Donate

Monday, July 2, 2012

Purpura and Moran File Petition for Certification With the NJ Supreme Court in Obama NJ Ballot Challenge




       Purpura and Moran File Petition for Certification With the NJ
                    Supreme Court in Obama NJ Ballot Challenge

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 2, 2012





Today, I filed on behalf of my clients, Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran, a Petition for Certification with the New Jersey Supreme Court.  The petition may be read here:  

In the petition, we argue that the Administrative Law Judge, whose opinion was adopted by the Secretary of State and affirmed by the Appellate Division, erred in allowing candidate Barack Obama to be placed on the ballot for the primary and general election and to run for office in New Jersey without providing any evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State showing his identity or where he was born, when challenged to do so. 

We argue that, in light of Obama conceding that the State of New Jersey has no evidence of his identity or place of birth, including the 2011 internet image of his alleged birth certificate, the ALJ had absolutely no evidence before him upon which to base his finding that Obama was born in Hawaii.    

We also argue that the ALJ misapplied Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the Fourteenth Amendment, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), all which he used to find that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.”  Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that if one was born before the adoption of the Constitution, one could be a “Citizen of the United States” and be eligible to be President.  But it also provides that for all those born after the adoption of the Constitution, one must be a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to be President.  That means that today, anybody who is just a “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born Citizen” is not eligible to be President. 

The Founders and Framers had good reason for including the “natural born Citizen” clause into the Constitution and requiring that future Presidents have that birth status. St. George Tucker tells us why the Founders and Framers used the “natural born Citizen” clause as a requirement of presidential eligibility:   

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom.”  

George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries: with Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States and of  The Commonwealth of Virginia (1803) (Philadelphia: published by William Young Birch and Abraham Small; Robert Carter, Printer, 1803),  http://constitution.org/tb/tb2.htm .  So we can see that the Founders and Framers used the “natural born Citizen” clause as a national security measure designed to make sure that the President worked only in the best interest of the United States and its republican principles and of no other nation.  It was also put in place to keep all vestiges of monarchial rule and influence out of the United States.  

The Fourteenth Amendment by its clear text gives the status of a “citizen of the United States” to those born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”  It does not give anyone the status of a “natural born Citizen.”  When the Founders and Framers inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution, there was no Fourteenth Amendment.  Hence, they surely did not write the clause into the Constitution having in mind any citizenship standard that is contained in the Fourteenth Amendment.  And there does not exist any evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment repealed or amended the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”  Hence, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the Fourteenth Amendment stand as two separate and distinct constitutional provisions which provide two different constitutional citizenship standards.  

Again, Minor v. Happersett confirmed the American “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen,” which Minor said the Founders and Framers were familiar with and used when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause. That definition is a child “born in a country of parents who were its citizens.”  Id. at 167-68.  Minor left open the question of whether a child born “within the jurisdiction”  of the United States to alien parents is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment.  As we have seen, this is a different standard as that which applies to defining a “natural born Citizen.” 

Wong Kim Ark answered the single question left open by Minor.  It held that Wong, born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents who were neither diplomats nor military invaders was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth.  The Court’s single task was to interpret and apply the Fourteenth Amendment, not Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.  The Court found that Wong’s parents being domiciled and residents (not “citizens”) was enough to give jurisdiction to the United States over them and Wong when Wong was born.  Again, since the Fourteenth Amendment neither repealed nor amended Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” clause, Wong defined a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, not a “natural born Citizen” under Article II.  In fact, Wong’s specific holding uses the phrase “citizen of the United States,” not “natural born Citizen.”  Hence, using that amendment to find someone a “citizen of the United States,” regardless of whether that person is a “citizen” from the moment of birth, has no direct bearing on the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”  After all, Article II says “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen,” and is applied for presidential eligibility.  What the Fourteenth Amendment can do with reference to a “natural born Citizen” is increase the pool of parents who become “citizens of the United States” and give birth to “natural born Citizens.”   

The clause “natural born Citizen” is a word of art, an idiom, a unitary clause, which has a very special meaning as confirmed by Minor.  It is constitutional error to conflate and confound a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment with a “natural born Citizen” under Article II.  A “natural born Citizen,” being the standard for the President and the Commander in Chief of the Military, requires allegiance and citizenship only to the United States from the moment of birth.  A Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from birth does not have the same allegiance requirement and can even be born with dual and conflicting allegiances, a condition which the Founders and Framers did not permit future Presidents and Commanders to have when born.  They were very specific as is evident from the plain text of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, that after the adoption of the Constitution, one had to be a “natural born Citizen,” and not just a “Citizen of the United States.”      

There is no other U.S. Supreme Court case that has changed the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” as confirmed by Minor.  That definition, which is the definition from the Founding, it therefore the supreme law of the land and stands today until amended by Constitutional amendment.  And that definition is  a child “born in a country of parents who were its citizens.”  

We know that candidate Barack Obama was not born to “citizen” parents.  His father was a British/Kenyan citizen who never became a “citizen of the United States.”  Obama, even if born in Hawaii, cannot be a “natural born Citizen.”  Because his father was not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born, Obama, who wants to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military, while he could have been born a “citizen of the United States” if born in Hawaii, was also born in full allegiance and citizenship of Great Britain and at age two also of Kenya.  He was not born within the full and complete allegiance of the United States, an indispensable birth condition for one wanting to be President and Commander of the Military.  Not being a “natural born Citizen,” he is not eligible to be elected President.  See David Ramsay, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789) (citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6; St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries: with Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States and of  The Commonwealth of Virginia (1803) (Philadelphia: published by William Young Birch and Abraham Small; Robert Carter, Printer, 1803),  http://constitution.org/tb/tb2.htm   (“These civil rights [which included the right to be elected President] may be inherited, or acquired, in the United States: they are acquired by a foreigner who is naturalized; they are inherited by all whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens”).    

I will update this post as circumstances warrant.    

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 2, 2012
####

Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
       

455 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 455   Newer›   Newest»
BrianH said...

@jayjay

You and your compatriots (not to be confused with actual patriots) do not seem to understand the difference between the words "subject" and "citizen".

I've several times on this thread indicated Birthers get easily confused. When we (as the U.S. Supreme Court did in Wong Kim Ark) indicate that "subject" and "citizen" are analogous terms when it comes to the question of status at birth within the nation, Birther confusion takes hold and they think we're saying that "subject" and "citzen" are identical in all respects.

I realize you and the rest of the OOPS Troops don't know this, but the two words aren't even spelled the same way. Check it out!!!

If we don't know they are spelled differently, then how is it that you can tell we're using two different words? Ponder that one.

BrianH said...

@Ray

Gray has made an error of fact.

The fact is the same rule did not continue to prevail under the Constitution.

Under the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, the minor children of alien parents were themselves alien until the naturalization of their parents, or upon their own naturalization at the age of majority.


Those provisions about children of aliens covered the case of children who emigrated to the U.S. with their alien parents. But assuming for arguments sake that you are correct, that J. Gray was in error, how then did that "error" affect his conclusions as to the pre-Fourteenth Amendment law? Does that allow one to explain why C.J. Fuller writing in dissent saw the majority opinion as effectively making a person like Mr. Wong eligible for the presidency?

BrianH, please point out where the federal courts are authorized to incorporate other systems of laws of its own choosing, or where the common law of England is incorporated in the Constitution, or where the law or constitution of the several states are incorporated in the Constitution.

I take it this is somehow a follow-up to my citation to WKA where J. Gray cites to Smith v. Alabama:

"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."

If so, then you're making a common mistake I've seen by others. Gray phrases this as a matter of etymology and semantics, not wholesale incorporation. It's error to confuse these. Classic strawman argument.

If not, then I have no idea what you're asking, as I've never made any claim about any federal court incorporating other systems of laws.

Please explain how John Jay erred when he said, "The Constitution, the statutes of Congress, the laws of nations, and treaties constitutionally made compose the laws of the United States."

Understanding "the laws of nations" to refer to international law to which the U.S. has agreed to be bound (i.e., Jay can't be saying the laws of Spain or China are part of U.S. law), then I don't see any error.

Please explain away U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2 "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

What's for me to explain away? Unless you're holding this up in supposed denial of the principle of Judicial Review.

Are you?

You won't be able to do any of these things.

Nor is there need for me to do so.

Why do you cling to Gray's obvious error and deny the plain and clear text of the Constitution and legislated Naturalization Acts?

Even assuming Gray made an error(s), under the rule of stare decisis Wong Kim Ark is STILL the authoritative intpretation of the principles of birth citizenship in the context of a person of alien parent(s). So in a court of law, that decision reigns supreme, until the SCOTUS revisits the topic and concludes WKA was wrongly analyzed.

But unless and until that happens, don't expect any lower court considering the "two citizen parent" argument to do more than what the courts to date (Ankeny, Tisdale, Purpurra and Moran, etc.)have done: give a short citation to WKA and reject the argument.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

I have maintained that what founder and great legal scholar St. George Tucker (America's Blackstone) said in his Commentaries on Blackstone is solid evidence that the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” as a child born to “citizen” parents. This definition is a pure natural law definition and consistent with what Vattel said in Section 212 and 215 of The Law of Nations. John Woodman, on the other hand, has argued that St. George Tucker, adopted the English common law jus soli rule for national citizenship in the new republic. http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/06/birther-bust-bombshell-prominent-legal-expert-st-george-tucker-directly-refutes-mario-apuzzos-crank-natural-born-citizen-claim/ . Well, here is a notable authority, recognized and also accepted by Chief Justice Fuller in Wong Kim Ark, who agrees with me:

And Mr. Lawrence, in his edition of Wheaton (Lawrence's Wheaton, p. 920), makes this comment:

There is, it is believed, as great a difference between the territorial allegiance claimed by an hereditary sovereign on feudal principles and the personal right of citizenship participated in by all the members of the political community, according to American institutions, as there is between the authority and sovereignty of the Queen of England and the power of the American President, and the inapplicability of English precedents is as clear in the one case as in the other. The same view, with particular application to naturalization, was early taken by [p711] the American commentator on Blackstone. Tucker's Blackstone, Vol. 1, Pt. 2, Appx. p. 96.

Wong Kim Ark, at 710-11 (C.J. Fuller dissenting).

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

So here we have an authoritative source, cited and quoted by Chief Justice Fuller, agreeing with me on what St. George Tucker said in his Commentaries regarding who was a “natural born Citizen” and who was a “naturalized” citizen.” Mr. Lawrence surely did not agree with John Woodman’s reading of Footnote 10 (in Volume 2, Book I, Chapter 10), that it shows that Tucker believed that the republic adopted the English common law jus soli rule for our national citizenship. This footnote is ambiguous and it is better to judge what Tucker said on his actual written presentation rather than on a cryptic footnote which can be read in different ways.

Again, Tucker said that any person who was a “citizen” and not born to “citizen” parents was “alien born” and naturalized and thereby “acquired” his or her “civil rights.” And any person who was a “citizen” and born to “citizen” parents was a “natural born Citizen” and thereby “inherited” his or her “civil rights” which included the right to be elected President. See Volume 2, Book I, Chapter 1. This means Tucker did not consider any child who was born in the United States to alien parents to be a “citizen.” He did maintain that that “alien born” child could become automatically naturalized after birth if the parents naturalized during his minority if he was dwelling in the United States at the time of the parents’ naturalization. But that child would be considered “alien born” and a naturalized “citizen,” and according to Tucker forever barred from being eligible to be elected President. This also shows that Tucker did not consider a child who was born in the United States to alien parents to be a “natural born Citizen.” Rather, that child, being “alien born,” at best could naturalize after birth to become a “citizen of the United States,” and by so naturalizing shed off its status as being an “alien by birth.” So for Tucker, any one who was “alien born” was an “alien by birth.” The status of “alien by birth” could be shed off upon naturalizing under a naturalization act. A child who was born in the United States to alien parents was “alien born” and lost his or her “alien by birth” status upon his or her parents naturalizing if done during his minority and if dwelling in the United States at the time of the parents naturalization. If any child who was “alien born” and did not lose his or her “alien by birth” status by naturalizing remained an “alien by birth.” For a full discussion by Tucker on “alien by birth,” see Volume 2, Book I, Note L of his Commentaries.

MichaelN said...

@BrianH

As there was NO RULE or English common law with regard to an eligibility criteria for a president of a republic, the Framers created their own "rule" for eligibility for office of POTUS.

With this brand new US rule, they used a description of qualities they required which would best describe a person with the least possible foreign influence, persuasion, allegiance and claim.

Why do you suppose the Framers would have settled for anything less, such as native-birth alone, when the Framers had a clean-slate to start with and had an imperative to secure the office of POTUS from foreign allegiance as much as possible?

The notion that the Framers meant for "natural born Citizen" to mean a "native-born" or "born" citizen is, as YOU KNOW, absolutely ABSURD.

Leave the dark-side BrianH, come into the light.

jayjay said...

BrianH:

So - let me guess ... the reason you don't need to know how to spell the different words is that you just copy and paste them and one of them has a little squiggley line that goes down as a descender making them "look different" even you know little or nothing about what they mean??

Youa also seem to think that "analogous" means that creatures like a "horney toad" and an English Sparow are "analogous".

