Monday, May 14, 2012

Purpura-Moran New Jersey Obama Ballot Challenge Appealed to Appellate Division-Briefing and Oral Argument Scheduled


     Purpura-Moran New Jersey Obama Ballot Challenge Appealed to Appellate     
                            Division-Briefing and Oral Argument Scheduled


                                             By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                   May 15, 2012

On Friday, May 11, 2012, I filed with the New Jersey Appellate Division on behalf of Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran their appeal of the New Jersey Secretary of State’s final decision to permit presidential candidate Barack Obama on the New Jersey primary ballot.

On Friday, May 11, 2012, I also made an application with the Appellate Division that the appeal be handled on an emergent basis. On Monday, the Court issued an order providing that the Court, sua sponte, accelerates the appeal. The Court has ordered that appellants file and serve their brief and appendix on or before Friday, May 18, 2012 and that respondent Barack Obama file and serve his responding brief and appendix on or before Friday, May 25, 2012. The Court also ordered that the New Jersey Attorney General file and serve his response on or before Friday, May 25, 2012. Finally, the Court scheduled telephonic oral argument for Wednesday, May 30, 2012, at 1:00 p.m. The appeal will be heard and decided by a panel of three Appellate Division judges, Clarkson S. Fisher, P.J.A.D., Linda G. Baxter, J.A.D., and Philip S. Carchman, J.A.D. A copy of the Court’s Order entered by Hon. Judge Carchman on May 14, 2012 may be read here,

http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/93589363-Purpura-Moran-Order-on-Emergent-Application-5-14-12 .

In our appeal, we will be arguing that:

1. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and Secretary of State (SOS) erred in finding that Obama, because he does not have to consent to his nominating petition, does not have any legal obligation to provide any evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State proving who he is, where he was born, and that he is constitutionally eligible to occupy the Office of President in order to be placed on the New Jersey primary election ballot.

2. The ALJ and SOS erred in finding that a “natural born Citizen” includes any child who is born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” regardless of the citizenship status of the parents.

3. The ALJ and SOS erred in finding that Obama was born in Hawaii, for there is no evidence in the record supporting such a finding.

4. The ALJ and SOS erred in finding that Obama was born in Hawaii and therefore as a matter of law he is an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 14, 2012
http://puzo1.blogspot.com/
####

Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

96 comments:

Art Telles said...

Another appeal for the history books...

Mr. Apuzzo,

When Hollywood awakens from it's leftist, progressive and marxist stupor, movies will be made about your efforts, and others, of course, to speak truth to power, specifically the courts, about the OCCUPIER-in-Chief BHObama, the "occupy" insurgent, THE "putsch(er)" Man, the puppet on the George Soros string, the latest iteration of the progressive insurrection, and it seems, the first marxist/islamic "putsch" of the 21st century.

Of course, I could be wrong.

It could be simply a marxist "putsch" using the Islamic jihad as a shield.

Art

elspeth said...

Praying for your favorable outcome, sir!

United Natural Born Citizens said...

puzo1;

Would you please clarify the order to deliver a copy to the 'Atty General'...?

I am assuming that is meant as the State Atty General as opposed to the U.S. Atty General, (Holder), but want to be certain that I did not miss some act of 'intervention' along the way....

jayjay said...

It will be interesting to see how much delay the defense tries to add in to the action.

I wonder if the "telephonic oral arguments" may/will be recorded and available to the public???

Best of fortune to the Plaintiffs!!!

Puzo1 said...

United Natural Born Citizens,

It is the New Jersey State Attorney General, not the U.S. Attorney General.

Carlyle said...

Hi Mario -

I hope you post this - it is a bit off center to your main thrust, but it regards our 'friend', whoever he is.

I first wrote this down as ruminations about something Martha Trowbridge wrote, but I never before posted it anywhere. Given the continued refusal of the courts to give us our constitutionally guaranteed Due Process, I think it is worthy of consideration here on your blog.

A mixture of fact and speculation. I don't know what to make of it. Except for the fact that it is further evidence (nay, proof) that something REALLY fishy is going on.

We still have not got to the crux of The Issue. And we need to challenge ourselves to focus like a laser beam on this.

WHAT MAKES BHO SO SPECIAL?

Regardless of facts and speculation and accusations, we KNOW that a great deal of effort and money has been spent to clean up after this person. WHY?

Who is he, really. Why is he worth the effort. Who cares? By all we know (specifically from his own 'narrative') he is nothing but a common street thug. One among thousands or even millions of semi-identical 'dime a dozen' agitators and mal-contents. So, why bother? Why did 'they' not simply throw him out and grab another one, early on? Who are 'they'?

Simply being the son of MalcolmX, Frank Davis, or any other famous disrupter, is not a sufficient reason to answer this question. It may be part of the answer but is not the whole answer, or even the biggest part.

This person, presently known as BHO, has no evident special or unique qualities. Take any category you want - race, religion, ideology, experience, rhetoric, etc. etc. - it is easy to find better choices.

So, the Big Puzzle remains - who is this guy, why is he 'magic', and WHO cares enough to remain steadfastly with him as their puppet?

??????????????????

Carlyle said...

to Andy:

Your arguments sound as if you were trying after the fact to pound a square peg into a round hole: "See I can make it fit". But let us be objective and remove ourselves from the present circumstance. Mario's views make way more sense. You seem to forget that the point of the clause was to be exclusionary, not promote diversity as is the modern mantra. i.e. I can see how a modern globalist might want to argue that the requirement is archaic and no longer relevant in the modern world - and therefore push for consideration of a constitutional amendment. However, it seems ridiculous to argue that it means anything other than the most restrictive possible meaning.

to Mario:

Andy seems to have lost his usefulness as a 'foil' to your arguments some time back. Isn't it time to retire him?

tedsbcfe said...

I'm amazed at how little the high ranking appointed officials of our court system seem to know about the constitution that they have sworn to uphold. Justice may really be blind. I just never drempt that it was also deaf and dumb as well....

jayjay said...

It will be exceedingly interesting to see how/if the Obama Justice Phalanx continues to operate as over-educated Hoplites in the "cause".

It is very clear to most whether they voted for this Communist or not that NO solid evidence of his name, his birth, his parentage, etc. has ever been formally presented in a court of law to be thoroughly examined by all parties.

There is even considerable question about his NAME let alone his eligibility for the office he now occupies.

Surely the court could recognize this and realize that all they - or anyone else - has to go on is his "trust me" statements and similar offerings by his myrmidons. Nothing resembling solid evidence which has all been - and still is - carefully hidden from view.

Hopefully the upcomng 3-judge panel will exercise suficient adult judgement to not be conned into complicity with many of their unthinking colleagues.


If he is truly legit then there is surely nothing to be harmed by subpoenaing all of the pertinent documents for examinaton and should they show him to be Barack the Magnificent, Natural Born Citizen extraordinare then life can continue for everyone with a clear conscience and huge sigh of relief for all. A couple of weeks should suffixce barring obstructionism. If not shown to be as above, then ...

Puzo1 said...

Trasher, John Woodman, is still spitting out the same worn out rhetoric at his blog. I left him the following question there. Maybe he will have the courage to post his answer both on his blog and here.

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

John Woodman,

Maybe you can help me understand your position. Minor did not look to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the Fourteenth Amendment when it defined the birthright citizenship status of those born in the United States. It looked to the Article II “natural born Citizen” clause and told us how that clause was defined by “common-law” which you know I contend is American “common-law,” given that the Court included in the definition of a “natural-born citizen” the requirement of citizen parents which did not exist under English common law which when defining a “natural-born subject” made no reference to the citizenship of the parents. Since it looked to neither the Fourteenth Amendment with its “subject to the jurisdiction” clause nor the Civil Rights Act of 1866 with its “not subject to any foreing power” clause, which both contain the the type of citizen called “citizen of the United States,” it could only look to Article II and select a “natural born Citizen” as that type of citizenship to define. And it did just that and said that a “natural-born citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who are citizens of that country. Being a “natural-born citizen,” the Court then concluded that Virginia Minor was also a “citizen.” Being able to declare Virginia Minor a “citizen” by showing that she was a “natural-born citizen,” the Court said that it was not necessary to decide whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now with Wong Kim Ark, the story is much different. Since Wong was not like Virginia Minor, i.e., not born to citizen parents, Justice Gray had to look to the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause to see if he qualified for citizenship thereunder. In other words, without the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong could not enjoy birthright citizenship status because, while he was born in the United States, he was not born to citizen parents. While it is a birthright status, the only birthright citizenship status under the Fourteenth Amendment is that of a “citizen of the United States.” The Wong Court concluded that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court thereby created another birthright citizenship. This one was under the Fourteenth Amendment. With this new status, children born in the United States to domiliced alien parents were given birthright citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment which the amendment calls “citizen of the United States.”

While both Article II and the Fourteenth Amendment provide a birthright citizenship status, we saw that under Article II that status is called “natural born Citizen” and under the Fourteenth Amendment it is called “citizen of the United States.” We also know that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that no person shall be President unless he/she is a “natural born Citizen.” Under that eligibility clause, today a “Citizen of the United States” is not eligible to be President. We also know that when the Founders and Framers included the “natural born Citizen” clause into Article II, there was no Civil Rights Act or Fourteenth Amendment. So, for the Founders and Framers, for those children born in the United States, there was only one type of birthright citizenship. And according to Minor, for those children born in the United States, birthright citizenship was that reserved for children not only born in the United States but also born to citizen parents.

Having said all that, by what legal principle do you take Wong’s Fourteenth Amendment birthright citizenship status which the amendment calls “citizen of the United States” and convert it into Article II birthright citizenship status which the article calls “natural born Citizen?”

MichaelN said...

John Woodman, RealityCheck, Andy, alcum, gorefan and 4zoltan have all run away and hidden themselves from the simple question, i.e....

What was the "common law" that the US Supreme Court referred to in the Minor v Happersett case, which did not clearly define or provide for native-born children of alien parents to be citizens of the US?

