalization at birth. Accord Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815(1971) both the majority and dissent said that all means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependant on congressional enactment are forms of naturalization). Chief Justice Fuller, understanding what naturalization at birth meant, complained in his Wong dissent that under Justice’s Gray’s majority opinion, children born abroad to “citizen” parents were not eligible to be President because the majority gave place of birth (“born in the country”) such a controlling effect which Fuller even said had the effect of excluding from citizenship all those born out of the United States.

If Fuller’s presidential eligibility comment was truly relevant to the majority’s holding as you allege, please state or explain:

(1) where in the majority decision the Court said that Wong was an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible to be President.

(2) given Fuller’s criticism of the majority disqualifying children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents from being eligible to be President, please provide where in Justice Gray’s opinion he addresses why the Founders and Framers would have permitted the children born in the United States of alien parents to be eligible to be President but the children born out of the United States to “citizen” parents not to be so eligible.

(3) why we have statements such as: See Charles Gordon in his, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L.Rev. 1, 31-32 (Winter 1968) (says that Wong had nothing to do with defining a “natural born Citizen”); and Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct.App. 2009), transfer denied, 929 N.E.2d 789 (2010) (in Footnote 14 the court said that while “[w]e 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”).; June 29, 2012 at 2:33 PM
cfkerchner said...: Book: Officer's Oath - Dr. (and former Lt.Col.) Terry Lakin's new book - is now available via Amazon.com http://wp.me/pPOcT-24X

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
ProtectOurLiberty.org; June 29, 2012 at 3:55 PM
MichaelN said...: "Klayman To Seek Indictment Of Justices Roberts and Kagan Before Citizens Grand Jury

By Larry Klayman
Published: Thursday, Jun. 28, 2012 - 10:53 am

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2012/06/28/4596576/klayman-to-seek-indictment-of.html; June 30, 2012 at 1:43 AM