No wonder your heo thinks there are 57 states - his intelligence is on that level too.

The only "confusion" on this thread is that you OOPS Troops think that the terms ARE identical - and if you think otherwise, indicate exactly what is the same and what is different and we can talk about that even though it's pointless. You seem to like pointless arguments to keep "off-topic" as much as possible ... a red herring.

MichaelN said...

No doubt St George Tucker was very conversant with this.

Lord Coke (Calvin's case, the same case cited by Horace Gray in the WKA court)

"An alien born is of foreign birth OR foreign allegiance,..."

Anonymous said...

To all that are interested in the U.S.LAW as it HAS been promulgated by the U.S. Congress under the authority of the COTUS, please read the 1790 / '95 "an Act to establish an uniform Rule of naturalization", which was/is one of the enumerated obligations under the COTUS.

You will find that within the Act's they ESTABLISHED "inherited Citizenship from the father", Jus Sanguinis, as the UNIFORM RULE of Citizenship.

The 1795 Act reinforced my assertion with the words ;

" ... and not otherwise: -- "

It does not matter how or why the Courts got/get it wrong in some instances, keeping in mind that the Taney Court got it right and it took a Civil War the 1866 Civil Rights Act and 3 Amendments to overturn it's seminal OPINION.

But for the Hail Britannia crowd I suggest reading Blackstone in his own words rather than selective, and ALWAYS off point, citations;

http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2140/Blackstone_1387-01_EBk_v6.0.pdfhttp://files.libertyfund.org/files/2140/Blackstone_1387-01_EBk_v6.0.pdf

I say ALWAYS because England does not have an Office of President and therefore have NO precedents in case law or statutes to point to.

MichaelN said...

@BrianH

You went all quiet before, when it was pointed-out to you how absurd your argument is.

Here's the "carefully structured writing (like a SCOTUS opinion)paragraph and YOUR (absurd) reasoning follows, which would mean that the parents would also have to be 'natural born citizens"..... LOL

BrianH said ....

SCOTUS in Minor v Happersett said
"In the context of the Minor court's discussion, "natural born citizen" and "citizen" are used to mean the same thing. This is easily noted:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.

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

These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] 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."

BrianH bleats...

"The first thing to observe is this is all part of a single paragraph.
In a carefully structured writing (like a SCOTUS opinion), a paragraph contains a set of sentences all related to a single topic.
And the paragraph starts with a topic sentence identifying and organizing that topic.

Above, the topic sentence shows the paragraph is ABOUT who are "natural born citizens" ("The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens.")

So when further on in the paragraph, Justice Waite remarks "Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents" -- we know that "citizens" here means "natural born citizens" because reading in context we know that "natural born citizen" is the topic of this paragraph!"..... LOL

BrianH, have you considered writing fiction for a living?

Maybe a collection of jokes?

Anonymous said...

JayJay

"The only "confusion" on this thread is that you OOPS Troops think that the terms ARE identical"

By now you should be aware that the Massachusetts Legislature used the terms "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject" interchangeably between 1785 and 1791.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

4zoltan,

You said: “The Massachusetts Legislature used the terms 'natural born citizen' and 'natural born subject' interchangeably between 1785 and 1791.”

You left off the the rest of the sentence that needs to be stated. Here is your sentence in the manner it should be written: “The Massachusetts Legislature used the terms ‘natural born citizen’ and ‘natural born subject’ interchangeably between 1785 and 1791” to define its own state citizenship, but not that of the federal government.”

Linda said...

The first Congress incorporated the common law of England into the laws of the US.

"On the same day (October 14, 1774), Congress unanimously resolved, "that the respective colonies are entitled to the common law of England, and more especially, to the great and inestimable privilege of being tried by their peers of the vicinage according to the course of that law." They further resolved, "that they were entitled to the benefit of such of the English statues as existed at the time of their colonization, and which they have, by experience, respectively found to be applicable, to their several and local circumstances."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/93337894/Elliot-s-Debates-Vol-1-pp-42-56-Gradual-Approaches-Towards-Independence

Mick said...

You all are not reading WKA correctly. Gray made his decision based on law of nations, on the principle of inhabitance. Permanent residence is allegiance as long as that residence continues, and children born during that residence of the non native are also subject to the jurisdiction, and owe direct allegiance--- thus they are US Citizens. Gray made the right decision, based on law of nations.
(AND although not cited, "the Venus" (12 US 253, 278)).

It's all on page 693, where he directly says that WKA is NOT A nbC, by quoting Binney directly to the holding of the case. STOP arguing w/ the OBOTS about BCL. It's another distraction.

THE DECISION IS BASED ON LAW OF NATIONS and it's all on page 693. Read page 278 of The Venus on the same subject. Come on people, read the case. PAGE 693 refutes everything that the OBOTS say about WKA.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Linda,

I do not dispute that the states continued to selectively apply the English “common law” until abrogated through their legislatures. The point is that the English common law did not make it into the Constitution and did not provide rules of decision on the national level. And it is on the national level where we define a "natural born Citizen" which is the standard for eligibility for the President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the Republic.

Read St. George Tucker at Volume 1, Note E. He explains how the states continued to selectively use the English common law. But then he understands that whether that English common law was also to be applied on the national level was a completely different concern and issue. He goes through the Constitution, analyzing the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government, looking for the English common law as providing rules of decision and jurisdiction for our government and found none. That includes defining eligibility and "natural born Citizen" for the executive branch.

Tucker explains that the “maxims and rules of proceedings” of the English common law can be used to interpret the Constitution “whenever the written law is silent, in cases of similar, or analogous nature.” Tucker also states that it is “absurd” to contend that the English “common law” is to be applied in all cases of interpreting our Constitution simply because in some other case it may have been so used. Compare Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark justifying using the English common law to define U.S. citizenship because of the Alabama v. Smith decision which had nothing to do with national citizenship but rather was a case involving a statute issue in which the defendant-appellant argued that the State of Alabama did not have the power to pass a statute regulating his operation of a passenger train.

The people of the United States when they adopted the Constitution specifically adopted the law of nations into the Constitution. The law of nations defines a “natural born Citizen.” Our U.S. Supreme Court has specifically defined a “natural born Citizen” using the law of nations definition.

Our Congress passed the Naturalization Acts in 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 which without any doubt provided our own American rules of decision on the matter of citizenship. Those Congressional Acts followed the teachings of the law of nations and not the English common law. These acts show that we adopted the jus sanguinis rule of citizenship of the law of nations and not the jus soli one of the English common law.

Furthermore, we developed our own U.S. Supreme Court American “common law” which shows that we rejected the English common law as providing the rules of decision to define a “natural born Citizen.” I have already cited these cases one of which is Minor v. Happersett (1875). Minor defined a “natural-born citizen” exactly under our own American “common-law” and not the English “common law.”

So, our entire historical and legal record shows that the English common law simply is not to be relied upon to define our national citizenship (not to be confused with states which may have continued to apply the English common law to define their own state citizenship).

Of course, we have the Fourteenth Amendment which as interpreted by our courts one of which is Wong Kim Ark has allowed the children of aliens born in the United States to be declared “citizens of the United States” from the moment of birth. But the Founders and Framers did not write Article II with the Fourteenth Amendment in mind. Nor did the Fourteenth Amendment repeal or amend Article II “natural born Citizen” clause which is used for presidential eligibility.

BrianH said...

@4Zoltan

It wasn't just Chief Justice Fuller who understood the implications of declaring Wong a citizen by birth in the United States. In the appellant brief filed in the Wong case, the government attorneys said this about the lower district court ruling:

"The question presented by this appeal may be thus stated: Is a person born within the United States of alien parents domiciled therein a citizen thereof by the fact of his birth? The appellant maintains the negative, and in that behalf assigns as error the ruling of the district court that the respondent is a natural-born citizen."

But here is the thing, District Curt Judge Morrow in his ruloing in the Wong case never used the term "natural born citizen". He only said that WOng was a citizen by his birth in the US.


Which is further confirmation that "citizen at birth" and "natural born citizen" were interchangeable terms.

There is simply NO caselaw which articulates this supposed distinction and clearly indicates that one can be a citizen at birth without being a natural born citizen. None.

C.J. Fuller understood this. The U.S. Govt. understood this. And it seems SO clear since the WKA decision that we have other federal courts matter-of-factly referring to children of aliens as "natural born citizens (e.g., Diaz-S1alazar v. INS, 700 F.2d 1156 (7th Cir. 1983)(children of illegal alien termed "natural born citizens"); Mustata v. US Dep't. of Justice, 179 F.3d 1017 (6th Cir. 1999)(children of Romanian citizens termed "natural born citizens).

One of the manifest problems with the birther position is the number of eminent jurists one has to explain away as apparently being just stupid or sloppy. Fuller was worried about a person like Mr. Wong being presidential eligible even though (suppposedly) nothing in the majority opinion could be read to support that and even though the Minor case (supposedly) precluded that idea in a 9-0 resounding "defining" moment years earlier. J. Gray in the majority opinion keeps analyzing English common law, even though the distinction between "NBS" and "NBC" is like night and day. What an idiot. Two federal circuit court panels were just stupid or sloppy in calling children of aliens "natural born citizens." Gosh, they should have known better to call them by the preferred Birther term "14th Amendment Citizens." And, of course, every judge in the recent cases that has opined on the "two citizen parent" theory has been a manifest idiot or just plain lazy.

BrianH said...

@Michael N

YOU refuse to face the truth.

I have already shown you that the English common law requires the father to be a "subject", and if he is not a "subject", then his child cannot be a "subject", even if native-born.

So the notion that "every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject" is a LIE!


Michael, you DO realize that what you're calling a lie is a direct quote I made from the majority opinion in a United States Supreme Court decision? Here it is again:

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born."

So, Michael, are you calling the United States Supreme Court a "liar?" Given that (apparently) you are from Australia, I find your posturing beyond absurd.

Now on another matter.

What do you think of the US Citizenship and Imigration Service recognizing TWO types of born US citizens, i.e. native-born and natural-born?

Are you going to pretend it doesn't exist?


Michael, just when it seems you can't get any sillier, you manage to top yourself.

Since it is abundantly clear you have ZERO sense of U.S. jurisprudence, let me educate you. At the top of the list -- the most authoritative source there is -- is the U.S. Supreme Court. Ranking WAY down the list are such things as the regulations and interpretations of statutory law promulgated by the various federal administrative agencies. These things get changed, amended, ignored, fade into irrelevance, and (often) challenged and tossed out by the federal courts all the time.

So, within the space of a single post, you completely blew off the most significant authority (the SCOTUS) while holding up as significant about the LEAST authorititative source there is (agency interpretations).

You are just TOO funny.

So, to answer your question: INS interpretions don't amount to a hill of beans on the question of Constitutional law. I don't care one whit what they say. Nor would any federal judge.

BrianH said...

This is most amusing to observe.

I've been pointing out how in Part II of his opinion in Wong Kim Ark, J. Gray analyzes the English common law rule as to "natural born subject," concluding that "every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject" (unless the child of parents of certain excepted designations).

I've then been pointing how in Part III of his opinion, J. Gray goes on to show by analogy how that "same rule" has been recognized in the U.S. under the common law rule of "natural born citizen," Gray citing to, inter alia, the opinion of U.S. v. Rhodes where "NBS" and "NBC" are put side by side in simple analogical comparison.

The responses trying to avoid the obvious implications to Gray's opinion are fascinating to observe.

On the one hand, we have Michael, who tries to claim the English common law rule REALLY wasn't jus soli, to the point of calling my direct quotes from SCOTUS "a lie."

Though Mario, accepts what J. Gray says directly:

"Mario A: "If we examine what rule Justice Gray referred to, he told us what that English “common law” rule was. He told us that under that rule a person could be born to alien parents and still be considered a “natural born subject.” (July 9 @9:40 p.m.)"

(Pssst. Gentlemen, can you huddle between yourselves and let this helpless OBOT know what the English common law rule was here? Thanks!)

Though when it comes to Part III and the direct comparison between NBS and NBC that Justice Swayne in Rhodes makes (that Gray cites with approval), Mario tries to claim that Swayne/Gray were refering to "NBC."

"Mario A: They simply could not have been referring to a “natural born Citizen” because such a “citizen” is not subject “to the same exceptions” as was a “natural born subject.” (July 9 @9:41 p.m.)"

Though, the Swayne citation explicitly uses the term "natural born citizen" together with "natural born subject." Mario doesn't explain by what cognitive function one should conclude Swayne/Gray didn't mean "natural born citizen" when they quite clearly use the term "natural born citizen."

So Michael understands that Gray makes direct comparison between NBS and NBC; he just desperately tries to claim the English rule was other than as J. Gray stated it so that NBC can't be said to be jus soli by comparison. Mario understands NBS was jus soli; he just tries to pretend no comparison to NBC is made.

As I've said, desperate times call for desperate arguments.

Too fun.

BrianH said...

@Michael N

You went all quiet before, when it was pointed-out to you how absurd your argument is.

I'm sure you delight in viewing it that way. Or, you can view it as being that I had July 4 (our national holiday) along with July 5 as days off and had some blocks of free time to post. The days after, not so much.