It couldn't have been the English common law, because English common law would not hold any doubts about a native-born being a natural born subject/citizen.

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

Johnny?
RealityCheck?
alcum?
Andy?
gorefan?
4zoltan?

Any of you lot up to a bit of honesty for a change?

Andy said...

@MichaelN

Well, I can't argue that it is or isn't the English Common Law. The court didn't tell us. You'd have to ask them.

But any conjecture on my part, or on yours as to it's source is just that - conjecture.

Puzo1 said...

MichaelN,

You forgot ballantine.

Unknown said...

EASY ANSWER: He is BLACK --- and anyone who dared challenge him was declared a RACIST --- by ALL OTHER BLACKS.

Ninety percent (96% to be exact) of all blacks I talk to are willing to IGNORE EVERYTHING about him except that he is BLACK and they are so "proud" to finally have a "black" president.

They don't know or care how much "damage" he will have done to their cause if he is proven to not even be a "citizen", (thus is an ILLEGAL ALIEN).

jayjay said...

I'd have to suppose that the upcoming 3-judge panel will make full use of the hoary obot arguments we've heard so far English Common Law, WKA, CRS Memos, etc.).

If so, more's the pity since a simple order on their part could end this hyperbolic nonsense we've seen in the courts to date where technicalities are (mis)used to avoid any meaningful ruling. Perhaps the judges (being somewhat cloistered) do not grasp the fact that there are literally millions of citizens at "great unease" about the eligiility situation and the way it is NOT being handled by the courts. There is a burning desire for the truth - and soon!!

If the panel were to issue appropriate papers (subpoenas) for, say, only a very limited discovery it would be sufficient for most purposes and would only involve a couple of locatons and very little time.

If all Occidental College papers relating to Obama - his application to the school as well and any and all other of documents related to hin (grades, financial requests, club memberships, etc.) could furnish a wealth of pertinent information, starting with his name in the 1980s era. It's quite possible these papers have already been gathered up - and sequeastered - by the school since they were subpoenaed 2/3 years ago in the Judge Carter flip-flop IIRC. Even if not, a small team approved by both sides could gather them up and if necessary obtain requisite copies or photos while retaining a valid chain of custody.

The other site for such a team would be HI where both Kapiolani Hospital should be required to offer up any and all hospital admission, treatment, and discharge records for Obama and Mama and possibly have the team take depositions from the Hospital Administrator and the Medical Records Librarian on that same subject.

As a second HI "stop" a little tenderf loving care could be devoted to the notorious HI DOH which would probably not give up the original birth-related Obama family documents but could at least allow viewing and copying/photographing them (much like with Occidental) and retaining an appropriate chain of custody of such copies. Various of the well-known DOH officials (Fukino, Fuddy, Onaka, etc.) and possibly even the Governor might be deposed on the matter.

Both of these locations would not take excessive time even for a small group of investigators and the depositions would be very helpful. Since the final outcome of all this is eventually going to be some felony criminal charges politicss notwithstanding, a person being deposed will be a bit more cautious in his statements.

Anyway, why not try to interest the court in such a limited discovery to find a few of the basic facts that no one presently knows - name, rank, and serial number (or similar)??? At least we could possible find out his name.

Puzo1 said...

I of II

John Woodman insists that Minor used the English common law when it said that a child born in a country to parents who are citizens of that country is a "natural-born citizen."

He also insists that Minor did not give us a definition of a "natural-born citizen," because there could be more such definitions such as the definition that Wong Kim Ark gave (which, in any event, is not a definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen," but rather that of a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen").

Here is my response to him at his blog:

**********

John Woodman,

What a pleasure to watch you squirm.

I love how you avoid answering the question of how could Minor have relied upon English “common law” if it said that those who were born in the country to citizen parents were “natural-born citizens.” Why would the Court need to include in its formula the citizenship of the parents if the English common law considered the citizenship of the parents irrelevant? The absurdity of your position that Minor referred to the English common law is shown by this example. Let us assume that the Court said: “Those born in the country with brown hair are “natural-born citizens.” Why would the Court even mention brown hair if it is irrelevant? So why would Minor mention citizen parents if they were not relevant under English common law?

Your logical analogy, that a Frenchman is a European does not mean that a European is a Frenchman (other Obots have used that a dog is a creature with four legs does not mean that all creatures with four legs are dogs) does not apply to the "natural born Citizen" issue. Being French is only one of many nationalities (one of many subsets) that make up the larger class of many nationalities combined which we call European, just like a dog is a subset of the larger class we call creatures with four legs. In other words, there is more than one nationality that comprises the European class just like there is more than just dogs that make up the class of creature with four legs. Your logical analogy does not work with "natural born Citizen," for the Founders and Framers, writing a bright line standard for presidential eligibility, provided for only one definition of the clause, i.e., a child born in the country to citizen parents. In other words, being a “natural born Citizen” does not have the same numerosity characteristic as does Europeans and creatures with four legs, i.e., there is only one definition of a “natural born Citizen” unlike there are many types of Europeans and creatures with four legs. Again stated differently, there is only one definition of a “natural born Citizen” in the class that we call “natural born Citizen.”

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of II

So, yes, there are many nationalities that make up the Europeans and there are many creatures that make up creatures with four legs. But really, your argument is absurd when applied to writing bright line eligibility standards for the President. How many types of "natural born Citizens" do you think the Founders and Framers had in mind when they said the President had to be a “natural born Citizen? Are you going to tell me as many as there are Europeans and four-legged creatures? Are there still some more definitions of a "natural born Citizen" yet to be discovered, depending on who may want to run for the Office of President in any given moment? Do you not see the absurdity of your argument? Do you not see that the Framers would have had in mind only one definition of a “natural born Citizen” when they said a would-be President had to have that status in order to be eligible to be elected President? Minor confirmed that one definition of a “natural-born citizen” as had other previous U.S. Supreme Court cases. Even Wong Kim Ark confirmed that same definition (agreeing with Horace Binney and confirming that a “natural born Citizen” is a “natural born child of a citizen” “born in the country”). There never have been any other definitions of the clause. Do you think that the Founders and Framers expected a court to come along and just change the definition of terms they used in the Constitution, all done without constitutional amendment? We cannot change the constitution at whim every time political circumstances require it. The current constitutional definition of a “natural-born citizen,” as confirmed by Minor and Wong Kim Ark, can be changed, but only by constitutional amendment.

Now that you have made your ridiculous logical argument, why do you not defend your position and tell the whole wide world how many definitions of a "natural born Citizen" the Founders and Framers had in mind when they wrote the clause into the Constitution.

js said...

The findings in the last court were that BHO had no obligation to prove his eligibility. They said that he doesn’t need to give consent to be nominated. This claim, effectively, nullified the US Constitution and the NJ Constitution, both of which require that the candidate must be qualified to hold office. The statutes that provide this loophole is, effectively, invalid. The Constitutions of both State and Federal levels usurp any legislation by either Congress or the NJ State Legislature, as both documents are the supreme law of the land, and reciprocate the requirement at both levels.
As far as the claim that the actual election is for electoral votes, and not valid as to the electorate who actually cast their votes before Congress, the name of the Candidate as it appears on the ballot is all that matters. If the name of the person designated to be sent before congress appears on the election ballot, then nobody has any right to demand that a candidate be qualified to hold office, however, this isn’t so. The NJ Constitution set the same standards for both state and federal candidates, making the Electoral College inconsequential at this level of the election. The person/persons designated by the States legislature to be the States representative before Congress, that has the right to cast the vote for the electoral ballot for the State of NJ, is solely determined by the voters who pick from the names on the ballot in the General Election. The State Law is currently that those person who so appear, must be qualified for office. It doesn’t state that those persons who appear only need prove qualifications for office if they were not nominated by a political party. NJ Statutes clearly state that the candidate MUST be qualified for office, not the person selected for the Electoral College, as there is no qualification requirements to appear upon the ballot to be nominated for the Electoral College, nor do they appear on the ballot, nor are the names of such persons known to the public when their votes are cast. NJ Constitution cites that the actual candidate that appears on the local ballot must meet the specific qualifications to hold the office to which they appear as candidates for, upon the ballot. The local ballot removes this from the claim that the Electoral College is the only ones that cast the vote for President.

Unknown said...

Mario:

I know there were some over-optimistic reporting that Obama's attorney had admitted the LFBC was a "forgery".

BUT: I can't help wondering if an opportunity was lost by not indeed demanding such an admission of "forgery" in exchange for dropping the testimony and evidence that it was ???

jayjay said...

js:

And the Letter of Instruction to candidates/parties sent out on the letterhead of the Governor and Lt. Gov. of NJ (who is also the SOS) has a specific, delineated requirement that the person must be a nbC.

... suppose they just put that there as jollies for the obots???

MichaelN said...

Andy said...

"@MichaelN

Well, I can't argue that it is or isn't the English Common Law. The court didn't tell us. You'd have to ask them.

But any conjecture on my part, or on yours as to it's source is just that - conjecture."

Response:

But the court DID "tell us" Andy.

Surely you can deduce for yourself that if English common law held NO DOUBT that native-birth alone DID SUFFICE to make a "natural born", and

the SCOTUS in the Minor court recognized and acknowledged that there WERE DOUBTS as to whether native-birth in US, alone, DID NOT SUFFICE to make a "natural born", then,

it is OBVIOUS and is correctly and logically reasoned, that it is WITHOUT ANY DOUBT that the SCOTUS in the Minor court was NOT REFERRING to the English common law.

Now you CAN argue that it isn't English common law, Andy ....... right?

Nothing to do with "conjecture".

Andy said...

MichaelN Said:
"Surely you can deduce for yourself that if English common law held NO DOUBT that native-birth alone DID SUFFICE to make a "natural born", and

the SCOTUS in the Minor court recognized and acknowledged that there WERE DOUBTS as to whether native-birth in US, alone, DID NOT SUFFICE to make a "natural born", then,

it is OBVIOUS and is correctly and logically reasoned, that it is WITHOUT ANY DOUBT that the SCOTUS in the Minor court was NOT REFERRING to the English common law."