Here's the "carefully structured writing (like a SCOTUS opinion)paragraph and YOUR (absurd) reasoning follows,

Michael, what I wrote is simply Grammar and Composition 101. And you can look this up in countless places. For example:

"Paragraphs and Topic Sentences

A paragraph is a series of sentences that are organized and coherent, and are all related to a single topic. Almost every piece of writing you do that is longer than a few sentences should be organized into paragraphs. This is because paragraphs show a reader where the subdivisions of an essay begin and end, and thus help the reader see the organization of the essay and grasp its main points.

****

TOPIC SENTENCES
A well-organized paragraph supports or develops a single controlling idea, which is expressed in a sentence called the topic sentence. A topic sentence has several important functions: it substantiates or supports an essay’s thesis statement; it unifies the content of a paragraph and directs the order of the sentences; and it advises the reader of the subject to be discussed and how the paragraph will discuss it. http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/paragraphs.shtml"

So, yes, I contend that the topic sentence of the paragraph "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens" organizes the sentences which follow. It thus indicates that "some authorities go further and include as citizens children born in the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents" is related to the paragraph topic of "who shall be natural born citizens."

No judge in any courtroom on any day is going to buy into the fanciful notion that Justice Waite suddenly jumped topics mid-paragraph. I should have added this to my list of things I noted to 4Zoltran of how the Birther stance in effect requires a court to accept that many judges and justices were just sloppy, stupid people to have written what they wrote.

Judges arent going to come to a conclusion that sees the sloppiness and stupidity running in that direction.

Anonymous said...

In order for Justice Gray's opinion that 'alien' parents could produce a 'natural born Citizen' requires the Court to dismiss the plenary power of Congress over 'naturalization'.......reading the 1790 / '95 Acts you will find it IMPOSSIBLE for the statement of Gray to have ANY legal basis UNLESS it is read as, "alien' parents, since naturalized, produce a natural born Citizen offspring.

BrianH said...

@jayjay

The only "confusion" on this thread is that you OOPS Troops think that the terms ARE identical

I've been saying consistently, per the SCOTUS in Wong Kim Ark that the terms are "analogous." Again:

"The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:

Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."

So SCOTUS has stated that as to "natural born" the terms "citizen" and "subject" are "precisely analogous."

First Mario, then MichaelN, then Ray . . . Apparently, it's your turn to make the strawman argument that I'm claiming they are "identical." Since the SCOTUS has indicated the terms are analogous, and both NBS and NBC follow the jus soli rule subject to the same exceptions, such other differences between the terms as might be noted in other contexts are IRRELEVANT.

BrianH said...

@Mario A

So, our entire historical and legal record shows that the English common law simply is not to be relied upon to define our national citizenship

Maybe it's a short-term memory issue with you. After a day or so goes by, you just forget (or pretend) that all this isn't true. Again, from the WKA majority opinion:

""The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States."
***
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."

J. Gray then proceeds in Part II of his opinion to analyze the English common law, jus soli rule of "natural born subject." He then proceeds in Part III of his opinion to show how the "same rule" has been applied in American since Colonial days and up through the enactment of the Constitution and since as to the analogous term "natural born citizen." In Part III, Gray twice cites as authorities for this proposition caselaw where "natural born citizen" is explicitly referenced:

""In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:

The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, "a natural-born citizen."It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth." [Note "place of birth;" no reference to "citizen status of parents.]

And note his next citation:

"In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution." [Again, it's stated that "birth" and allegiance go together, NOT "birth, plus the requisite parental citizenship.]

But, OK, we know you believe that when J. Gray cites to Curtis and Swayne -- who each speak of "natural born citizen" and, in the Curtis context, by reference to the Constitutional phrase -- that they are not referring to THAT "natural born citizen." It's just some "other" natural born citizen notion floating out there in the ether somewhere, right?

And even though Gray cites to Swayne talking about the common law of England and comparing "NBS" and "NBC" side by side, STILL we know you believe that our entire "legal record shows that the English common law simply is not to be relied upon to define our national citizenship."

The mind won't see what the mind so desperately wishes not to see. Or it forgets that it's seen it.

Quite remarkable to observe.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

BrianH,

(1) Just being a “citizen” from the moment of birth does not make one automatically an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Both Wong Kim Ark and Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815(1971) say that you can have a “citizen” from birth who is naturalized by Congress and hence not a "natural born Citizen." These would be children born out of the United States to citizen parents. Even Fuller on dissent in Wong complained that our citizens from birth born abroad would not be eligible to be President under the majority holding.

(2) It does not matter what the dissent or government “understood” in Wong Kim Ark. What does matter is what the majority of the Court held. It held Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

(3) The Diaz and Mustata cases only used “natural born Citizen” in its presentation of the facts of the cases. There was no issue about “natural born Citizen” in the cases.

(4) We “birthers” do not have to explain away any eminent jurists, my friend. You are the one that has to do that explaining. Minor is the latest word on “natural born Citizen.” Wong Kim Ark confirmed Minor’s definition and did not change it. Hence, the law is on our side, not yours.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

BrianH,

The number 1 tool of interpretation of the Constitution is text. There is very little value in that regard for your "Topic Sentence" theory.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

BrianH,

“Citizen” and “subject” may be “analogous” when it comes to state citizenship. But they are not “analogous” when it comes to national citizenship and especially when determining the allegiance and citizenship status of the President and Commander in Chief under our Constitution.

“Subjects” belong to monarchies and feudal systems. “Citizens” belong to republics.

Our President and Commander in Chief of the Military cannot be a “subject” of another nation. He can only be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.

Linda said...

@Mr. Apuzzo,

Many states adopted the English common law directly into their state constitutions, but what I posted is from the first US Congress, which incorporated the English common law into US national law. This was in 1774, prior to the Constitution. The term "natural born" as used in English common law in force in the Colonies prior to the revolution, was also the law afterwards by an act of the US Congress.

The majority of the Framers were lawyers, familiar with "natural born" as used in English common law and as incorporated into then existing US law, and that is the term they chose to use in the Constitution. The Framers neither attempted to redefine it or make it in any way distinguishable from US law, nor did they cite another source for reference. Where did the Framers indicate they wanted to change the definition from the historical meaning used in English common law and US law, to something else, something requiring two citizen parents? There is no indication of it in the Constitution. That the Framers would use a known term, but intend it to mean something else, without clearly and explicitly saying so, is, to me, unfathomable.

You said "The people of the United States when they adopted the Constitution specifically adopted the law of nations into the Constitution." Where in the Constitution does it adopt the Law of Nations? I do not know of any such provision.

BrianH said...

@Mario A

(1) Just being a “citizen” from the moment of birth does not make one automatically an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

It does if it's a birth on U.S. soil.

Both Wong Kim Ark and Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815(1971) say that you can have a “citizen” from birth who is naturalized by Congress and hence not a "natural born Citizen." These would be children born out of the United States to citizen parents.

Right. Which means neither comment has anything to say about birth on U.S. soil.

It does not matter what the dissent or government “understood” in Wong Kim Ark.

Of course it matters. You're attempting to walk into a court of law and posture that YOU understand the import of the majority opinion better the Chief Justice of the court that heard and discussed the case.

It held Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

The opinion nowhere says "not a natural born citizen." In fact, the opinion shows how "natural born citizen" under the common law and "born . . . in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean the same thing! J. Gray first establishes that the same jus soli rule held under the common law of England and the U.S.

“It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, . . .[that] every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.

III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”

Then in Part V, where Gray discusses the 14th A, he shows how that incorporated the very same common law rule as to "NBC," by noting the same jus soli principle with the same exceptions as under the common law:

"The real object of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, in qualifying the words, "All persons born in the United States" by the addition "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," would appear to have been to exclude, by the fewest and fittest words (besides children of members of the Indian tribes, standing in a peculiar relation to the National Government, unknown to the common law), the two classes of cases -- children born of alien enemies in hostile occupation and children of diplomatic representatives of a foreign State -- both of which, as has already been shown, by the law of England and by our own law from the time of the first settlement of the English colonies in America, had been recognized exceptions to the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the country.

So Gray starts with analysis of the English common law rule of NBS (Part II), he then ties that directly to the meaning of "NBC" under American common law (Part III), along the way he rejects appeal to the "law of nations" (Part IV), and then he shows how the 14A incorporated the common law rule of NBC (Part V).

So in finding Wong fell within the 14th Amendment, the opinion equally indicates Wong was an "NBC," because J. Gray equated the two concepts in how he defined them.

The Diaz and Mustata cases only used “natural born Citizen” in its presentation of the facts of the cases. There was no issue about “natural born Citizen” in the cases.

There was no issue about NBC in the Minor case either! The Minor case didn't even present the situation of a person born of alien parents. Yet you claim that is the "defining" case as to the latter situation.

BrianH said...

@Mario A

“Citizen” and “subject” may be “analogous” when it comes to state citizenship. But they are not “analogous” when it comes to national citizenship and especially when determining the allegiance and citizenship status of the President and Commander in Chief under our Constitution.

You made that same point before when I cited WKA as to the Gaston opinion. Here's your comment then and my response and question to you (which you never answered):

"(Mario A)That North Carolina case talks about citizenship in North Carolina, not U.S. Citizenship.

(Brian H) You obviously can't recognize an argument by analogy when it's staring you in the face.

So why then is Justice Gray citing a state law decision in a federal/Constitutional case? The easy answer is that "just as the state court recognized that "subject" and "citizen" were analogous terms, so, too, J. Gray is citing that for the proposition that "citizen" and "subject" are analogous for purposes of a federal citizenship question."

That's a much better analysis than what appears to be your "J. Gray was just a dolt for citing to a state law decision in a federal law case" posture. "

So, once again, if "subject" and "citizen" are analogous only for state law matters, then why is J. Gray citing this in a federal/Constitutional case?

My point stands that the Birther stance requires one to conclude eminent jurists were just idiots. This is another example.

Linda said...

I believe honest, intelligent people can disagree. I have no interest in lying, being lied to, being called a liar, or calling anyone a liar. Reasonable, well intentioned people can be wrong, it doesn't mean they are lying. Of course, liars with all points of view do exist. For the purposes of these discussions, I take it as a given those posting here believe what they say and I would appreciate the same.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Linda,

John Jay, our first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, and founder and great legal scholar, St. George Tucker, both told us that the English common law was not incorporated into the U.S. Constitution. There are many other historical references which I have provided which prove the same point. Even James Madison in Federalist No. 42 speaks about the English common and statutory law being a “dishonoroable and illegitimate guide” for defining terms in the Constitution.

Our own U.S. Supreme Court recognized the incorporation of the law of nations into our Constitution. Upon independence from Great Britain, the United States "were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement. Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199. 199, 281 (1796). Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 64, 118 (1804) ("an act of Congress ought never to be construed to violate the law of nations if any other possible construction remains"). So if the law of nations had a preeminent role in interpreting Congressional Acts, it also would have had on when interpreting the Constitution. Chief Justice Marshall again considered the law of nations in The Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon, 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116 (1812). Because the Court found the case to explore "an unbeaten path" it "found it necessary to rely much on general principles," and turned to the practice of the civilized nations and the writings of Vattel and Bynkershoek for guidance. Id. at 136, 137, 143-46. In The Nereide, 13 U.S. 388, 423 (1815), Justice Marshall stated that the “Court is bound by the law of nations, which is part of the law of the land.” Even William Blackstone recognized the importance of the law of nations which he considered "universal law" and the life blood of a nation wanting to be part of the "civilized world." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 67 (1769).

Furthermore, the English common law was never presented to our legal profession as national law. On the other hand, the law of nations was so presented. Our law schools taught that the law of nations was national law. They did not teach that the English common law was.

I do not understand why you take the high ground and assert that the Founders and Framers did not signal that they were changing to a different meaning than that of an English “natural born subject.” The last time that I looked at Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, it says “natural born Citizen,” not “natural born subject.” What more signal do you want? Since the People incorporated the law of nations into the Constitution and since they abandoned “natural born subject” and replaced it with “natural born Citizen” which has its own specific definition under the law of nations, the burden is on you to show that the Framers meant a “natural born Citizen” to mean the same as an English “common law” “natural born subject,” rather than a law of nations “natural-born citizen.” So far, despite all your rhetoric, you and your group have failed miserably in this endeavor.

Robert said...

BrianH, 4zoltan,John Woodman, et al;

Please help us get this straight.

According to your arguments, as long as anyone claims that he/she was born anywhere in the USA, which must include:

*US Mainland, Alaska and Hawaii and the 7 other states that I can't recall.
*US Territories
*Any US Military base (Guantanamo?)
*Within any military movement anywhere in the world - whether or not participating. (If our troops are there, it's under our jurisdiction.)
*US Embassy properties
*US Territorial waters
*On board any ship or aircraft sailing under the US Flag anywhere in the world
*On any vessel regardless of flag sailing in US waters or over US Territory

1) He is a natural born citizen of the USA and eligible to be President of the United States regardless of the citizenship of his parents?

2) He can, without penalty to his US natural born citizenship, also claim to be a natural born citizen or subject of another country and to be living presently or to have lived at any time as a citizen, subject, or otherwise under the jurisdiction of one or more other countries. It doesn't matter if those other countries recognize dual or multiple citizenship.

3) Should he wish to become President, he is not required to present documentation of citizenship, residency, or age. However, he can if he wants to with the caveats that official records are not necessary. He can alter any original documents as he might wish or even create new documents from scratch.

4) Also, in the case of wishing to become President, he can also withhold or shield any documents from scrutiny, regardless of source, for any reason, and especially if he claims that they are embarrassing. His right to privacy trumps the States and Citizens right to a Constitutionally qualified President.

Please confirm your message or clear up any confusion that I and others may have.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

BrianH,

(1) I do not understand why you want to improve (for you) upon the holding of Wong Kim Ark based upon what the dissent thought about the majority opinion. The text of the holding speaks for itself. We do not need the dissent to help us understand it.

(2) You said in reference to Wong Kim Ark: “The opinion nowhere says ‘not a natural born citizen.’" You have got to be kidding me. Holdings mean what they mean by what they say, not by what they do not say. If they do not say something, then the burden is on you to show that what it did not say is also part of the holding. You simply fail to show that Wong Kim Ark held that Wong was not only a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, but also a “natural born Citizen” under Article II. The holding simply does not mention an Article II “natural born Citizen” at all. Simple repeating about how Justice Jay analyzed and commented upon the English common law that prevailed in the colonies does not prove that he held Wong to be a “natural born Citizen.”

(3) Your said: “There was no issue about NBC in the Minor case either! The Minor case didn't even present the situation of a person born of alien parents. Yet you claim that is the "defining" case as to the latter situation.” Your responses are getting more pathetic by the hour. Regardless of what question the parties presented to the Court, Minor spent a great deal of time and intellectual energy on reviewing and analyzing American citizenship. All that counts for something, my friend. Why would Minor only have significance on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” only if it also informed us as to the status of a person born to alien parents? The Court told us what is needed to be a “natural born Citizen.” Only an idiot would think and argue that the definition does not apply to a person who does not meet that definition because the Court did not say that if a person does not meet that definition, then that person is not a “natural born Citizen.” Good for you that you are posting here anonymously and are not accountable for the errors of you way.

Linda said...

@Mick

I have a different understanding of the holding in WKA than you and I do not understand your reference to page 693 of the decision. You said that Justice Gray used the law of nations and permanent residence, but page 693 contains neither.

"His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle."

To me, Binney, and Justice Gray by making reference to the quote above, are saying that any child born in the US is as much an NBC as the children of citizens. What part do you take it to mean that Justice Gray directly said WKA was not and NBC? I would like know, I think it is fascinating that people can read the same thing and come away with two such divergent analysis.

I am afraid I do no better with your reference to The Venus. I don't know what that has to do with NBC. The case is about naturalized citizens, domiciled with a "belligerent" during a time of war. Three men, British born citizens, who moved to the US and became naturalized citizens and later returned to England for business. They shipped cargo to the US prior to the outbreak of the War of 1812. Their ship and cargo was seized as a prize of war and they sued for its return. The Court basically ruled that they couldn't have it both ways, have the protection of England on the ship's voyage and the protection of the US to return it if seized. The Court said, because they did not return to the US, that they chose the protection of England.

If you have the time, I would really appreciate it if you could help me to realize what you understand this to mean.

Thanks

BrianH said...

@Mario A

The number 1 tool of interpretation of the Constitution is text. There is very little value in that regard for your "Topic Sentence" theory.

My "paragraph structure" point pertained to a SCOTUS opinion (which has paragraphs in it), not the text of the Constitution (which merely gives us the phrase "natural born citizen" without any more definition).

So there is very little to your retort, which misses the mark entirely.

You said in reference to Wong Kim Ark: “The opinion nowhere says ‘not a natural born citizen.’" You have got to be kidding me.

If you think I'm kidding (or wrong) then show the words of the opinion where J. Gray says that Mr. Wong is "not a natural born citizen." Merely showing where Gray states that Mr. Wong falls within the 14th
Amendment doesn't show that. The latter does not preclude the former. To the contrary, as I showed in detailed examination of the opinion above, Gray defines "natural born citizen" under the common law and "born ... in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" to mean the same thing. So not only does being under the 14th Amendment not preclude being an NBC, it in fact indicates Mr. Wong IS an NBC, since Gray defines the two concepts identically.

Minor spent a great deal of time and intellectual energy on reviewing and analyzing American citizenship.

Oh, sheesh. Minor devoted but a few paragraphs to the topic, and it didn't provide a single caselaw reference or citation to any authority. WKA, by contrast, devoted about 12 pages, replete with citations to many cases and commentary, both English and American.

In law school (and certainly in practice) one comes to learn that the more a case is "on all fours" the more relevant and authoritative that case becomes. Yet, somehow in the "Through the Looking Glass" world you've come to inhabit, the case (Minor) that didn't involve a person born of alien parents SOMEHOW you view as more relevant to the question of Pres. Obama's status than the case (WKA) that actually did analyze the common law in greater detail in the context of a case involving a person born of alien parents.

How ever have you managed to get it so backwards? (Other than sheer desperation requires it?)

You just can't be that naive as to believe a court is just going to hone in on the "holding" of WKA while ignoring the reasoning and anaysis that WKA undertakes to support that holding. Of course, that WKA at the outset phrases the inquiry as a matter of interpreting the Constitution through the history of the English common law pretty much sinks you from the get-go. All that stuff follows comparing NBS and NBC, and not a word about Vattel. Every judge comparing your argument to the WKA analysis can't help but note J. Gray frames the question in a way completely at odds with your approach.

It's a real bummer of an opinion, isn't it?

MichaelN said...

@Mick

You are absolutely correct Mick, whilst the SCOTUS in WKA recognizes birth-right citizenship, it also recognizes the distinction between a born "citizen' and a "natural born citizen".

Here's the part from the Wong Kim Ark case that you are referring to.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - 169 U.S. 649 (1898)
"The foregoing considerations and authorities irresistibly lead us to these conclusions: the Fourteenth Amendment affirms the ancient and fundamental rule of citizenship by birth within the territory, in the allegiance and under the protection of the country, including all children here born of RESIDENT aliens, with the exceptions or qualifications (as old as the rule itself) of children of foreign sovereigns or their ministers, or born on foreign public ships, or of enemies within and during a hostile occupation of part of our territory, and with the single additional exception of children of members of the Indian tribes owing direct allegiance to their several tribes. The Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, WHILE DOMICILED HERE, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States. His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, IS AS MUCH A CITIZEN AS THE NATURAL BORN CHILD OF A CITIZEN, and by operation of the same principle." It can hardly be denied that an alien is completely subject to the political jurisdiction of the country in which he resides...."

MichaelN said...

BrianH said...

"There is simply NO caselaw which articulates this supposed distinction and clearly indicates that one can be a citizen at birth without being a natural born citizen. None."

That is a LIE!

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

"MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.........as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.""

Anonymous said...

" ... Linda said...
The first Congress incorporated the common law of England into the laws of the US ..."

Linda, that was the "Continental Congress" that debated and and resolved the issues of Declaring Independence after the Adoption of the 1st Articles of Confederation.

It is notable that the Articles of Confederation are included in the list of "Organic Laws of the U.S.", however, the "Common Law of England" is a system of Jurisprudence based on the precedence of prior determinations.

It could not have effect upon the subject of U.S. Citizens as the WORLD had never had a U.S. Citizen prior to the Adoption of the Constitution. There were no prior precedence in specifics of whatever distinction the Constitution required between "Citizen" and "natural born Citizen".

The point is the LAW on U.S. Citizenship BEGAN with the adoption of the Constitution and was expounded on by the 1790 and 1795 Acts to establish an uniform Rule of naturalization.

You need to look no further than those acts of the Founders in order to KNOW what the Law was insofar as Citizenship was concerned and insofar as the status of natural born Citizen as it exists today.

Any Court that looked to foreign law on the subject without 1st consulting the U.S. Law as enacted under the authority of the Constitution is/was/were guilty of forming unconstitutional determinations.

Read the Acts...

http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Linda,

(1) "His allegiance to the United States is direct and immediate, and, although but local and temporary, continuing only so long as he remains within our territory, is yet, in the words of Lord Coke in Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 6a, "strong enough to make a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject;" and his child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle." Wong Kim Ark.

What Justice Gray said by relying on the Binney quote is that with the Fourteenth Amendment not requiring full and complete allegiance to the United States and requiring only “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” a child of an alien born in the country is born with enough allegiance to make that child a “citizen” under that Amendment. But that child is not born with full and complete allegiance to the United States as is a child born in the country to “citizen” parents who is a “natural born Citizen.”

(2) The Venus (1814) is important to understanding how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen.” In this case, which was a prize case, the first issue that the court had to address is the citizenship of the parties. After it identified that citizenship, it then went on to address domicile and conduct of the parties. Without first an analysis and understanding of the citizenship of the parties, there cannot be any prize case. Hence, when Chief Justice Marshall, a very influential founder, used Vattel and The Law of Nations, Section 212, to confirm the citizenship of the parties, he said it all as to what law the Founders and Framers looked to in defining citizenship and a “natural born Citizen” after July 4, 1776.

MichaelN said...

BrianH said....

"On the one hand, we have Michael, who tries to claim the English common law rule REALLY wasn't jus soli, to the point of calling my direct quotes from SCOTUS "a lie." "

BrianH, I am not "trying" any thing.

I have quoted verbatim what the English common law holds as regards the qualities required to make an English "natural born subject".

It is sourced from Lord Coke's report of Calvin's case, the very SAME case cited by Horace Gray in the Wong Kim Ark court.

I HAVE SHOWN YOU that "the English common law rule REALLY wasn't jus soli".

Now since you so strongly assert that it means other then what I have shown, the YOU explain what it means.

Here......

Lord Coke:

"And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born:...."

Now in the face of this, you keep insisting that in England native-birth was all that was needed to make a "natural born subject" ...... right?

But Lord Coke is saying that it is NOT native birth at all.

Therefore it IS a LIE, that native-birth is all that is required to make an English "natural born subject".

You are in denial.

Here's some more from Lord Coke (Calvin's case) which SHOWS YOU that native-birth alone is not sufficient to make an English "natural born subject".

Lord Coke:

"....any place within the king’s dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject."

It's all about the allegiance, in England i.e. the "subject" status of the father.

If the father is not a "subject", then his child cannot be a "subject", even if the child is native-born in England.

Here again Lord Coke points-out that native-birth is not sufficient to make a "natural born subject".

"for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, THAT ISSUE IS NO SUBJECT to the King of England, THOUGH HE BE BORN UPON HIS SOIL, and under his meridian, for that he was NOT BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT, nor under the protection of the King."

It is completely irrelevant as to why or how the father is or isn't a "subject".

The temporary allegiance of a friendly alien in England was sufficient to make the alien a "subject", but in US, an alien (friendly or enemy)is NOT made a "citizen" merely by being in US, such a person must state intention, apply, be approved, swear and oath of allegiance and renounce any other allegiance(s) to reach the equivalent status as the English "subject", i.e. US citizen.

THEN (to be consistent with English common law) a child native-born to a US citizen would be a US "natural born citizen".

The Framers were more careful about allegiance than the English, why do you have such a problem with that, don't you think it was wise on the part of the Framers?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of IV

BrianH and Linda,

Wong Kim Ark said: "III. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

You are trying to use this statement to show that the Court ruled that a “natural born Citizen” is the same as an English “common law” “natural born subject.”

First, what the Court said about the English “common law” rule continuing to prevail in the new republic is not correct.

Chief Justice Fuller, with whom Justice Harlan joined, explained in his dissent in Wong Kim Ark:

Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation, and it is presumed as matter of course that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.

Book I, c.19, § 212.

The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage. . . . The place of birth produces no change in the rule that children follow the condition of their fathers, for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction.

And to the same effect are the modern writers, as for instance, [p709] Bar, who says:

To what nation a person belongs is by the laws of all nations closely dependent on descent; it is almost an universal rule that the citizenship of the parents determines it -- that of the father where children are lawful, and, where they are bastards, that of their mother, without regard to the place of their birth, and that must necessarily be recognized as the correct canon, since nationality is, in its essence, dependent on descent.

Int.Law. § 31.

The framers of the Constitution were familiar with the distinctions between the Roman law and the feudal law, between obligations based on territoriality and those based on the personal and invisible character of origin, and there is nothing to show that, in the matter of nationality, they intended to adhere to principles derived from regal government, which they had just assisted in overthrowing.

Manifestly, when the sovereignty of the Crown was thrown off and an independent government established, every rule of the common law and every statute of England obtaining in the Colonies in derogation of the principles on which the new government was founded was abrogated.

The States, for all national purposes embraced in the Constitution, became one, united under the same sovereign authority and governed by the same laws, but they retained their jurisdiction over all persons and things within their territorial limits except where surrendered to the General Government or restrained by the Constitution, and protection to life, liberty and property rested primarily with them. So far as the jus commune, or folk-right, relating to the rights of persons was concerned, the Colonies regarded it as their birthright, and adopted such parts of it as they found applicable to their condition. Van Ness v. Pacard, 2 Pet. 137.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of IV

They became sovereign and independent States, and when the Republic was created, each of the thirteen States had its own local usages, customs and common law, while, in respect of the National Government, there necessarily was no general, independent and separate common law of the United States, nor has there ever been. Wheaton v. Peter, 8 Pet. 591, 658. [p710]

As to the jura corona, including therein the obligation of allegiance, the extent to which these ever were applicable in this country depended on circumstances, and it would seem quite clear that the rulemaking locality of birth, the criterion of citizenship because creating a permanent tie of allegiance, no more survived the American Revolution than the same rule survived the French Revolution.