Now you CAN argue that it isn't English common law, Andy ....... right?

Nothing to do with "conjecture"."

Except for the conjecturing. Your making the assumption that the court looked beyond the circumstances in the case. Virginia Minor was born here for two citizen parents. She's a natural born citizen. The court needn't consider any other circumstances, so they didn't. Notice they didn't cite any of the other sources. It's not because they thought they were unworthy of consideration, but simply because the question was not in front of them.

You fail to see the court limiting it's own decision.

Unknown said...

If one of my parents had been a French citizen I have no doubt whatsoever that I would have a feeling for France that otherwise I would not have. I might not realize this however. But it might well influence choices I made. If I had been born in Germany to two US citizens again I believe that my place of birth would hold significant meaning for me. Both parent and place of birth do hold meaning for people, acknowledged or not.
Living in a time when modern psychology, self help books, and magazines and sites like Huffington Post are bursting with purported scientific findings about people, an older time tested wisdom has been overlaid and mostly forgotten. I think this is why strangely unwise things go on in this society.
Putting myself in Madison's place in the 18th century I can see why I would favor as president a man born in the land of citizen parents. It makes absolutely perfect sense. Why take chances on hidden loyalties, hidden even from the person himself? There will always be plenty of natural born citizens so why open the door to chance?

MichaelN said...

Andy, you are still dancing around the point.

Basically the SCOTUS in Minor referred to a "common law' which did NOT recognize native-birth as sufficient to make a "natural born".

But the English common law DID recognize native-birth as sufficient to make a "natural born".

Therefore it could not possibly have been the English common law thet the SCOTUS in Minor was referring to.

Do you agree Andy?

Or do you say it was the English common law that the SCOTUS in Minro was referring to?

MichaelN said...

@ ballantine

What was the "common law" that the US Supreme Court referred to in the Minor v Happersett case, which did not clearly define or provide for native-born children of alien parents to be citizens of the US?

It couldn't have been the English common law, because English common law would not hold any doubts about a native-born being a natural born subject/citizen.

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

ballantine?

MichaelN said...

MichaelN Said:
"Surely you can deduce for yourself that if English common law held NO DOUBT that native-birth alone DID SUFFICE to make a "natural born", and

the SCOTUS in the Minor court recognized and acknowledged that there WERE DOUBTS as to whether native-birth in US, alone, DID NOT SUFFICE to make a "natural born", then,

it is OBVIOUS and is correctly and logically reasoned, that it is WITHOUT ANY DOUBT that the SCOTUS in the Minor court was NOT REFERRING to the English common law."

Now you CAN argue that it isn't English common law, Andy ....... right?

Nothing to do with "conjecture"."

Andy said .......
"Except for the conjecturing.
Your making the assumption that the court looked beyond the circumstances in the case. Virginia Minor was born here for two citizen parents.
She's a natural born citizen.
The court needn't consider any other circumstances, so they didn't.
Notice they didn't cite any of the other sources.
It's not because they thought they were unworthy of consideration, but simply because the question was not in front of them.

You fail to see the court limiting it's own decision."

Response:
You are evading the point Andy.

The point IS that the SCOTUS in the Minor court recognized and acknowledged doubts as to whether native-birth alone sufficed to make a "natural born".

So it is impossible for the SCOTUS in Minor to have been referring to the English common law, because English common law held no such doubt.

So what "common law" do you suppose the SCOTUS was referring to?

Jo said...

Mario, your appeal arguments are thought out in perfection. It is to ALJ and SOS displeasure.

Puzo1 said...

John Woodman has written an article entitled, What the Writers on the Law of Nations Had to Say Relevant to Natural Born Citizenship, accessed at
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/05/what-the-writers-on-the-law-of-nations-had-to-say-relevant-to-natural-born-citizenship/#comment-2186 He concludes that:

Neither is it true that a concept of “natural born citizen” as being born exclusively of citizen parents originated in the Law of Nations. Many of the Law of Nations writers in fact clearly undermine the Mario Apuzzo / birther concept of who the natural citizens of a country are.

As we’ve seen, there is NO specific evidence linking “natural born citizen” to the writings or concepts of Emer de Vattel at all. Nor is there anything to link “natural born citizen” to similar writings or concepts from any other major writer on the Law of Nations.

All available evidence of any substance at all links the term to the English common law term and concept of a “natural born subject.” And under that concept, children born in a country, even of non-citizen parents, were always “natural born.”

Here is my reply:

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

John Woodman,

Like all your other articles, this is another fail. You know darn well that I have always maintained that the Founders and Framers favorite was Vattel. That means that they went with his definition of a “natural born Citizen,” found in Section 212 of The Law of Nations. They were most likely influence by what the other publicists said, like: (1) Samuel Von Pufendorf on what he says regarding the original citizens and their descendents being the indigenous citizens. Pufendorf would have considered any child born to a citizen parent to be indigenous, not as you say “adopted;” (2) Cornelius van Bynkershoek on his view that individuals had the right to expatriate, which the English common law denied; (3) Thomas Rutherford when he explains like Vattel that the natives are the children born in the country to citizen parents who can renounce their citizenship and take on a different one when reaching the years of discretion. As far as his children having no citizenship, Congress disagreed. Starting in 1790, Congress told us that children took on the citizenship of their parents; and (4) Christian Wolf when he said that natives are children born in what constitutes a nation to citizen parents and that such natives are also citizens. Sounds a lot like Minor v. Happersett here. He also said that a nation is preserved by the children of the citizens. Vattel says the same. As far as his “temporary citizens,” according to Congress, starting from 1790 to the present, there is no such thing. But in the end, for the Founders and Framers, the one that said it best was Vattel.

You also know that the Founders and Framers went with Vattel, given all the evidence I have produced on that score.

Proof that the Founders and Framers went with Vattel is even found in the early Naturalization Laws of Congress and Jefferson’s 1779 law on citizenship.

And this is not even to mention Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, Ben Franklin, George Washington, and other founders, David Ramsay, James Wilson, Robert Yates, St. George Tucker, and the teachings at the College of William and Mary. … and more.

Even cases like The Venus (C.J. Marshall), Dred Scott (J. Daniels), Minor (only paraphrase), Ex parte Reynolds, Ludlam, Ward, and Wong Kim Ark (only paraphrase) all cite and quote Vattel and all show that as a nation we went with Vattel on citizenship.

What you have done here is short change Vattel. You do not present any quotes from him because you know they are the strongest. You do not even give Vattel a chance and right away, you throw Blackstone into the mix and give us your silly statistics.

Again, you just keep playing your intellectually dishonesty. You can fool the uninformed, but not the informed.

Fail, Mr. Woodman.

MichaelN said...

"Delegates to the First and Second Continental Congress, which produced the Declaration of Independence, often consulted {The Law of Nations,} as a reference for their discussions. One important reason why the delegates chose to meet in Carpenters Hall, was that the building also housed the Library Company of Philadelphia. The librarian reported that Vattel was one of the main sources consulted by the delegates during the First Continental Congress, which met from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774. Charles W.F. Dumas, an ardent supporter of the American cause, printed an edition of {The Law of Nations} in 1774, with his own notes illustrating how the book applied to the American situation. In 1770, Dumas had met Franklin in Holland, and was one of Franklin's key collaborators in his European diplomacy. He sent three copies to Franklin, instructing him to send one to Harvard University, and to put one in the Philadelphia library. Franklin sent Dumas a letter, Dec. 9, 1775, thanking him for the gift. Franklin stated, ``I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of
your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting ...|."

http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id3.html

MichaelN said...

Puzo1 said...

"John Woodman,

Like all your other articles, this is another fail."

"Again, you just keep playing your intellectually dishonesty. You can fool the uninformed, but not the informed.

Fail, Mr. Woodman."

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

So true Mario.

What is more, John Woodman has embedded his deceitfulness and disgusting behavior and his pathetic, dismal failures in the cyber-record and also in his hard-copy publications for all time.

What a shameful embarrassment he now is and will be to his friends, family and future progeny.

MichaelIsGreat said...

Hello Mr. Apuzzo,

Some recent important action.
Read "Arizona official to Hawaii: Show birth verification" at http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/arizona-official-to-hawaii-show-birth-verification/?cat_orig=politics

Keep fighting until the ugly truth of Obama's deception is fully revealed!!!

Unknown said...

I can not think of a single instance where place of birth would trump parents as regards influence. So for Woodman to see in "natural born citizen" only place of birth is really surprising. Why have the requirement at all? If I had to chose I would certainly opt for parents as the major source of a child's later behavior. In which case if Woodman were promoting that I could at least see his logic. But no. It's place of birth.
But Woodman will not give up; no argument will change his mind. He has locked onto an idea, and it will go with him to his grave barring some supernatural revelation upon which we should not count.
I would like to point out that given the scrutiny the Constitution was given before it was ratified, there is no likelihood that anything in it was obscure to those late 18th century readers. How could it be that so many knew what "natural born citizen" meant and made no outcry over an obscurity and yet now we find this phrase hidden in darkness? (Considering the many chairs at universities in American History as well as the many professors of law this is a hard one to believe.) Apparently in 1875 Justice Waite could write "it has never been doubted . . ." without feeling in the least that he was writing nonsense. One has to conclude that as late as that time the legal world at least confidently knew what the phrase meant. For "it has never been doubted" to make sense there would have had to be a population of potential doubters. But as he writes, there were none to his knowledge.
I think these points are the sort that Woodman and his coterie should be reflecting on as they are solid proof of conditions that favor Apuzzo and Donofrio. I also think Woodman would be wise to realize that the term "birther" the way he uses it refers as much to him as anyone.

Unknown said...