Doubtless, before the latter event, in the progress of monarchical power, the rule which involved the principle of liege homage may have become the rule of Europe; but that idea never had any basis in the United States.

A Chief Justice Taney observed in Fleming v. Page, 9 How. 603, 618, though in a different connection:

It is true that most of the States have adopted the principles of English jurisprudence so far as it concerns private and individual rights. And when such rights are in question, we habitually refer to the English decisions not only with respect, but in many cases as authoritative. But in the distribution of political power between the great departments of government, there is such a wide difference between the power conferred on the President of the United States and the authority and sovereignty which belong to the English Crown that it would be altogether unsafe to reason from any supposed resemblance between them, either as regards conquest in war or any other subject where the rights and powers of the executive arm of the government are brought into question. Our own Constitution and form of government must be our only guide.

And Mr. Lawrence, in his edition of Wheaton (Lawrence's Wheaton, p. 920), makes this comment:

There is, it is believed, as great a difference between the territorial allegiance claimed by an hereditary sovereign on feudal principles and the personal right of citizenship participated in by all the members of the political community, according to American institutions, as there is between the authority and sovereignty of the Queen of England and the power of the American President, and the inapplicability of English precedents is as clear in the one case as in the other. The same view, with particular application to naturalization, was early taken by [p711] the American commentator on Blackstone. Tucker's Blackstone, Vol. 1, Pt. 2, Appx. p. 96.

Wong Kim Ark, at 710-11 (C.J. Fuller dissenting).

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of IV

Indeed, Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan were correct. There was no such English “common law” jus soli rule in America that survived the revolution. The English common law was not adopted as part of our national law. Upon the adoption of the Constitution, the only national law that we had was the Constitution, Acts of Congress, the law of nations, and treaties. The English common law did not make the list. Here are the acts of Congress that applied to our national citizenship: The Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855. Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark did not address or analyze these acts. Even if there was any English common law rule that still prevailing in the states, these national laws abrogated any such application on the national level. See St. George Tucker, Blackstone’s Commentaries, Volume 1, Note E, Of the Common Law of England: and Its Authority Within the USA (1803) (did an exhaustive analysis of and search in the Constitution for any provision which may be controlled by the rules of decision of the English common law and found none including not stating that the “natural born Citizen” clause was defined by the English common law). Each state adopted the English common law in different degrees and there was no uniformity on naturalization and citizenship. The federal law replaced a patchwork of state laws. These Congressional Acts rejected the English common law jus soli rule and rather, adopted the law of nations jus sanguinis rule. See Tucker (apply either the English common law, the law of nations, civil law, maritime law, law merchant, or the law of foreign nations as a source for the rules of decision “whenever the written law is silent” and as “the nature and circumstances of each case” may warrant).

It is also highly unlikely that the Founders and Framers would have considered the case of defining who is eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the new republic to be a situation requiring the use of the English “common law” to provide that definition.

With respect to citizenship, the federal law was not silent, with Congress having spoken through the naturalization acts.

Furthermore, our own American “common law” rejected the English jus soli “common law” rule. These U.S. Supreme Court cases confirmed what our own American “common law” rule was as to the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” These cases rejected the English jus soli “common law” rule. The American “common law” rule established by these cases was not even discussed by Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark. These cases are: The Venus (1814) (J.C. Marshall concurring); Inglis (1830); Shanks (1830); Dred Scott (1857) (J. Daniels concurring); and Minor (1875) (unanimous decision of the U.S. Supreme Court was cited and quoted by Justice Gray but not discussed). St. George Tucker also informed that the civil right to be elected President belonged only to children who were born to “citizen” parents and that any person who became a “citizen” other than by being born to “citizen” parents was a naturalized “citizen” and forever barred from being eligible to be elected President. So, all this historical evidence shows that Justice Gray was simply mistaken in saying that the English “common law” jus soli survived the American Revolution and became our national rule. The English “common law” jus soli rule simply never became our national rule on national citizenship.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

IV of IV

Second, regardless of the Court’s error in stating that the English common law continued to prevail at the national level to define our national citizenship, what Wong Kim Ark held does not show that the Court considered a “natural born Citizen” to be the equivalent of an English “natural born subject.” The Court only used the English “common law” to find that Wong was “subject to the jurisdiction” and therefore a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court’s discussion about a “natural born subject” was tied to its interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, not any analysis of Article II and the “natural born Citizen” clause. Confirming that its analysis was not about Article II but rather the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court held Wong to be “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. There is nothing in the Court’s holding which shows that the Court found Wong to be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” That, my friend, is your own invention. So your position that Wong Kim Ark does all the work for you, regardless of what authoritative sources from the Founding and other U.S. Supreme Court cases show to be otherwise, is without merit. Wong simply does not prove your point. You just twist its reasoning and language to suit your needs.

So, in short, your use of Wong Kim Ark has two problems. First, the decision does not say what you say it says. Second, even if it did, the decision would be wrong.

Linda said...

@ Mr. Apuzzo,

I am not trying to take any particular high ground, and I do not represent any group. I am using what I learned in government class (on a US military base), along with my reading of articles and cases since.

I did not say either "natural born citizen" or "natural born subject". I said the term "natural born" was used, which had a known meaning. If the Framers wanted to diverge from the English common law and new US law on that point, they certainly could have. What I cannot find anywhere is how or when they did.

I have also read your case citations but I still do not see in them or the Constitution itself, where/how the Law of Nations was incorporated into the Constitution.

I did not say that the English common law was adopted into the Constitution, I said that the first US Congress adoption the English common law into US law in 1774.

Of course English common law is studied. Blackstone's Commentaries is frequently quoted in Court decisions and opinions. Are you saying you studied Vattel's Law of Nations in law school, or that it was studied in law schools in the 1700s? Are you saying the Blackstone's Commentaries is not or was not studied during that same time?

"Felony is a term of loose signification, even in the common law of England; and of various import in the statute law of that kingdom. But neither the common nor the statute law of that, or of any other nation, ought to be a standard for the proceedings of this, unless previously made its own by legislative adoption. The meaning of the term, as defined in the codes of the several States, would be as impracticable as the former would be a dishonorable and illegitimate guide."
Publius specifically said that English common law should not be looked to for the meaning of "felony". He did not say it should not be looked to for other terms in the Constitution.

I do not need to prove anything. I am not a litigant. But since my understanding is so different than that of you and the vast majority of those who post here, I wanted to ascertain where those differences are. It is your blog, if you would prefer not to discuss it with someone from another point of view, that is fine, I can ask somewhere else.

Linda said...

@United Natural Born Citizens

I understand the "first US Congress" was the Continental Congress, but many of the delegates were the original founders and framers of the Constitution and it was those same men who adopted the English common law. That common law included the phrase "natural born".

I am clear on the differences between citizen and subject. I also agree that there weren't "natural born citizens" of the US until after the Constitution, hence the grandfather clause. But I have not been able to find anything that says when/where/how the meaning of the phrase "natural born" changed from that of the English common law usage.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Linda,

(1) First of all, just make your points here. Do not try to come off as some disinterested person. You know all the Obot talking points so just make them and be done with them. I and others who are interested in this subject will respond.

(2) You said: “I said the term "natural born" was used.” That is not going to make it for you. The constitutional clause is “natural born Citizen.” Response: You left off the “Citizen” part. The “natural born Citizen” clause is a word of art, and idiom, a unitary clause. You cannot define it by simply breaking it down into its parts. The whole clause has a meaning and only one meaning. That meaning is found in Section 212 of The Law of Nations, as confirmed by many founders, Congress, and various U.S. Supreme Court decisions. That meaning is: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

(3) You said: “If the Framers wanted to diverge from the English common law and new US law on that point, they certainly could have. What I cannot find anywhere is how or when they did.” Response: I have explained this to you many times. First, they used “natural born Citizen,” and not “natural born subject.” Second, several founders told us they diverged. Third, our early Congress told us they diverged. Fourth, several cases from our U.S. Supreme Court told us they diverged.

(4) You said: “I have also read your case citations but I still do not see in them or the Constitution itself, where/how the Law of Nations was incorporated into the Constitution.” Response: Try reading Article III of the Constitution. All the law accepted by the Constitution as U.S. law is stated there, to wit, “this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties.” As my citations show, the law of nation was considered as part of “the Laws of the United States.” The English “common law” was not.

(5) You said: “Of course English common law is studied. Blackstone's Commentaries is frequently quoted in Court decisions and opinions. Are you saying you studied Vattel's Law of Nations in law school, or that it was studied in law schools in the 1700s? Are you saying the Blackstone's Commentaries is not or was not studied during that same time?” Response: Blackstone was studied in the late 18th century and 19th century in our law schools. Studied for the common law that applied to state and local matters, he was not studied as representing U.S. national law. On the other hand, Vattel and the Law of Nations was studied as U.S. national law.

(6) You said: “Publius specifically said that English common law should not be looked to for the meaning of "felony". He did not say it should not be looked to for other terms in the Constitution.” Response: Your response is comical. Why would Madison consider the English “common law” to be “a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” for defining only felonies? After all, he did not have to use such strong language. He could have just said that the English “common law,” while providing guidance in other instances for defining terms in the Constitution, was of no help in that particular situation. Can you tell me what is it about felonies that would render the English “commonl law” “a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” for defining that word but not such for defining other terms in the Constitution? And by the way, Madison said that, not me.

Linda said...

@Mr. Apuzzo,

I appreciate your response. You said "But that child is not born with full and complete allegiance to the United States as is a child born in the country to “citizen” parents who is a “natural born Citizen.” This is exactly the point where we differ. I read that part of the Binney quote ("if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.") and, to me, it says they are they are the same, by the same principal, both NBCs.

In the Venus, Marshall wrote the dissent (concurring in part) and the facts were not disputed that the claimants were naturalized US citizens. Neither the opinion of the majority, nor the dissent of Justice Marshall used the term "natural born citizen".

I appreciate the time you are taking to explain your point of view. I am not trying to be argumentative, and we may just have to agree to disagree, but it is important to me to at least to able to articulate wherein those differences lie. Right now, I can't. I just know they are different. Again, thanks for your time.

Linda said...

@Mr. Apuzzo,

Again, I do appreciate your time and will get to your longer response later. I will be away from the computer for awhile.

Quickly, as to Madison/Plubius and the term "felony" here is the paragraph I was referring to:

"A definition of felonies on the high seas is evidently requisite. Felony is a term of loose signification, even in the common law of England; and of various import in the statute law of that kingdom. But neither the common nor the statute law of that, or of any other nation, ought to be a standard for the proceedings of this, unless previously made its own by legislative adoption. The meaning of the term, as defined in the codes of the several States, would be as impracticable as the former would be a dishonorable and illegitimate guide. It is not precisely the same in any two of the States; and varies in each with every revision of its criminal laws. For the sake of certainty and uniformity, therefore, the power of defining felonies in this case was in every respect necessary and proper.

I do appreciate your time.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Linda,

(1) You said: “[A]nd, to me, it says they are they are the same, by the same principle, both NBCs.” “By the same principle” refers to “born in the country,” not “natural born Citizen.” Gray and Binney are saying that both classes are “citizens” by the virtue and the power of being “born in the country.” This is not a correct concept of our citizenship. Our citizenship is based on parentage which is based on natural law. Hence, one became a “citizen” by virtue and the power of being born to “citizen” parents. Obtaining the status of a “citizen” by virtue and the power of being “born in the country” is to obtain that status by positive law. This is why I maintain that a “natural born Citizen” is the product of both natural law (birth to “citizen” parents) and positive law (birth in the country), and not as some maintain only natural law. This combined natural law and positive law definition is the definition that Vattel put forth in Section 212 of The Law of Nations.

(2) I see that you attempt to take significance away from Marshall’s definition in The Venus by trying to suggest it was part of his dissent. That is what all the Obots do. Marshall’s definition of Vattel’s “natives, or indigenes” has nothing to do with his dissent. It is strictly part of his concurring opinion. Your thing about the facts not being in dispute is the same Obot talking point that is used for Minor. The point that you fail to realized is that what Marshall said gives us insight into how the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” at that time close to the adoption of our Constitution. Marshall was himself a founder and a great jurist. What he said about a “native” or an “indigene,” which terms meant the same thing as “natural born Citizen,” means a great deal. And for you to say that Marshall did not define a “natural born Citizen” (another Obot talking point) is absurd, for Marshall specifically cited and quoted Vattel’s Section 212 which various subsequent U.S. Supreme Court and lower court cases recognized also by citation and quote as supplying the source for the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Note that Minor did not cite and quote Vattel’s Section 212 but paraphrased it.

MichaelN said...

I don't see the native-born children of alien women as being excluded from being as "alien minors" per the following opinion of the SCOTUS.

So it appears that the SCOTUS considered the children of "alien women" as "alien minors", regardless of where the "alien minors" were born.

In any event where the SCOTUS speaks of those who were "native women" and "native minors", the SCOTUS describes them as "citizens by birth" and NOT "natural born citizens".

I wonder why?

Minor v. Happersett - 88 U.S. 162 (1874)

"As early as 1804 it was enacted by Congress that when any alien who had declared his intention to become a citizen in the manner provided by law died before he was actually naturalized, his widow and children should be considered as citizens of the United States and entitled to all rights and privileges as such upon taking the necessary oath; [Footnote 10] and in 1855 it was further provided that any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or

Page 88 U. S. 169

who should be married to a citizen of the United States should be deemed and taken to be a citizen. [Footnote 11]

From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject, alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth."

Anonymous said...

The "resort" remark by Justice Waite has had a similar effect on the subject at hand as has the issue of the "birth certs".

Both used as "Red Herrings" keeping those seeking facts on the subject distracted with arcane case law and speculations on the quality of fonts.

But I have found that if you look closely at Minor v the paragraph before the "resort" comment and the paragraph after each point to the "Act'" of the Congress upon which the Justice relied.

Upon Adoption the U.S. came into being as a Republic, with an Executive, a Legislature and a Supreme Court. A NEW Nation.

There are no prior precedents once the Constitution's requirements were made the Supreme Law of the Land and NO superior Laws on Citizenship once the Congress in whole enact the "Act to establish an uniform Rule of naturalization".

The fact that both Citizen and natural born Citizen were used in A2S1C5 makes it plain that an "inheritable Citizenship" was REQUIRED by the Constitution.

The 1790 Act established Jus Sanguinis as the "uniform Rule".

The 1795 Act, by its repealing the 'foreign born natural born Citizen provision, codified the circumstance of REQUIRING BOTH Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli as the circumstances to be born a U.S. natural born Citizen.

The only "RESORT" necessary is the Rule of Law under the Constitution, which, as suggested by John Jay, should be guarded from all forms of foreign influence.

MichaelN said...

@Linda

You're not the same "linda" who posts on Dr. Conspiracy's blog.... are you?

What do you have to say about this?...

English common law.....

Lord Coke (Calvin's case, the same case cited by Horace Gray in the WKA court)

"An alien born is of foreign birth OR foreign allegiance,..."

Do you suppose, per this English common law definition of an "alien born", that a native-born can be an "alien born"?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Michael,

Chief Justice Waite's reference to these naturalization laws is just one way that he uses to prove that women were always citizens. There had been a problem with husbands/fathers who had taken an oath to become citizens but died before actually becoming citizens. This left widows and minor children without citizenship. So in 1804 Congress passed a naturalization act which said that if the husband/father took the citizenship oath but died before actually becoming a citizen, his widow and children would be considered as citizens of the United States, provided that the naturalization laws otherwise allowed that particular woman to naturalize.

Here we see Waite giving "native" the same meaning he gave to "natural-born citizen." It had to have the same meaning, for there was only one way to obtain birthright citizenship for anyone born in the United States. And that was to be born in the country to "citizen" parents. Waite then says that given that Congress considered that both alien women and alien minors could naturalize under such laws, then Congress must have also considered that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth. In other words, Waite says that these laws showed that even Congress had always considered women to be citizens.

What is important to note about Waite’s treatment of the early naturalization acts is that Waite did not say that these naturalization acts (and also those of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855) applied only to children born out of the United States. In fact, he treated, as did Congress, children born to alien parents in or out of the United States equally. They were all aliens and would only become "citizens of the United States" upon the parents becoming naturalized if done during the children's minority and when the children were dwelling in the United States. So if the Founders and Framers considered a child born in the United States to alien parents not to be a “citizen” and that such child had to naturalize to become a “citizen,” it is impossible that they would have considered a child born in the country to alien parents to be a “natural born Citizen.”

MichaelN said...

Further to my prior post.

English common law.....

Lord Coke (Calvin's case, the same case cited by Horace Gray in the WKA court)

"An alien born is of foreign birth OR foreign allegiance,..."

Do you suppose, per this English common law definition of an "alien born", that a native-born can be an "alien born"?

Do you suppose that a friendly alien visiting US still holds and is obligated to prefer his allegiance to his own homeland as more important than what is seen to be as a flimsy, uncertain and temporary "subject to the jurisdiction" allegiance to the US?

i.e. would not ones allegiance to ones homeland be stronger, than that of any place one might be visiting?

I say yes, and therefore, according to English common law (IF ECL is what is to guide us in interpreting the Constitution), a child born in US, to alien parents, who are visiting US, is (as Lord Coke puts it) "OF FOREIGN ALLEGIANCE", and therefore "AN ALIEN BORN".

What do you think BrianH and Linda et al?

Linda said...

@MichaelN

I pulled up Calvin's case and did a search for the quote you listed but it did not pull up. I can not tell you what it means out of context, but I can tell you that Calvin was held to be a natural-born subject and could inherit property. It is also reported in "United States reports: Cases adjudged in the Supreme Court, Volume 6
By United States Supreme Court, and it goes on to say that Judge Tucker (St. George Tucker) considers the case to be law, but also applies to Americans.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=GHQ-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA184&lpg=PA184&dq=lord+calvin%27s+case&source=bl&ots=xyGTZVGhY6&sig=1GjQzLF5kGyz70dwVXq8GNim5Ws&hl=en&sa=X&ei=l2T-T5bsH8alrQHw2f2KCQ&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=lord%20calvin's%20case&f=false

Anonymous said...

The use of "native" and "indigenous" must be interpreted from the "context" of its usage in Vattel's Chap 212, as well as in many of the dicta found in case law.

To a scrupulous reader of Vattel it is plain to see that the "indegenes and natives" are referenced as those born to the "NEW STATE", the subject of the Chapter.

The "former" occupants of that "place", whether "enemy or passive", are dealt with in other Chapters.

The "New Nation" of United States had a sovereign right to say who were its Citizens and the Constitution addressed those issues, in words that said so and words that required it.

The 1st Citizens being those that were recognized Citizens of the several States under the Articles of Confederation, and NO OTHERS.

The use of "natural born Citizen" in A2S1C5 REQUIRED a form of "inheritable Citizenship", the words require it.

The Congress was charged with 'establishing an uniform Rule of naturalization" and, by implication, that Rule must be consistent with the requirements of the Constitution.

That the uniform Rule established by the Congress was "inheritable Citizenship" from the father, Jus Sanguinis, is plain in the words of the 1790 and '95 Acts.

The use of natural born Citizen in the Executive qualification Clause REQUIRES the continuing existence of U.S. natural born Citizens within the U.S. population and attached a "transient political aspect" to the nature of those Citizens. That "transient political aspect" includes the Separation of Powers doctrine which makes the nature of natural born Citizen unalterable, except by the Amendment process.

The 1790 Act extended the recognition of an NBC beyond the scope of its plenary power and the 1795 Act Repealed and Replaced the '90 Act in whole, replacing the provision of a foreign born NBC to be thereafter a "Citizen" only, thereby establishing the nature of a U.S. natural born Citizen in conformity to the historical understanding of the term of words as expressed by Aristotle and Vattel.

BrianH said...

@Michael N

Me: "There is simply NO caselaw which articulates this supposed distinction and clearly indicates that one can be a citizen at birth without being a natural born citizen. None."

Michael: That is a LIE!

United States v. Wong Kim Ark - 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

"MR. JUSTICE GRAY, after stating the case, delivered the opinion of the court.........as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, "if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.""


This actually is a GREAT excerpt.

One of the incidents to being a "natural born citizen" is presidential eligibility. If another child is said to be "as much a citizen" as the NBC, then the former must also enjoy the privilege of presidential eligibility.

Otherwise, "as much" really isn't "as much." Right? Or are we in an "all men are created equal, but some are more equal than others" Orwellian semantic world here.

So this passage you've cited actually proves what I've been saying: that J. Gray analyzes that a native-born person of alien parents is also a "natural born" person, with all the incidents pertaining thereto, including presidential eligibility. Chief Justice Fuller writing in dissent realized this as well.

So this case doesn't prove the "citizen at birth, but not natural born citizen" distinction.

Do you have another you'd like to try?

BrianH said...

@Michael N

BrianH, I am not "trying" any thing.

Yes, you are. You, like Mario, are trying to escape the direct comparison Justice Gray in WKA makes between the English rule of NBS (which Gray concludes is purely jus soli such that children of aliens were considered NBS) and the "same rule" which Gray then sees operating under common law NBC, which he then likewise construes as jus soli.

You attempt to escape the implications of this by claiming that ECL wasn't jus soli in the manner J. Gray says, so that by comparison a person born in the U.S. of alien parents can't be considered an NBC. Mario pretends that Gray didn't REALLY compare NBS and NBC, even though in two of the authorities Gray cites (from Justices Curtis and Swayne) the term "natural born citizen" is right there smacking Mario between the eyes.

I have quoted verbatim what the English common law holds as regards the qualities required to make an English "natural born subject".

Michael, here's the point you're not getting. (Nor is Mario). It doesn't matter what you (or I) think the ECL held. The ghost of Lord Coke himself could rise up here and proclaim as true what you're trying to say and, as far as the status and import of Wong Kim Ark as precedent, IT WOULDN'T MATTER. Because the reality is that Wong Kim Ark analyzed ECL to be jus soli as to NBS. And that Court saw that "same rule" as holding true under the common law of NBC.

So any court below the SCOTUS level (which means every other court in the U.S.) which is presented with this "two citizen parent" argument is going to read Wong Kim Ark, note how the SCOTUS majority analyzed the Constitutional term "natural born citizen" by reference to the jus soli rule (so interpreted) of the ECL, and conclude the "two citizen parent" argument lacks merit.

Which is why I've been telling Mario it's time to face that fact and shift tack from pretending WKA doesn't say this, to acknowledging that WKA said it, that the Court's analysis was woefully flawed, and that the opinion, at least insofar as its framework of analysis goes, should be overturned.

BrianH said...

@Mario A

You are trying to use this statement to show that the Court ruled that a “natural born Citizen” is the same as an English “common law” “natural born subject.”

First, what the Court said about the English “common law” rule continuing to prevail in the new republic is not correct.

Chief Justice Fuller, with whom Justice Harlan joined, explained in his dissent in Wong Kim Ark:

Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:

The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, ****.


Right. The majority rejected the U.S. Government's appeal to the "law of nations." Instead, the majority compared the Constitutional term "natural born citizen" in light of "the history of the English common law." The majority (Part II) analyzed the ECL term "natural born subject" to be purely jus soli:

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born."

The majority then (Part III) made a direct comparison between that jus soli NBS rule (so interpreted) and the common law rule of NBC in America:

""In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution." [Again, it's stated that "birth" and allegiance go together, NOT "birth, plus the requisite parental citizenship.]

Parts II and III of the opinion clearly lay out the common jus soli pattern between NBS and NBC that J. Gray saw. This is all before Part V, where he picks up analysis of the Fourteenth Amendment. No judge can possibly fail to see this pattern of analysis. And, once it's observed, your "two citizen parent" argument goes nowhere.

The dissent saw this, too. That's why it's the dissent that cites to Vattel to claim the majority has improperly made "natural born citizen" a purely jus soli thing, thus allowing someone like Mr. Wong to be presidential eligible.

Mario, on the question of the status of a person born of alien parents, WKA is going to be seen by every judge as the most "on all fours" SCOTUS case. NOT The Venus; NOT Minor (neither of which presented the question of a person born in the U.S. of alien parents). That is what every law student learns: the precedent that had the more similar fact pattern to the case at hand has greater relevance.

You are above citing the dissent to argue the majority was wrong. Yet (so far) you've not acknowledged WKA needs to be overturned.

Has the time now come?

Anonymous said...

Justice Waite said;

" ... 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..."

Given that the question of the case was "suffrage" and NOT "eligibility" the question of "citizenship" could not have been avoided since citizenship was asserted to be the determining factor of the right of suffrage.

That point is raised to establish the fact that any and all "case law" fails the test of being on point when the subject IS the A2S1C5 U.S. natural born Citizen.

I have long contended that the nature of a U.S. natural born Citizen is a "citizenship question" in the 1st instant suggesting that the attached "transient political aspects" could be laid aside pending the resolution of the "citizenship question".

On that I may be proved wrong.

The nature of a U.S. natural born Citizen may be inseparable from its attached transient political aspects by virtue of its singular usage within the Executive qualification, (eligibility), Clause.

The point and the conclusion I have drawn since "resorting" to all manner of resources on the subject is that the "resort" necessary to resolve the "legal Constitutional status" as to the nature and quality of circumstances that define a U.S. natural born Citizen must be limited to the Constitution its-self and the relevant Acts promulgated under its authority.

Justice Waite, showing Judicial restraint, did not intrude on the question of the full nature of a U.S. natural born Citizen given that the specific question of its nature, both insofar as Citizenship and the attached political aspects are concerned was not the subject being litigated.

When the universe of "resort" is limited to the Organic Laws of the U.S. the nature of a U.S. natural born Citizen is discernible by the words of Congressional Acts and what those words require.