Until yesterday I did not know who John Woodman was. So I took some time and looked over his site. Woodman must just like Obama.
If he had chosen parents over place I could sympathize. If he gave Sheriff Arpaio some credit at least I would take him seriously. But John seems to have had an instinct for taking up the weakest positions and lavishing energy and time on them.
Perhaps John had too many children. Six, I take it. Or perhaps too much mathematics and computer work has addled his brain. I know these are a bit ad hominen--but I would like to understand how an intelligent man can go so off the track. After all Sheriff Arpaio has a reputation to defend and an upcoming election. He is not going to put his stamp of approval on third rate investigative work. Looking at Obama's documents one is immediately suspicious by the inharmonious elements. The lack of 19 on the draft registration card for example. The smiley face on a signature capital letter. These little tell tale clues are distressing on official documents. And anyway Obama usually tells at least one falsehood a day. If he were a kind man, that would be one thing. But he seems unaffected by the children he regularly kills with his drone activities.
I think John Woodman needs to take up the matter of angels dancing on the head of a pin. I think that would amuse him more and cause less trouble for people. Just a suggestion that might be passed along at an auspicious moment.

js said...

Breaking news at Breitbart-"The Vetting - Exclusive - Obama's Literary Agent in 1991 Booklet: 'Born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii'"

MichaelN said...

@ John Woodman, RealityCheck, alcum, 4zoltan, Andy, gorefan, ballantine

Come out from hiding and explain, what "common law" it was that the SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett was referring to.

Unknown said...

Mr. Woodman has this to say about the USA. It is what I consider dangerous patriotism. Certainly uncritical patriotism. I think we need to keep this in mind when it comes to his critical reflections on "natural born citizen".
"I regard the United States as being a great nation.

After defeating the Japanese, we helped them rebuild their country — and today Japan is one of the most prosperous and peaceful nations on earth.

We fought to preserve freedom for the South Koreans — and as a result the South Koreans enjoy a prosperous life, while their neighbors to the north eat wallpaper, bow before the dictator, and starve.

Yes, we made some major messups in Vietnam — but we also welcomed more than 100,000 Vietnamese refugees into our land, and those people and their descendants prosper today, while the relatives they left behind struggle on in what is still a poor country today.

We set the Iraqis free from an absolute dictator whose sons used to troll the streets looking for young women to abduct and rape — a dictator who slaughtered thousands of his own people. We gave those people a voice in their own government, and they emerged from polling places with purple fingers and smiling faces.

And unlike so many other nations would have done, we didn’t simply go in and plunder their resources and claim them for our own.

As far as Afghanistan goes, we set the people of that nation free from an oppressive regime in which girls were not allowed even to go to school. And — absolutely unlike other nations in which rape and murder have been a part of official policy — in the very few instances in which US soldiers have committed crimes against the people, we have court-martialed those criminals and held them responsible for their crimes."

The level of naivety demonstrated here may not surprise many of you. He certainly goes after his "facts" like a rat terrier when natural born citizen is at stake. But evidently when it comes to America his sight and aggressiveness is less at hand
.

Harold Smith said...

Unknown,

Woodman's statements represent the completely fraudulent view of History and current events that is typical of those defending the rogue Empire that Obama fronts for. No doubt it would also be Woodman's position that "fire" brought down the WTC towers; that the attack on the USS Liberty was an "accident"; and that "lone nut" Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated JFK.

Woodman is merely a propagandist for the state (and not a very good one at that), masquerading as some kind of an "intellectual"

Harold Smith said...

According to an article at WND, the state of AZ is officially asking the state of HI to produce documents showing that Obama was born there. (And I'm presuming that they will only accept verifiably authentic documents).

If this is really true, this is good news, IMO. And if understand correctly, if HI fails to produce the documents, Obama's name will not be going on the AZ ballot.

I predict that if just one state in the union removes the fraudster's name from the ballot, that will open the floodgates.

On the downside, I will further predict that if this actually happens, the bloodthirsty criminally insane madmen that we would know as our Masters - will attack Syria and Iran and very likely start the overt, final phase of WW3, before the exposure of the fraud brings down the whole house of cards.

Puzo1 said...

MichaelN has left a new comment

Andy.

You are still dancing around and evading the point.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't you agree Andy?

Moderate comments for this blog.

Posted by MichaelN to Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers at May 17, 2012 10:20 PM

Doublee said...

I live in Arizona and these are my predictions regarding Secretary of State Ken Bennett's request to Hawaii for Obama's birth certificate. My predictions are not based on any knowledge I have of Ken Bennett. They are based on the tenor of the times.

1) The request will be denied. It will be interesting to see what Ken Bennett does in this case.

2) If the request is not denied, Hawaiian officials will send a letter confirming Obama's birth in Hawaii. They will not send a certified copy of the birth certificate.

3) Ken Bennett will accept the confirmation letter or the certified copy (if by some miracle it is sent) as proof of Obama's "citizenship" and he will allow his name to be placed on the ballot. He will be ignorant of the definition of natural born citizen.

Of course, I hope my predictions are proven wrong, but based on the record so far, I think my predictions are justified.

js said...

It doesn’t do any good to debate the “Woody” crew..
The acts of omission, intentional or otherwise, demonstrate that the crew will not use the whole truth as subject matter. They intend to omit much of what exists, and attempt to insert extraneous and oft out of contest "authorities" into the topic. I’ve omitted using the word “Obot” so as not to offend them.
James Madison’s quote in the federalist papers on the Smith case is a prime example. The quote “It is an established maxim, that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth, however, derives its force sometimes from place, and sometimes from parentage; but, in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States” appears to be suggesting a certain authority.
They use the quote to represent that this is what the common law of the US was at the time the statement was made. The truth is, the debate was not about current US citizenship, but as to the status of those born before the Revolutionary war, and their rights to whatever citizenship they were entitled. The right was certainly based on 2 things, the presence of the individual at the time of the war, and his participation in it, and the other being the location of the birth of the individual, giving birthright citizenship to anyone born in the US that did not adhere to the British during the war. It is conceded here that those born in the US Colonies before the war were citizens, and those who were present during the war became citizens when we won, but as to those born in foreign territories, coming to this nation during the revolution, they needed to take an oath to become naturalize, like Smiths Parents did 1 month after Smith was born. That the US Citizenship didn’t apply was the plaintiff’s position. To this the right to citizenship for minor children was confirmed in the Smith case. To suggest that it included status of natural born citizenship is false. While those same people were eligible to become POTUS by right of the exclusionary clause, the natural born citizenship was never intended to be covered the that statement, hence, the use of this to suggest it includes the NBC clause in the Constitution is out of context.
One should also note the “general” place they state is the most certain criterion according to Hamilton. While that may be true, he also states that “birth is a criterion of allegiance”. He also said”and sometimes from parentage”, which is a key to this statement. He doesn’t include or exclude allegiance of children born in the US to those who were not citizens in his statement, however, his administration considered the children who were born in the US to aliens to be aliens themselves, demonstrating that when you take information like this out of context and refuse to include research available showing the “whole” truth, that it is in effect lying through omission. The crazy part of it is, it doesn’t attempt to debate the issue of natural born citizenship, but remains in the realm of just a citizen, which is in itself a separate category from the NBC issue.

Unknown said...

By focusing on why the qualification of natural born citizen was arrived at in the first place, Mr. Woodman's position collapses. It was I understand to prevent treachery by someone with divided loyalties becoming president and thereby commander and chief. This makes very good sense. Now Mr. Woodman locks the front door (born in the land) but leaves the back door unlocked (parents not citizens). Of the two, non-citizen parents is the most dangerous since parents wield very considerable influence over their children. Just imagine someone in the early 19th century growing up in the home of English parents and grandparents in New York where the parents often host persons who did not favor the Revolution. It could certainly have happened. Where will the boy born in America be apt to place his allegiance? Far better a boy born in France to US citizens who moves to America with parents at the age of 5 or 6.

Andy said...

@MichaelN

As I've stated before, I don't know what "common law" to which the Minor court was referring. They didn't leave us any citations. Which is why the WKA ruling is so much stronger. The legal argument is clear and concise. It's also why courts have cited WKA so often: there's legal heft behind it.

We don't know how thoroughly the Minor court looked at the common law. We know "it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."

The common law didn't provide those qualities of native birth and citizen parents. We know that the court considered those qualities (since they applied to Minor), but they court doesn't show us that those qualities are NECESSARY. Only that given the present case, they pass the common law definition.

The WKA court shows us more fully what the common law actually said, and ever-so-handily provided quotations.

So some of your facts and logic fail to be either.

The problem is that you're asking the wrong question.

Harold Smith said...

Has anyone checked out the latest revelations from WND? They've got a short biography on Obama, (apparently composed by his publicist for a book that was never published) actually they have two of them; one from 1991 and the other from 2003, where it is plainly stated that Obama was born in Kenya.

What will the excuse be this time? How cartoonish is this going to get, I wonder?

With each new damning revelation, I should think it would be harder and harder for the state of HI to stonewall and for the states to play games and deny justice.

Will there be a tipping point here somewhere, or will our Masters provoke a nuclear WW3 first?

MichaelN said...

Andy said...

"As I've stated before, I don't know what "common law" to which the Minor court was referring. They didn't leave us any citations."

Andy you are STILL dancing around and evading the point.

The observation of the SCOTUS mentioning "common law" and that it was clearly NOT the English common law, has NOTHING to do with the Wonk Kim Ark case.

You may not know which "common law" the SCOTUS in Minor was referring to, but YOU can easily deduce that it was NOT the English common law.

Right, Andy?

As you know the English common law did NOT hold ANY DOUBT that native-birth alone sufficed to make a "natural born", but the "common law" referred to by the SCOTUS in Minor DID!

Go on Andy, be daring.

Now that you know full well that it was not the English common law that the SCOTUS referred to in Minor, would you hazard a guess that it would MOST LIKELY BE US American "common law"?

Acknowledge to the truth Andy.

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

You say that Minor did not say that birth in the country to citizen parents was necessary. Wong Kim Ark did not say that birth in the country and "subject to the jurisdiciton" is necessary. So, see how silly your argument is.

Also, you leave out that Minor also said that "there have been doubts" about whether a child born in the country to alien parents was even a "citizen." The English common law did not give any such doubts, for a child born in the dominions of the King and in his allegiance was a "natural born subject," regardless of the citizenship of the parents. How do you explain that the Court said that such doubts existed if under the English common law there were no such doubts?