But the resources of Standing, Jurisdiction and supportable cause of action upon which to lay a claim for redress of grievance is made limited by the attached "transient Political aspects".

The irony may be that the "resort" will be found only in Laws that emanate from the 14th Amendment; 42USC § 1983/85:

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

BrianH,

Justice Gray's "as much" a citizen does not amend the "natural born Citizen" clause by judicial fiat. It only says that a "citizen" by virtue of birth in the country, is as much a "citizen" as a “citizen” by virtue of birth in the country to citizen parents. The Constitution, as adopted and ratified by the People of the United States, treats all "citizens" equally. But it also says that only a "natural born Citizen" may be President. Hence, the Constitution creates another class of "citizen" that is not only a "citizen," but also a "natural born Citizen." By creating these two classes, the constitution does not discriminate among the “citizens.” It only says that to be a “citizen” is not sufficient to be President, for one must also be a “natural born Citizen.” And the People accepted “natural born Citizen,” a clause that had a specific meaning in the law of nations, rather than just “citizen” or some other designation, to make sure, as John Jay suggested to George Washington that there be a “strong check” on foreign influence entering the administration of government and the office of the Commander in Chief, that their future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military were born within full and complete allegiance and loyalty to the United States and to no other nation.

The People who adopted and ratified the Constitution had every right and power to write their Constitution the way they wanted. They risked their lives, honor, and fortunes, and that of their families, to create the new republican society, and they had the natural right to write the rules of the new society they created, rules which they believed would not only benefit it in the present, but also preserve it into the future for their Posterity.

There is no "equal protection" argument against the People’s wishes and what they wrote or the Constitution itself. If you do not like what the People ordained and wrote in their Constitution, you need an amendment to change it, not an "equal protection" argument.

Anonymous said...

There is a "case" out there that was posted in the comments of one of Donofrio's Blog's by one of the Jefferson Rebel's researchers where the discussion of the case was equating the equality of rights, privileges and immunities among U.S. Citizens........

....I have lost the name of the case although I read and saved it somewhere in digital devise....but an close paraphrase, (with exact quote in bold italic) is;

" ... the nature of a U.S. Citizen is equal in all respects to those of a natural born Citizen, save one, eligibility to the Office of POTUS.

I do not recall if it discussed the requisite circumstances of being an NBC, nor do I remember the 'cause of action', but noted at the time that the particular case made an important distinction that was self-evident in the manner od usage in A2S1C5.

Starbeau said...

Having read every single post on this blog, it is noted every Obot blogger attempts the same arguments and their sole purpose is to confuse the issue of Article II, Section I, Clause 5 of the constitution which states that to be eligible to serve as President and Commander in Chief of the American Army, a candidate must be a “natural born Citizen”.

There are a lot of arguments relative to English common law, American common law, children born overseas to American parents, citizens, born citizens, natives, native born citizens, subjects and every combination and permutation related to birth location and parental citizenship that can be dreamed up which only creates confusion.

It is a fact that the constitution did not define a “natural born Citizen”.

It is a fact that Minor v. Happersett held that a “natural born Citizen” is defined as a person born on US soil to parents who were citizens. The definition is precedent as it was a part of the holding.

Amendment 14 states:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No documents have been submitted to any court proving that Obama was born in Hawaii or any other state.
Even if you assume that Obama was born in Hawaii, there is no plain reading of Section 1 of Amendment 14 that would define Obama as a citizen since he has admitted that his father was a foreigner and he was born under limited (not total) jurisdiction of the United States.
Obama was adopted by Lolo Soetoro and still may be a citizen of Indonesia as the divorce decree states there was one child (his half sister) below 18 and one child (Obama) above the age of 18, dependent on education.
Obama's biggest problem may not be that he is not a “natural born Citizen”, but that he is not even a “citizen”.
Starbeau

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

BrianH,

I’ve told you time and time again and will say it again, Wong Kim Ark was not tasked with interpreting Article II, but rather with interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment which neither repealed nor amended the “natural born Citizen” clause. This means that Wong Kim Ark did not define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” It defined a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. It defined that “citizen” by analyzing how the colonial English common law defined a “natural born subject.”

I have also shown that Justice Gray’s resort to the English common law to define national citizenship was in error. Clearly the early Congress in the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 abrogated the English common law as applicable in determining national citizenship in the United States. And that is not to mention all the other historical evidence which I have presented that shows that we did not adopt the English common law rule for our national citizenship. Justice Gray’s error affects how we came to define under the Fourteenth Amendment the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction” and consequently a “citizen” “at birth,” born in the United States. But it did not bring some new definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” which had been confirmed by Minor v. Happersett in 1875 and which Wong itself cited and quoted.

So, there is not need to overturn Wong Kim Ark, unless its interpretation and application of the Fourteenth Amendment needs to be reversed. Rather, there is just the need to understand what Wong Kim Ark held and to confirm that its holding is limited to defining a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen,” not an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

BrianH said...

@Mario A

Justice Gray's "as much" a citizen does not amend the "natural born Citizen" clause by judicial fiat.

I'm not claiming he amended anything. Here's your beg-the-question technique at work again: assume that "NBC" had the original meaning as you wish it; then assert anything later where it's described later by any court is a 'change.' J. Gray can reason (and did) that the original meaning of "natural born citizen" was jus soli. That's why a child of an alien is "as much" a citizen as the child of citizen parents; all incidents of citizenship the same -- including the right to run for president.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

BrianH,

Do not speak to me in your condescending manner, telling me that Wong Kim Ark is the only game in town and I better wake up to it.

The fact of that matter is that you concede that the only argument you have is Wong Kim Ark, which I have shown does not address the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The totality of the historical evidence, including the acts of our early Congress (1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855) is stacked against you. You just want to put your blinders on and disregard that evidence, telling us that Wong Kim Ark miraculously erases that evidence from our history.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

United Natural Born Citizens,

That a “native-born,” who is not a “natural born Citizen” is not eligible to be President was confirmed by the U.S. Supreme Court in Schneider which said:
“We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1.

***

Distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens in connection with foreign residence are drawn in the Constitution itself. Only a native-born may become President, Art. II, § 1.”
Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964).

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

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

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

BrianH,

You are the one who begs the question.

You assume that a "citizen" has the same meaning as a "natural born Citizen."

All the historical evidence shows otherwise.

You have not proven differently.

You just without proof assert that Wong Kim Ark ruled that Wong was a "natural born Citizen," when the Fourteenth Amendment it interpreted only speaks about a "citizen."

BrianH said...

@Mario A

I’ve told you time and time again and will say it again, Wong Kim Ark was not tasked with interpreting Article II, but rather with interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment which neither repealed nor amended the “natural born Citizen” clause.

Minor wasn't tasked with interpreting Article II either. Virginia Minor wasn't running for president either.

This means that Wong Kim Ark did not define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” It defined a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment.

But along the way, in Parts II, III, and V, WKA showed that the common law meaning of "natural born citizen" and "born . . . in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" mean the same thing. I've shown where in the opinion this is the case. You just keep pretending by silence it isn't there.

It defined that “citizen” by analyzing how the colonial English common law defined a “natural born subject.”

And you never answer my question about what the ECL has to do with the 14th Amendment. There's nothing in the history of the Amendment to suggest the drafters looked to or discussed English common law. So why is J. Gray pulling in ECL?

You keep leaving out the step in his analysis where he shows the ECL common law rule of NBS became the American common law rule of NBC -- and that latter rule was incorporated formally under the 14th Amendment. NBC and 14th Amendment share the same jus soli principle with the same exceptions.

I have also shown that Justice Gray’s resort to the English common law to define national citizenship was in error.

Even assuming arguendo that you are correct, still that "error" carries over to his Part III analysis where he puts NBS and NBC side by side and states they follow the "same rule":

"In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:

The first section of the second article of the Constitution uses the language, "a natural-born citizen."It thus assumes that citizenship may be acquired by birth. Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of public law, well understood in this country at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth." [Note "place of birth;" no reference to "citizen status of parents.]

And note his next citation:

"In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution." [Again, it's stated that "birth" and allegiance go together, NOT "birth, plus the requisite parental citizenship.]

(Yes, we know that Gray/Curtis/Swayne weren't referring to THAT "natural born citizen." Just some parallel universe notion, right?)

But it did not bring some new definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen”

You are correct. WKA just provided a more complete original definition of "natural born citizen." The Minor court itself stated it didn't need to answer that question in the case before it.

So, there is not need to overturn Wong Kim Ark,

OK. If you're happy to live with every court observing how J. Gray in Parts II and III clearly indicated that "natural born citizen" follows the same common law jus soli rule of the ECL "natural born subject," so am I.

Anonymous said...

Justice Grays "Opinion" is demonstrably flawed under Constitutional Jurisprudence given that he did not deign, for whatever cause, to "resort" to the U.S. Laws on Citizenship and "CHOSE" English "municipal law" in the form of the Queen Anne Statutes, et seq., as construed by Lord Coke and Sir Blackstone. mmm mmm mmm

Had he bothered to consider U.S. Law on the subject he would have found that prior to the "collective naturalization born provision" of the 14th Amendment there did not exist a Jus Soli component to U.S. Citizenship except as it "naturally" occurred among EXISTING Citizens.

Recall Sir Blackstone's admonition;

" ...For I think it an undeniable position, that a competent knowledge of the
laws of that society *
in which we live, is the proper accomplishment of every
gentleman and scholar; an highly useful, I had almost said
essential, part of liberal and polite education. And in this I am warranted by the
example of ancient Rome; where, as Cicero informs us, the very boys were obliged
to learn the twelve tables by heart, as a carmen necessarium or indispensable lesson,
to imprint on their tender minds an early knowledge of the laws and constitution of
their country..." [Intro; Commentaries:Pg 3]

It is certainly reasonable to compare our Laws with the Laws of other nations to determine the propriety of their enactments, but to ignore our Laws in favor of foreign Law does justice to neither country.

Anonymous said...

To Puzo1;

No, I have Schneider.

In fact the State of OK used that in its Motion for Dismissal, again, failing to look at the ACTUAL Laws enacted by the Congress and "resorting" to case Law that by the very fact that the subject of NBC not being the subject of any case law, is not on point.

However they did use it in connection to my 'construed' interpretation of the statutory construction of A2S1C5 as being an "exclusionary prerequisite imperative requirement provision" and did so by saying the Schneider v Rusk Opinion "satisfied" the "exclusionary" requirement.

But no, there is another case out there that uses the words; "save one" ... in its establishing a distinction between citizen and nbC's.

Robert said...

Those who build their house on Wong Kim Ark build with sticks on sand.

Justice Gray, like Kagan and Sotomayor, was appointed by an illegitimate president. So, his contributions are subject to dismissal and nullification.

As we proceed to clean up the mess we're in and return to our legally formed and authorized Constitutional Republic, all previously accepted, but unconstitutional, contributions will eventually have to be addressed, too.

For now it is enough to correct the most recent mistake, Barack Obama.

The good news is that everyone will benefit tremendously from the work we're doing and the resulting rebirth of freedom - even the Obots and other Marxists, socialists, communists, or progressives.

John Woodman said...

I don't often comment over here, and I especially don't waste my time any more answering MichaelN (since he is given to endlessly repeating the same disproven nonsense) -- but this time Michael has produced a claim that is genuinely new. So I congratulate him on that.

It is completely bogus, of course, but at least it's genuinely new.

Michael's quote is not in the original text of Calvin's case at all. It is in a FOOTNOTE TRANSLATION provided by an anonymous translator of a comment written by Lord Coke in Latin. So the original is not in English. It's in Latin.

And the translation that Michael gives (""An alien born is of foreign birth OR foreign allegiance...") is only a loose translation, and not very accurate.

In context and in its actual words, the passage actually says:

"An Alien is a subject that is born out of the ligeance of the king, and under the ligeance of another, and can have no real or personal action for or concerning land; but in every such action the tenant or defendant may plead that he was born in such a Country which is not within ligeance of the king, and demand judgment if he shall be answered."

So right before Coke's Latin quote, we have the definition of an Alien: Someone who "was born in such a Country which is not within ligeance of the king." (This, by the way, comes from Littleton's writing in Law French back in the 1400s.)

Continuing:

"And this is in effect the description which Littleton himself maketh, lib. 2. cap. 14. Villen. fol. 43."

Now, Michael's quote:

"Alienigena est alienae gentis seu alience ligeantiae, qui etiam dicitur peregrinus, alienus, exoticus, extraneus, &c. Extraneus est subditus, qui extra terram, i.e. potestatem regis natus est.

Extraneus est subditus, qui extra terram, i.e. potestatem regis natus est."


Here is a more accurate translation:

"A foreigner is of another house, clan, or race, or of another allegiance, who is also said to be from foreign parts, alien, exotic, foreign, from without, etc.

A foreigner or stranger is a subject who is born outside of the land, that is, outside of the power, of the king."


So the passage Michael quotes (as supposedly being in support of the bogus birther "natural born citizen" two-parents claim) in fact tells us, not once but twice -- explicitly -- what an alien is.

It is someone who is born "in such a Country which is not within ligeance of the king," and "a subject who is born outside of the land, that is, outside of the power of the king."