Harold Smith said...

Doublee,

Did you see the latest article at WND describing the situation?

It's looking bad to me.

According to the article, Bennett asked Hawaii officials "merely for an email confirming the Department of Health has a certified copy of the birth certificate."

Can you believe that? After all that's happened? After Arpaio's painstaking investigation and subsequent public demonstration of fraud?

After all that, Bennett requires "merely an email"?

And then, after eight weeks have elapsed, Hawaii officials refuse even to send such an email.

And what's Bennett's response?

"Bennett told Phoenix talk-radio host Mike Broomhead yesterday on his KFYI AM show that he *MIGHT* keep Obama’s name off of the state’s presidential ballot if he doesn’t receive the confirmation."

Can you imagine that? He "MIGHT" uphold the Constitution; or he might not. Instead he may decide to trash the Constitution and betray the people, just like everybody else.

I wonder, if Obama were to make a public admission, say tomorrow, that he was born in Kenya, would it matter?

Or if even that's not enough, how about if Obama were to personally carve the words into Ken Bennett's flesh?

What would it take? What would it literally take...as we sit here on the verge of nuclear WW3...to get one of these Greg Stillson wanabees to do the ####### job we're paying them to do?

Andy said...

@MichaelN

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

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

@Puzo

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

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

"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."

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

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

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

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

Andy said...

@Puzo1

Minor never says it was clear in the common law who were natural born citizens. Minor does say that a specific grouping of circumstances was never doubted to be a natural born citizen. End of story. They didn't elaborate on that point, and you are reading the construction completely backward.

You are making the assumption that the circumstances are required. The court made no holding in that regard.

The Naturalization acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 make no mention of children born to aliens in the United States. None. Not even a reference to them.

You are the one who just lied. Twice.

You are more that free to post such lies on your blog. But continuing to do so in court is dishonest, and will probably result in your punishment. Don't say you weren't warned.

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

Your little scam game is what Minor did not say. The Court also did not say the moon is made out of cheese.

Your "not necessary" argument is absurd given that historically a "natural born Citizen" had only one definition, i.e., a child born in the country to citizen parents. There never has been any other definition. So your attempt to go looking for one or inventing one is contrary to the historical record and case law of our U.S. Supreme Court.

Also, if your "not necessary" argument has any validity, then tell me how many definitions of a "natural born Citizen" the Founders and Framers had in mind when they wrote the "natural born Citizen" clause. After all, it is their clause and not the court's that we are analyzing. I have asked you this question several times, but you have evaded answer me.

About the naturalization acts, the language speaks for itself. It simply said the children of persons who naturalize shall become citizens upon the parents naturalizing. That is a easy read and only a liar like you and John Woodman cannot understand the plain language.

Also, the James Madison administration, in analyzing and applying the Naturalization Act of 1802 to James McClure confirm that I am reading the statutes properly. I note that neither you nor John Woodman has responded to my point on the significance of the John McClure case which I have shown proves that I am correct in how I interpret the early naturalization acts.

js said...

Poor Andy...such a small view of the world...such big claims...and so very, very wrong...
Minor made specific claims...that children born to "citizens"...were never questions as to natural born citizens...to the rest...there have always been doubts...

Mario is right...there isn’t any wiggle room for anyone to include anyone but a child born to citizen parents in this SC ruling...the doubts...at the time of the ruling...were anybody else...ie..children "NOT" born to citizens...get that..."CITIZENS" as in plural...singular does not apply...there ARE doubts as to them being an NBC...simple...

Now go check Madison’s administration...does he include the children of any aliens as citizens at all?...NOT EVEN ONCE...

OOOhhh...poor poor Andy...you been floppin about under the bus for a while now...it’s no wonder...you can’t see straight!!

Andy said...

@Puzo

There's a reason I don't need to find a historical definition of Natural Born Citizen. The Supreme Court did such a wonderful job in WKA that every court after has simply pointed to their reasoning there.

It's not me you have to overcome, but the Supreme Court.

Justin said...

Minor didn't say what either of you are saying it said. It said there was no doubt a certain group of people were CITIZENS! It then labeled that group "natural born".

MichaelN said...

Andy said...

"Minor never says it was clear in the common law who were natural born citizens. Minor does say that a specific grouping of circumstances was never doubted to be a natural born citizen. End of story.

They didn't elaborate on that point, and you are reading the construction completely backward."
----------------------------

Andy.

"At common law" 'Minor does say that a specific grouping of circumstances was never doubted to be a natural born citizen.'

Then in the same paragraph Minor does say that a "specific grouping of circumstances" was doubted to be a citizen.

English common law held no such doubts if native-birth alone (i.e. in its "specific grouping of circumstances")sufficed to make a natural born.

Therefore it is impossible for it to have been the English common law that Minor was referring to.

What "common law" was it Andy?

MichaelN said...

Andy.

Where are John Woodman, RealityCheck, alcum, gorefan and ballantine when you need them?

How come they haven't rushed in and set us all right and shown how wrong we all are, and that it was English common law that Minor was referring to?

Why have they all run away from this point?

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

Your efforts are pathetic. So you use Wong Kim Ark to make up for your own ineptitude in research and analysis. You use Wong Kim Ark to cover for your lies. You just point to a case and tell us that you do not have to show us anything. Now how convenient that is.

Wong Kim Ark never held anybody to be a "natural born Citizen." Wong became just barely a "citizen" by judicial grace and you want to tell me the Court held that he was a "natural born Citizen."

I have asked time and again for one quote from Wong that shows that the Court held Wong was a "natural born Citizen." No one has been able to come up with such a quote. Rather, all that I get is what the English common law said during the time of the colonies which does not prove anything about what specifically the Court held, let alone how the Founders and Framers defined a "natural born Citizen."

All your arguments are nothing but political spin.

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

I have a question for you. Please answer "yes" or "no." I do not need or want evasive commentary.

Does the following statement define a black widow spider:

It was never doubted that the species, which were black in color, commonly with an hour glass red marking on the underside of its abdomen, with a bite that contains neurotoxic venom latrotoxin which is particularly harmful to humans as it can cause death without proper medical attention, and which engages in cannibalism of her male sexual partner, were spiders. These were black widows spiders as distinguished from tailed daddy longlegs spiders.

MichaelN said...

Justin said...

"Minor didn't say what either of you are saying it said. It said there was no doubt a certain group of people were CITIZENS! It then labeled that group "natural born"."
---------------------------------

Justin, the SCOTUS in Minor stated that at "common law", that there was NEVER ANY DOUBT that the native-born "citizens", who were born to US citizen parents, were "natural born citizens".

Then the SCOTUS stated that there were doubts as to whether other native-born children, born to alien parents were even US citizens at all.

Therefore at the time, according to the SCOTUS, it was the US citizen status of the parents that determined whether a native-born child was a "citizen", and that the ones who were born to US citizen parents were not only citizens, but because of their parents' US citizen status, they were "natural born".

Ergo: "natural" meant NATURAL DESCENT and NOT native-birth.

Puzo1 said...

Justin,

I have a question for you. Please answer "yes" or "no." I do not need or want evasive commentary.

Does the following statement define a black widow spider:

It was never doubted that the species, which were black in color, commonly with an hour glass red marking on the underside of its abdomen, with a bite that contains neurotoxic venom latrotoxin which is particularly harmful to humans as it can cause death without proper medical attention, and which engages in cannibalism of her male sexual partner, were spiders. These were black widows spiders as distinguished from tailed daddy longlegs spiders.

Justin said...

@MichealN

No. It says there was no doubt that they were CITIZENS! You are making the same leap of logic that the Obots make concerning WKA. Minor does not say that there was no doubt about who was an nbC. It's as if the court said there is no doubt that natural born citizens are citizens. Read it like this:

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

Get my drift? You guys know I already agree with your definition I just didn't think Mario or Andy were right about what they were posting about Minor.

Puzo1 said...

Justin,

I do not understand your point.

Maybe if you answer my question directed to you about the black widow I can understand what you are saying.

Puzo1 said...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Justin said...

The "no doubt" part isn't about the definition of natural born Citizen, it's about the citizenship status of natural born children.

bdwilcox said...

Further, from the same Virginia Constitutional Ratification Debates where George Mason states: "The common law of England is not the common law of these states." and James Madison said it was repugnant to use terms from the English common law and instead relied on the law of nations:

They were debating whether the Constitution needed a bill of rights to ensure that government would not take away rights as it pleased, especially through the ratification of treaties. Many argued that even if that were to happen, those affected could simply appeal to the law of nations for redress. Think about that for a second. Mr. Henry rebukes them, noting by that time it will be too late: "I say again that, if you consent to this power, you depend on the justice and equity of those in power. We may be told that we shall find ample refuge in the law of nations. When you yourselves have your necks so low that the President may dispose of your rights as he pleases, the law of nations cannot be applied to relieve you. Sure I am, if treaties are made infringing our liberties, it will be too late to say that our constitutional rights are violated."

They also had other very telling exchanges:

Mr. Henry makes the case for a bill of rights because the Constitution without one excludes the common law and its protections: "When our government was first instituted in Virginia, we declared the common law of England to be in force.

That system of law which has been admired, and has protected us and our ancestors, is excluded by that system. Added to this, we adopted a bill of rights. By this Constitution, some of the best barriers of human rights are thrown away. Is there not an additional reason to have a bill of rights?...That paper ought to have declared the common law in force."

Mr. Henry just stated that the Constitution is antithetical to the English common law and excludes it, so a bill of rights should be entered into it to ensure that the previous protection of rights is still in affect.

(Part 1 of 2)

bdwilcox said...

(Part 2 of 2)

Further, from the same Virginia Constitutional Ratification Debates where George Mason states: "The common law of England is not the common law of these states." and James Madison said it was repugnant to use terms from the English common law and instead relied on the law of nations:

They were debating whether the Constitution needed a bill of rights to ensure that government would not take away rights as it pleased, especially through the ratification of treaties. Many argued that even if that were to happen, those affected could simply appeal to the law of nations for redress. Think about that for a second. Mr. Henry rebukes them, noting by that time it will be too late: "I say again that, if you consent to this power, you depend on the justice and equity of those in power. We may be told that we shall find ample refuge in the law of nations. When you yourselves have your necks so low that the President may dispose of your rights as he pleases, the law of nations cannot be applied to relieve you. Sure I am, if treaties are made infringing our liberties, it will be too late to say that our constitutional rights are violated."

They also had other very telling exchanges:

Mr. Henry makes the case for a bill of rights because the Constitution without one excludes the common law and its protections: "When our government was first instituted in Virginia, we declared the common law of England to be in force.

That system of law which has been admired, and has protected us and our ancestors, is excluded by that system. Added to this, we adopted a bill of rights. By this Constitution, some of the best barriers of human rights are thrown away. Is there not an additional reason to have a bill of rights?...That paper ought to have declared the common law in force."

Mr. Henry just stated that the Constitution is antithetical to the English common law and excludes it, so a bill of rights should be entered into it to ensure that the previous protection of rights is still in affect.

Mr. Henry also states that America lacks a formal common law like England has: "There is no common law of America, (as has been said,) nor constitution, but that on your table." (i.e. the Constitution they are debating)

In answering him, George Nicholas states that the Constitution doesn't enforce the common law, but it doesn't exclude it either: "But, sir, this Constitution is defective because the common law is not declared to be in force! What would have been the consequence if it had? It would be immutable. But now it can be changed or modified as the legislative body may find necessary for the community. But the common law is not excluded. There is nothing in that paper to warrant the assertion."

Gov. RANDOLPH also states: "But he objects that the common law is not established by the Constitution. The wisdom of the Convention is displayed by its omission, because the common law ought not to be immutably fixed. Is it established in our own Constitution, or the bill of rights, which has been resounded through the house? It is established only by an act of the legislature, and can therefore be changed as circumstances may require it. Let the honorable gentleman consider what would be the destructive consequences of its establishment in the Constitution...The immutable establishment of the common law would have been repugnant to that regulation. It would, in many respects; be destructive to republican principles, and productive of great inconveniences. I might indulge myself by showing many parts of the common law which would have this effect...Thus, were the common law adopted in that system, it would destroy the principles of republican government. But this is not excluded. It may be established by an act of legislature. Its defective parts may be altered, and it may be changed and modified as the convenience of the public may require it."

bdwilcox said...

(Part 3 of 2 - oops)

George Mason told us that the common law of England is not the common law of the states. James Madison states that it was repugnant to use terms from the English common law. The other members then go on to discuss how the Constitution is antithetical to the common law and that a formal common law like England has is itself antithetical to a constitutional republic.

There are then multiple appeals to the law of nations by multiple members, all saying that it is the supreme law and trumps all other laws, even treaties signed by the President. How anyone could say these men were relying on the common law of England for anything is beyond me. They were obviously averse to it and gave full reverence to the law of nations.

But, hey, what do they know? This was all a long time ago and they only wrote the damn thing. I'm sure Justice Gray knew what they meant better than they did.

Mario, is my interpretation flawed here? I don't have the contextual understanding that you do so I might have missed some of the finer points they were making. Please shed some light if you could.

bdwilcox said...

I will also say that what Andy lacks in insight he certainly makes up for in tenacity. It's like watching sophistry on parade.

MichaelN said...

Justin said...
“ No. It says there was no doubt that they were CITIZENS! You are making the same leap of logic that the Obots make concerning WKA. Minor does not say that there was no doubt about who was an nbC. It's as if the court said there is no doubt that natural born citizens are citizens. Read it like this:
"..it was never doubted that all natural born children became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Get my drift? You guys know I already agree with your definition I just didn't think Mario or Andy were right about what they were posting about Minor.”
--------------
Response:
Read it like this:
"..it was never doubted that all native-born children of US citizen parents became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."
Then read some more like this:
"..there are unsolved doubts as to whether all native-born children of NON-citizen parents, became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."

According to the SCOTUS in Minor there was at least one essential birthright quality in the making of a "citizen".

It was doubted that native-birth alone sufficed to make a citizen.

So all there was left to determine from, was natural descent from US citizen parents.

This natural descent was what was singularly needed, for there to be no doubts that native-born children were citizens.

The SCOTUS in Minor tells us that a child who has citizenship via natural descent and native-birth is a "natural born citizen" and it is clear that the "natural born" is determined either solely by natural descent from US citizen parents, or it is determined by both native-birth and natural descent.

But it is clear due to the” doubts” which the Minor court recognized, that native-birth counted for nothing, except when there was a child born to US citizen parents, THEN the term “natural born citizen” may be aptly applied to such a child.

Bear in mind that the naturalization act of the day recognized natural descent as THE criteria for birth-right “citizen” for a child born NON-native, and so “citizen” would apply also to children born to the same US citizen parents, who were native-born.

Apparently there was nothing else that made a “citizen” at birth, except by natural descent from US citizen parents.

SCOTUS in Minor considered US citizen parentage as THE criteria for a child to be a “citizen” at birth, so it makes perfect sense and follows that when the element of native-birth was ADDED to this natural descent “citizen” (i.e. of US citizen parents) then this native-born “citizen” of US citizen parents (as opposed to the NON-native born “citizen” of US citizen parents) was aptly described as a “natural born citizen”.

MichaelN said...

Part 2

Given that this term was carefully selected by the framers as the eligibility criteria for president of a republic, where absolute and undivided loyalty, dedication, allegiance and patriotism were to be WITHOUT ANY DOUBT the desired virtues, then it is clear that the framers did not settle for, nor intend native-birth alone to suffice to make a “natural born citizen”.

What precisely would have made those doubted native-born (mentioned in Minor) as citizens?

Answer: ONLY US citizen parents.

Native-birth alone was doubted to make a citizen.

On the other hand, natural descent alone was NOT doubted as sufficient to make a "CITIZEN".

Native-birth combined with natural descent was never doubted to make a citizen, and these TWO qualities TOGETHER in a citizen, make that citizen a natural born citizen.

The latter Wong Kim Ark court addressed the issue of whether native-birth alone sufficed to make a native birth-right "CITIZEN" and solved the “doubts”, and there was no other doubt to solve in the Wong Kim Ark court.

Wong got “citizen” via native birth.

Wong did not get ruled “natural born” and he was lucky just to be ruled a “citizen” at all.

Wong still lacked the natural descent from US citizen parents, which Virginia Minor enjoyed and which was the ONLY FACTOR that results in Minor, (due to this US citizen parentage) being described as a “natural born citizen” by the SCOTUS.

In summary it was natural descent from US citizen parents ALONE which determined whether a child born native or off-shore was a “citizen” at birth.

The native-born child, who enjoyed US citizen parentage, who was a citizen at birth BECAUSE OF US CITIZEN PARENTAGE (because it sure wasn’t native-birth due to the “doubts”) was described by the SCOTUS in Minor as a “natural born citizen”.

The off-shore born children to US citizen parents were only “citizens” at birth.

In the same Minor court, the native-born child who did not enjoy US citizen parentage was doubted to be a citizen at all.

Ergo: it was and IS the US citizen status of the parents which determines the US “natural born citizen” status of a native-born child.

js said...

Even Minor conceded that there is a difference between citizen and subject. If he had conceded that there meant the same thing, then English Common Law would have certainly been asserted, but he didnt.

The 4th paragraph of the opinion makes this very clear;

"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."

The rest is history. Mario hit it right on the head and the Obots just fail. Read the WHOLE OPINION and its FULL meaning comes into focus. Take statements out of that context, and the conclusions become lies of omission.

Puzo1 said...

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

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

Here is my response to him.

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

Jonroland,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Harold Smith said...

Time for a quick break to ponder this:

If "Barack Obama" is the "President", then this is not the United States of America.

Carlyle said...

The Obots seem especially fond of and extremely fixated on SOIL right now. I can hardly wait until it is proved that The Obama was not born in US. At which point, one can only suppose, they will immediately and wholesale convert to BLOOD! And of just one parent.

One can only imagine what they will do when they further find out that The Obama had a foreign mother also. Perhaps some form of Immaculate Conception or Magic?

Carlyle said...

@ Unknown said...

It was I understand to prevent treachery by someone with divided loyalties becoming president and thereby commander and chief.

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

Exactly! You have to grasp this basic point before you are entitled to argue detail and nuance. If not, all your arguments collapse into various versions of "how many angels can dance on a pin".

It is very like having a Supreme Court justice that had never read The Federalist Papers. We would never be so stupid as to do that! Oh, wait - - - OOPS! - - -

Andy said...

@Puzo1

My answer: No

Read here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_widow_spider

LIke NBC, the "black widow spider" is a much broader term than you can get your head around.

Harold Smith said...

Here is something which I don't see anyone else talking about:

Obama needs to be dethroned because he is blackmailable.

This is not to minimize the fact that he is in violation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution and has defrauded the people of the U.S., accordingly, but to point out why anybody living in the U.S. should have standing to bring some kind of legal action.

Just think if you had the original (or even a copy of) the suspiciously missing records from the INS archives showing that his Mother and he flew from Kenya to Hawaii in early August 1961.

What defense is there against that damning proof?

What would Obama do for me, for example, if I had that INS record in my hand and the power and influence (media and otherwise) to make it an issue?

Clearly, the "machine" has enough control over the "system" that this issue would be the perfect lever of control, should "President" "Obama" happen to develop a conscience or to get cold feet and stray from the agenda.

Our Masters, experts at deceit and the manipulation and control of morally incompetent people, would have the power and the finesse to use this lever against Obama while at the same time obstructing the hapless peasantry from seeking justice.

As fate would have it, the "birther" movement seems to be spiraling out of their control, and as such, may have paradoxically given Obama some small degree of "freedom" (as if in "nothing to lose" freedom)...but I digress.

The point is, I don't want a blackmailable "President" in office, because he can never represent me, he can only represent whoever it is that's holding the missing INS records, for example. And whoever has those missing records wants to destroy what's left of the U.S.

Puzo1 said...

I of III

Justin,

You said in reference to Minor v. Happersett: “The ‘no doubt’ part isn't about the definition of natural born Citizen, it's about the citizenship status of natural born children.”

I disagree.

(1) The Court’s ultimate goal in Minor was to determine whether women, as “citizens of the United States,” had the constitutional right to vote which states could not abridge because of the privileges and immunities enjoyed by “citizens” under Article IV and the protection from state abridgement that they received under the Fourteenth Amendment.

(a) While the parties did not contest that Virginia was a “citizen,” before it could answer the underlying question, the Court sought to first determine whether the first premise of its question was true. Hence, the Court set out to first determine through a thorough and well reasoned analysis which took it back to the founding and to the present, whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen.”

After explaining who the Founding “original citizens” were and how more citizens could be made by Congress under its naturalization powers, it accomplished that goal of determining whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen” by confirming what the definition of a “natural born Citizen” had been under American “common-law” or national law, i.e., a child born in a country to parents who are citizens of that country which definition was a paraphrase of Emer de Vattel, Section 212, The Law of Nations (1758). The Court then told us that all “natural born Citizens” are necessarily also “citizens.” Hence, Virginia Minor, born in the United States to citizen parents which made her a “natural born Citizen” under the definition confirmed by the Court, was also necessarily a “citizen.” Being a “citizen,” she was therefore entitled to the “citizens[’]” privileges and immunities of Article IV which received protection from state abridgement through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Here is a logical syllogism that shows what the Minor Court held in its initial holding:

All “natural-born citizens” are “citizens.”
Virginia Minor was a “natural born citizen.”
Virginia Minor was a “citizen.”

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of III

(b) With respect to the ultimate holding of the Court, unfortunately for Virginia Minor, the Court also held that voting was not included as part of Article IV privileges and immunities. Hence, the state of Missouri could decide through its own state laws whether women would be given the right to vote. Since Missouri through its constitution and statutes decided that it would not allow women to vote, there was nothing the U.S. Supreme Court could do about it. Therefore, Virginia Minor won the battle to show that a woman was as much a “citizen” as any man was, but lost her battle to establish that as a woman and “citizen,” she had the constitutional right to vote which Missouri or any other state could not abridge because of the Fourteenth Amendment.

What all this shows is that all “natural born Citizens” are necessarily “citizens.” Hence, there is no doubt that someone who is a “natural born Citizen” is a “citizen.” It was never doubted that any child who was born in the country to citizen parents, which made them “natural born Citizens,” were also “citizens.” There were “no doubts” that such a person was a “citizen” because there were “no doubts” that such a person is a “natural born citizen,” and there were “no doubts” that all “natural born Citizens” are necessarily “citizens.” So Minor’s “no doubts” go to both what a “natural born Citizen” is and also to the fact that anyone who is a “natural born Citizen” is also necessarily a “citizen.” But ultimately, being a “citizen” did not give one the right to vote under the privileges and immunities of Article IV.

(2) Another important point about Minor, which has been unjustifiably exploited by those who argue that Obama is a “natural born Citizen,” is the Minor Court’s 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. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.”

In all, the Court did nothing more than say that there were two types of “citizens,” “natural-born citizens” and naturalized “citizens,” with both being “citizens.” It added that “some authorities” “include” as “citizens” “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.” Given what the Court had explained was a “natural-born citizen,” the Court was not suggesting that this other “class” of person could be included with the “natural-born citizen” class. Rather, it said that there was a question whether it was proper to “include” the members of this other class of persons as “citizens.” And the reason there were doubts whether it was proper to “include” them as “citizens” is that, unlike Virginia Minor, they were not “natural-born citizens” which would have automatically qualified them to be “citizens” and therefore removed any doubt about their status. And they could not be “natural-born citizens” because they were not born in the country to “citizen” parents.

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

III of III

So this other class of persons that Minor referred to and which it said created doubts concerning whether it should be “include[d]” as a “citizen” class was comprised of neither “natural-born citizens” nor naturalized citizens, for if its persons fell into any one of these categories, there would be no question that that class too was to be included as a “citizen” class. This other class was made up of children who had been born in the United States to alien parents and still sought birthright citizenship. We know that under the exiting naturalization acts of Congress, they could not even be “citizens of the United States” through naturalization after birth until their parents naturalized if done during their minority or on their own thereafter, let alone born “citizens.” But because of the Fourteenth Amendment and its new “subject to the jurisdiction” clause, a new question now needed to be answered. Were these children, born in the United States to one or two alien parents, born “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and therefore “citizens of the United States?” Minor did not and did not need to answer that question because Virginia Minor was a “citizen” by virtue of being a “natural born Citizen.”

The question left open by Minor was eventually answered by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) which held in 1898 that a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was born “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and therefore a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States.” So, Wong created this other class of born “citizen” (a new birthright U.S. citizenship ). While not holding him to be a “natural-born citizen” because of not meeting the “no doubt” definition of a “natural-born citizen” confirmed by Minor, Wong Kim Ark held Wong to be a “citizen of the United States” under the new Fourteenth Amendment.

Minor confirmed the precedential definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Wong Kim Ark did not change that definition, but rather created a new born “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Finally, there is a constitutionally critical distinction between an Article II “natural born Citizen” and a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States.” The former is born with allegiance and loyalty only to the United States. The latter is born with allegiance and loyalty not only to the United States, but through jus sanguinis, also to the nation of any parent who is not a U.S. citizen at the time of his or her birth.

Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, only a “natural born Citizen,” not having any allegiance or loyalty to any foreign power from the moment of birth, is eligible to be President.

MichaelN said...

SCOTUS in the Minor court doubted a native-born child to non-citizen parents was a US "citizen", but used the term "natural born citizen" to describe a native-born child to US citizen parents.

All because of the status of the parents.

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

You see, regardless of whether you answer “yes” or “no” to my “black widow spider” question, you lose. If you answered “yes,” you would be admitting that Minor v. Happersett gave us a definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Of course, you think you are real slick so you say “no” as not to fall into that trap. But then your “genius” does not realize that by saying “no,” you are denying that a child born in a country to parents who are citizens of that country is a “natural born Citizen” which is what the English common law, you and your Obot clan, and the whole world has always conceded. That the definition of a “natural born Citizen” (“black widow spider) is broader, as you incorrectly maintain, does not mean that a child born in the country to citizen parents is not a “natural born Citizen” (is not a “black widow spider”). Nice playing, Andy, but you lose, again.

Puzo1 said...

Here is the intellectual strength (actually nothing but gibberish) of the Obot machine. And these Obot arguments are supposed to be "winning" arguments. You be the judge:

Author: jonroland
Comment: Mario, you just insist on misstating and misciting. First, "birth" is just the event of being "born". "Natural born" means the result of "natural birth". Second, Happersett does not contain a definition. A statement that "there is no doubt" that someone born on U.S. soil and also born to U.S. citizen parents is a "natural born citizen" could just as easily be "There is no doubt that someone born on U.S. soil and also born to U.S. citizen parents and also 100 feet tall and also having negative mass and also [any attribute you might want to throw in] is a natural born citizen." That is only saying that at least one of the attributes listed have to be true, but it is not saying that all of them have to be true. You have simply got to learn basic logic and grammar.

Source: http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2012/05/01/natural-born-citizen-requirements/comment-page-6/#comment-14367

Puzo1 said...

I just asked jonroland the following:

Jonroland,

Tell me if this is a definition of a “natural born citizen:”

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758).

Ray said...

First, “birth” is just the event of being “born”. “Natural born” means the result of “natural birth”.

So a person born in the US to citizen parents, but delivered cesarean, is not eligible? Hahahaha!

All citizens are eligible except those delivered c-section... how utterly moronic.

Stop already - my sides hurt from laughing so much!

Harold Smith said...

Unfortunately, I happened to be drinking a coffee when I read that gibberish. Now, who's going to buy me a new keyboard?

MichaelN said...

Mario it is almost word for word

Puzo1 said...
"I just asked jonroland the following:

Jonroland,

Tell me if this is a definition of a “natural born citizen:”

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758)."

--------------------------
@ jonroland

Here's the SCOTUS statement straight from Minor V Happersett, which demonstrates the strong influence of & favor for the principle of perpetuating the "blood-line" of the progeny of citizens and so perpetuate the nation, as was espoused by the very popular Vattel ....

Minor:
"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."

All the SCOTUS did was put the "natives or natural-born citizens" part from Vattels passage at the end of the passage of text instead of at the beginning like Vattel.

By placing the result/subject at the beginning of the passage of text (like the Vattel's layout), the Minor court virtually said the exact same as what they had already said, virtually only the "natives or natural born citizens" part is the other way around anyway ........ nothing in the meaning and definition really changes.

Placing "natives or natural born citizens" at the beginning, simply puts the passage in the same order as the Vattel passage, but doesn't change what is being expressed.

e.g. here's the result/subject placed at the beginning of the passage showing the SCOTUS virtually saying the same thing, using the Vattel sentence structure and order of nouns.....

"the natives or natural born citizens are all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens, these children upon their birth, became citizens also. They were distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

One thing of interest is that this statement .... "were natives or natural-born citizens" .....

It's like the court is describing both the indigenous native and/or natural-born.
It might very likely have additional wisdom in its saying .... "were native", and connecting/including what the natives represented, with what a "natural born citizen" represented, i.e. a deep sense of allegiance to a place and to parents and ancestors ..... a deep sense and connection and collective sovereignty, that it is the place of ancestors to be treasured.

Puzo1 said...

Vattel defined a “natural-born citizen” as follows:

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758).

Minor, in 1875 held:

“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.”

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875). Clearly the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor was just paraphrasing Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen.” Here is more evidence:

The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814): Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens and said:

“Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’”

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): 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. . . .”

As we can see, the Supreme Court justices in both of these examples not only quoted Vattel, but actually cited him. And there is no doubt that Vattel actually defined a “natural-born citizen” in Section 212 of his acclaimed treatise upon which the Founders and Framers so heavily relied during the Founding.

The Obots make the frivolous argument that Minor did not define a “natural-born citizen” because the Court first said “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens” and then said that such children were “natural born citizens.” They say that because the description comes before “natural-born citizen,” the Court only gave an example of what a “natural-born citizen” is. This interpretation of what Minor intended is rather absurd given how the Supreme Court has always understood the meaning of "natural-born citizen" and stated its definition. See Vattel at Section 212; The Venus; and Dred Scott. Minor was well aware of how Vattel defined a “natural-born citizen” and how The Venus and Dred Scott treated what Vattel said.

The Obot argument is also absurd from a policy point of view. I have continuously asked them to provide all the other “examples” of these other alleged definitions of a “natural-born citizen” that the Founders and Framers had in mind when they wrote “natural born Citizen” into the Constitution. Of course, they do not and cannot answer. And all this comes from the intellectually righteous Obots.

Carlyle said...

@ Harold Smith said...

Here is something which I don't see anyone else talking about:

Obama needs to be dethroned because he is blackmailable.

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

Amen! EXACTLY!! That is such a critical point. I continue to be astounded that 'nobody' seems concerned.

NJ_Tom said...

One of the things that amazes me in all this analysis is the ignoring of a single, non-judicial, non-legal fact. I am referring to the War of 1812, whose 200th anniversary is now being celebrated. If I recall correctly, one of the issues in contention was the impressing of American sailors into the Royal Navy, on the grounds that they were still "native-born subjects" of the British Crown. IMHO, the fact that we went to war to settle this (admittedly, amongst other issues) would suggest that we did NOT accept the supremacy of English Common Law.
I also believe there was a statement by Madison himself that "the Common Law of England is not the Common Law of the United States."

NJ_Tom said...

I find it interesting that I have seen no mention of the one non-judicial, non-legal event that has bearing on the subject. I am referring to the War of 1812, whose bicentenary we now celebrating. One of the issues that led to war was the British impressing American sailors into the Royal Navy, on the excuse that they remained "natural-born subjects" of the crown. IMHO, the fact that this was one of the causes (although, admittedly, not the only one) would suggest that we did not accept the definition given by English Common Law.
Also, I read somewhere that Madison himself stated (perhaps with reference to the same circumstances) that "the Common Law of England is not the Common Law of the United States of America."

Harold Smith said...

Let's face it if someone were to own the "mass media" and also were to own a copy of the missing INS records (which would essentially prove that Obama is not even a citizen, let alone a "natural born citizen"), they might be able to "convince" Obama to do things which are not in America's best interest...like attacking Libya or Iran.

Now that Mario has decisively terminated the Obots and dragged their bloody virtual corpses through the streets of cyberspace, maybe he can put his skills to work on formulating a new legal approach to the issue of "standing" based on the fact that Obama is blackmailable.

Puzo1 said...

I of II

I shared with John Woodman at his site an article written by Pinckney G. McElwee, Natural Born Citizen, found in the Congressional Record, June 14, 1967, at 15875. I shared the article to give Mr. Woodman some background information on the Naturalization Act of 1790. I did not say that the McElwee supports my position. Of course, Mr. Woodman cannot just let things be so he has to turn around and say that the McElwee article shows that I am wrong in my position on the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Here is my response to him:

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

John Woodman,

Why can you not speak one piece of truth about anything that I say? I never said that Pinckney G. McElwee supports my position on what a “natural born Citizen” is.

There is some good information in his article, like what I shared with you on the 1790 Naturalization Act, but then there are many things in his article with which I do not agree.

First, let us look at what I consider to be the bad. McElwee's problem is that he was so bent on making sure the children born out of the United States were not eligible to run for President, i.e. George Romney, that he sold his soul to the English common law, arguing that the English common law required birth in the country to be a "natural born subject," and that while a naturalization statute made children born out of the country "citizens," those children were at best naturalized "citizens" at birth. This position drives him to many contradictions which usually occurs when one relies upon the English common law to define U.S. citizenship. Hence, he maintained, George Romney, born in Mexico, naturalized at birth under a Congressional Act, could not be a "natural born Citizen," but rather only a "citizen" naturalized at birth. Being naturalized, he concluded he was not eligible to be President. He was so determined to show how powerful birth in the country was that he even erroneously considered the Founders, who were born in the colonies which became the states, to be “natural born Citizens.”

McElwee touched upon the issue of what is a "natural born Citizen" only on a very superficial level. While he found great comfort, although unjustifiably, in Wong Kim Ark to support his position that George Romney was not eligible to be President (Wong Kim Ark made Wong a “citizen” by the power of being born in the country and also said that persons born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents, while citizens at birth, were still naturalized citizens under an Act of Congress), his analysis is wanting in the so many historical sources which inform on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.”

Another problem with McElwee’s analysis is that he said George Romney, being born in Mexico, was born with “dual citizenship” which disqualified him from being a “natural born Citizen,” but then held a child born in the U.S. to alien parents, who is also born a “dual citizen,” eligible to be President. You seem to be a fan of McElwee. How do you justify such a contradiction?

Second, now let us look at what I consider to be the good. Here is some other material included in his article which you have left out of your commentary:

(1) “But the question under consideration is not one of simple citizenship but rather, whether he is a ‘natural born citizen’ as prescribed in the Constitution of the United States for the Presidency.” Here, he correctly recognized that being a “citizen of the United States” is not sufficient to be eligible to be President. He correctly stated that one has to be a “natural born Citizen.”

(2) He quoted Horace Binney, as quoted in Wong Kim Ark, thus: “ ‘The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.’” He emphasizes that Binney made his comparison between alien and natural born, not native born. This is an important point which needs further understanding.

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of II

As McElwee correctly said, “[a]t the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, under the common law, the terms native born citizen and natural born citizen were synonymous, but, the customary usage was to refer to such type of citizenship as ‘natural born’ instead of ‘native born.’” Binney used “natural born” because his reference was to children born to citizen parents. If he had been referring to children born in the country, he would have used “native born.” Hence, when the focus was citizen parents, the correct term used to describe that relationship was “natural born.” When the focus was birth in the country, the term used to describe that relationship became “native birth” or “native born.”

(3) He recognized the importance of the July 25, 1787 John Jay letter to Washington, which expressed concern over foreigners” infiltrating the administration of government and the Office of Commander in Chief, in motivating the insertion of the “natural born Citizen” clause into the Constitution.

(4) He explained how careful James Madison was in distinguishing between a “Citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” that he made sure that the 1795 Naturalization Act, unlike the erroneous 1790 Naturalization Act, read “citizen of the United States” and not “natural born Citizen,” which is what the 1790 Act had included. In commenting on the error and in criticizing the 1904 Albany Law Journal Article which concluded that children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents were “natural born,” McElwee, says: “The author seemed to have lost sight of the fact that the English common law in respect to citizenship did not become the common law of the United States.” This statement is correct. This statement is also contradictory to his other statement that anyone could be a “natural born Citizen” under the holding of Wong Kim Ark. In any event, he strongly emphasized that there is a critical constitutional distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.”

(5) He recognized that acquiring U.S. citizenship “at birth” does not equate with being a “natural born Citizen.” He so stated to disqualify from the status of “natural born Citizen” children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents (i.e., George Romney). There is no reason that his disqualification does not equally apply to children born in the United States to alien parents who under the Fourteenth Amendment are considered U.S. “citizens” “at birth,” but are not otherwise “natural born Citizens.” Like what McElwee says about children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents, these children are born aliens, but automatically naturalized, not by an Act of Congress which is what is used for children born abroad, but by the Fourteenth Amendment.

(6) The “natural born Citizen” clause “was to insure loyalty and freedom from foreign sympathy and ideologies.” This is correct and tells us that any definition of the clause has to provide to the greatest degree possible for the People making this policy choice.

(7) Presidential eligibility standards are the product of bright line rules which must be honored. This statement shows that the “natural born Citizen” clause could only have had one definition that satisfied the Founders and Framers. You will recall that Minor confirmed what that sole definition was.

So, McElwee has his view of what a “natural born Citizen” is. But Minor told us that despite what "some authorities" contended, "there have been doubts" whether children born in the country to alien parents were even "citizens" (let alone "natural-born citizens"). And Wong Kim Ark did not hold Wong to be a “natural born Citizen.” I have to take the word of our U.S. Supreme Court over that of McElwee. It took the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark to make a child born in the U.S. to domiciled alien parents a “citizen” from the moment of birth. But no U.S. Supreme Court case has held that such a child is a “natural born Citizen.”

Puzo1 said...

John Woodman & Co. insist that Wong Kim Ark and therefore the Fourteenth Amendment can make someone a “natural born Citizen.”

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 speaks of both a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.” Today, the President under Article II must be a "natural born Citizen," not only a "Citizen of the United States."

The unamended Constitution was adopted in 1787. That Constitution included the “natural born Citizen” clause. Hence, there had to have been a definition of the clause then.

The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868 and speaks only of a "citizen of the United States."

How does someone who is a "citizen of the United States" under the Fourteenth Amendment, which was passed in 1868, automatically converted into an Article II "natural born Citizen" without showing that the person in fact meets the definition of a "natural born Citizen" upon which the Founders and Framers relied when they wrote the clause into the Constitution in 1787?

Again, the Fourteenth Amendment says "citizen of the United States," not "natural born Citizen." Furthermore, Minor said that the amendment does not define a "natural born Citizen."

NJ_Tom said...

A personal story that might have some pertinence - My father was born in a village near Frankfurt am Main, in 1900. His father was also born in the same village. In 1918, he went to register for conscription, only to be told he was not a citizen of Germany, he was a citizen of Austria! This was because his Grandfather had been born in Bohemia. It seems to me that, if it was so widely understood that being born in a country made you a NBC, he would have been German.
As it was, this was a fortunate development, as I doubt he would have survived the last days of WW-I to emigrate to the US (on his Austrian Passport) in 1927. He & my mother (born in London) both became naturalized US Citizens in the early 1930s, which allowed me, born in 1943, to claim NBC status!