And the very SENTENCE he quotes does NOT draw any clear distinction between being of "foreign birth" and of "foreign allegiance," but in fact adds to this by implying that such a person is from foreign parts, and from without.

Like pretty much everything else birther, the quote is cherry-picked, while studiously ignoring the text all around it that says what Michael doesn't want it to say.

The rest of Michael's tedious argument has been effectively refuted elsewhere, many times.

By the way, I would like to congratulate BrianH on his excellent demonstration of the nonsensical nature of the claims of the birther crew here. They will go on repeating the same debunked nonsense forever, but Brian has done an excellent job of showing, once again, that it is in fact debunked nonsense.

BrianH said...

@Mario A

Do not speak to me in your condescending manner. .

This from the person whose first comment to me at Woodman's' blog suggested I "turn on my brain." Got it.

telling me that Wong Kim Ark is the only game in town and I better wake up to it.

Have you not noticed how that case keeps popping up in the decisions that have rejected the "two citizen parent" argument? The "WKA only held that Wong was a 14th Amendment citizen" argument keeps losing. I'm simply providing reasons why it's going to keep losing. Your take on the case in effect wishes to take a black Sharpie and redact out everything following Gray's quote from Minor up to Part V where Gray talks about Wong and the 14th Amendment. That whole portion of the opinion in between is a mindfield that kills your argument, from Gray's statement that the Constitutional terms (including "NBC") are to be interpreted in light of the history of the ECL, to Gray's concluding NBS was jus soli (Part II) to Gray's analysis and conclusion that similarly our common law as to "NBC" was jus soli (Part III), to Gray's rejection of the U.S. Govt appeal to the "law of nations." (Part IV)

All this stuff doesn't magically disappear when you say "the Court didn't say Wong was an NBC." The Ankeny court is a perfect example: it acknowledged that WKA didn't explicitly find Wong to be NBC; yet it still said the "guidance" the opinion provided indicated that Pres. Obama is a natural born citizen.

Talk about winning the battle and losing the war. Yet you think this same (losing) argument will win next time. OK. Whatever.

The fact of that matter is that you concede that the only argument you have is Wong Kim Ark, which I have shown does not address the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

It's not the only argument. It's just a completely sufficient argument. I could walk into any court with a 3 - 4 page brief that analyzes that case and explains why it defeats your "two citizen parent" argument. And I would win that argument every time. The 50 to 200 pages of historical stuff you'd be blathering about would go for naught.

The totality of the historical evidence, including the acts of our early Congress (1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855) is stacked against you. You just want to put your blinders on and disregard that evidence, telling us that Wong Kim Ark miraculously erases that evidence from our history.

But Courts don't begin by analyzing historical evidence. They begin by analyzing caselaw. And any court invited to pass on this "two citizen parent" argument is going to look at WKA at the outset, as without question is it THE seminal case analyzing citizenship as to a person born of alien parents. And any court is thus going to follow WKA's lead, which looked to the ECL, and NOT the sort of historical evidence you want the court to consider (and NOT Vattel). So, yes, WKA renders your historical evidence a non-starter.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

BrianH,

(1) Minor interpreted the meaning of a “natural-born citizen.” That clause, my friend, is found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Wong Kim Ark interpreted the meaning of a “citizen of the United States.” That clause, my friend, is found in the Fourteenth Amendment.

(2) There is no silence on my part. I have told you repeatedly that Wong Kim Ark did not analyze the “common law” meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” First, that was already done by Minor. Wong Kim Ark even cited and quoted to Minor and its “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen.” Second, it used the colonial English “common-law” as an aid to interpreting the meaning of a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. That answers you question why Justice Gray resorted to the English “common law.”

(3) Justice Gray no where in his opinion said or even suggested as you so boldly state that “the ECL common law rule of NBS became the American common law rule of NBC.” Again, Minor said what the American “common law” rule was which the Founders and Framers followed during the Founding. That American “common law” rule was that a “natural-born citizen” was a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country. Justice Gray would not just take it upon himself to go changing that rule by some judicial fiat and without acknowledging that a constitutional amendment would be needed to do such a thing.

(4) Justice Gray never said as you allege that some new definition of a “natural born Citizen” was now incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. First, the Fourteenth Amendment neither repealed nor amended Article II and its “natural born Citizen” clause. Justice Gray surely did not say that any such repeal or amendment had taken place through the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, there was no need for Justice Gray to tinker with Article II and its “natural born Citizen” clause. He was only concerned with resolving the question of whether Wong was a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment.

(5) You continue to talk about “exceptions” to citizenship. Again, any such exceptions only applied to the question of whether someone was an English “natural born subject.” They now also apply, because of how Wong Kim Ark interpreted and applied the amendment, to the question of whether someone is a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” from the moment of birth. These exceptions apply under these laws because “citizen” parents are not required. But with a “natural born Citizen,” since “citizen” parents are required, the exceptions of parents who may be diplomats, royalty, or military invaders simply do not apply and have never been factored into the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” See the definition of a “natural born Citizen” under Section 212 of Vattel’s The Law of Nations along with every U.S. Supreme Court case that has ever given that definition (none refer to any such exceptions). This further proves that Justice Gray was not defining a “natural born Citizen,” but rather a new “citizen” from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

(6) Justice Curtis in his Dred Scott dissent was motivated to show that blacks too were “citizens” rather than analyzing what the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of a presidential “natural born Citizen” was. Additionally, when he comments in dicta what a “natural born citizen” is, while he says “[u]ndoubtedly,” he, like William Rawle in his, A View of the Constitution Of the United States (1825), does not provide any citations for his personal opinion.

(7) You continue to cite and quote Wong Kim Ark reference to Rhodes:

In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution.

1 Abbott (U.S.) 28, 40, 41.

Wong Kim Ark, at 662-63. But I have repeatedly asked you to show me what definition of “all persons born in the allegiance of the United States” did Justice Swayne give to that clause. To date, you have ignored this question which means you have no answer and both your and Justice Gray’s reliance on Rhodes is misplaced.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

United Natural Born Citizens,

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

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

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

BrianH,

A child of a British subject born in the United States after the adoption of the Constitution was a British “natural born subject” under the British Nationality Act 1772. Hence, these British statutes treated foreign-born children of British parents as British “natural born subjects.” With that being the case, how could the Founders and Framers have considered such a child to be a “natural born Citizen” and eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military?

jayjay said...

4zoltan & BrianH:

I see that you of the OOPS Troops brigade STILL do not grasp the meaning of "analogous".

The "Horned Toad" and the "English Sparrow" are are analogous critters (and even the alligator). They are also different.

Linda said...

@United States Natural Citizens

Chief Justice Waite noted that in several states, including Missouri, Minor's home, citizenship was not mandatory to vote.

"Besides this, citizenship has not in all cases been made a condition precedent to the enjoyment of the right of suffrage. Thus, in Missouri, persons of foreign birth, who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, may under certain circumstances vote. The same provision is to be found in the constitutions of Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, and Texas."

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

BrianH,

Do not tell me how to behave. Have you seen the conduct engaged in by the Obots against me?

You have your reading of Wong Kim Ark and I have mine. We will just have to agree to disagree. But do not think that I will let you get away with your forced and tortured interpretation of the case which you espouse for the purpose of achieving your political agenda rather than protecting and defending the Constitution and its values.

Your smugness shines bright in your 4-5 page brief. I’d love to see you present that 4-5 page brief to the U.S. Supreme Court. Better yet, I’d love to see you on your feet arguing your 4-5 page brief in front of that Court.

You know little about constitutional interpretation. The Supreme Court does not start with case law. The court starts with constitutional text. If the text does not resolve the matter, then it looks to contemporaneous evidence of meaning of the words at issue. Contemporaneous historical evidence is critical. Then the Court will look to how the society through time has interpreted the clause. Then they search for case law precedent which could but does not necessarily foreclose use of those tools.

cfkerchner said...

" ... a British made and Islamic sheik funded and controlled Aston Martin "car" is as much a "car" as the American made Ford". Both are cars and part of the larger set of cars but an Aston Martin is not a Ford. Such is case with the statement in the holding in Wong King Ark about WKA being as much a "Citizen" and the natural born child of Citizens. WKA was a "Citizen" but not a "natural born Citizen".

If the Obots cannot grasp the basic logic of set and subsets then they should read this essay of mine ... "Of Plants and Trees ...".
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/

But I think they do understand it and are just being intellectually dishonest and trying to ignore the adjectives and subset "natural born" in front of the noun for the larger set "Citizen" on purpose. Their intent here is to try and confuse first time readers of Mario's blog. They are not trying to convince Mario or anyone here in the know to the correctness and righteousness of their position, for their position is wrong both historical and legally. They are here to confuse the newbie readers who may come on by Mario's blog and to push disinformation to them. Their target is the silent readers of Mario's blog. That is the Obots main purpose for being here ... to spread disinformation any where they can. The other is to waste people's time. Since many of them are on the "payroll" of Obama directly or indirectly to spread disinformation on the eligibility issues for Obama, they don't care home time they spend on this. It's their job, ... either directly or indirectly they have a vested interest in keeping Obama in office and to continue the abrogration of Article II of the U.S. Constitution. Disinformation and twisting the meaning of language is what the Progressives have been doing for 100 years to undermine the Constitution and Rule of Law. To them it is all about what "is" means, etc. ;-)

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
ProtectOurLiberty.org

P.S. I see John Woodman is on your blog again back from "retirement" again. He still never answered my question ... "Is the natural born Citizen clause in Article II Section 1 a "restrictive" or "inclusive" clause?"

cfkerchner said...

The Obots here and the one's camped out and posting all the nasty comments at Amazon dot com about Terry's new book "Officer's Oath" are part of an orchestrated disinformation and smear campaign under the direction of an Obama campaign team operating under the direction of and even out of the White House. See this link for more details here and/or google for more stories about their "1984" and KGB style online disinformation operations:
http://www.wnd.com/2011/07/323913/print/

To learn more about former Terry Lakin's newly released book without being subjected to the filthy slimy nasty R word and worse comments of the paid Obot scum camped out 24x7 at Amazon dot com, see this site:
http://www.officersoath.com/

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
ProtectOurLiberty.org

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Commander Kerchner,

Nor has any Obot answered the simple question of how many definitions of a “natural born Citizen” did the Founders and Framers have when they included the clause in Article II for future presidential eligibility.

Now I know that Minor told us of one doubt-free definition that the Founders and Framers had which is a child born in a country to parents who were "citizens" of that country. It did not say there were any others. I was hoping that the Obots could tell us of these other secret and multiple definitions.

Oh, maybe the Obots can't fit a discussion of these other multiple definitions of a "natural born Citizen" in their 3-4 page brief because the Founders and Framers had so many of them.

MichaelN said...

Linda said...

"@MichaelN

I pulled up Calvin's case and did a search for the quote you listed but it did not pull up"

Response:

Here it is Linda.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=911&chapter=106337&layout=html&Itemid=27

Footnote 151 which gives an English translation of this....

"Alienigena est alienae gentis seu alience ligeantiae,...."

But you have failed to acknowledge that a person can be native-born and still be an alien, because of the allegiance of the father.

MichaelN said...

BrianH said....

"J. Gray can reason (and did) that the original meaning of "natural born citizen" was jus soli."

I have shown you that in the 17th century, to be an English "natural born subject", be necessity one had to be "born under the ligeance of a subject"

I have also shown you that in 17th century England, jus soli was NOT enough to make an English "natural born subject"

The only thing that Horace Gray "reasoned" of any bearing on WKAs situation in US, was that England embraced alien-born people as "subjects", and when as such, whose children were "subjects" by birth.

This did and does not happen in the US, where rather than one, there are two types of born citizens, i.e. US does not embrace alien visitors as "citizens".

It was incidental that the English happened to use the term "natural born subject" to call them by.

Horace Gray's WKA court ruled that the US equivalent to the English NBS, was a "citizen of the United States" due to the jus soli factor, but WKA could not be ruled as a "natural born citizen", because he was not "born under the ligeance of a "citizen".

English common law per Lord Coke (Calvin's case)

"And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum, NEITHER THE CLIMATE NOR THE SOYL, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born".

Another EPIC FAIL on your part BrainH.

Try again, don't lose heart, there is at least some entertainment value in your drivel.

MichaelN said...

BrianH said ....

""In United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution." [Again, it's stated that "birth" and allegiance go together, NOT "birth, plus the requisite parental citizenship.]"

BrianH.

The "allegiance" being spoken of equates to a "subject" in English common law.

In 17th century England, the father was a "subject" (with "parental citizenship") via temporary allegiance, which the English accepted as sufficient to make a "subject".

The US doesn't accept alien visitors as having sufficient allegiance to make them a US "citizen", they must be naturalized by due process, THEN (to be consistent with the English common law) their children would be "born under the ligeance of a" citizen".

ANOTHER EPIC FAIL on your part BrianH.

Do you have any more jokes?

MichaelN said...

United Natural Born Citizens said...

"Justice Grays "Opinion" is demonstrably flawed under Constitutional Jurisprudence given that he did not deign, for whatever cause, to "resort" to the U.S. Laws on Citizenship and "CHOSE" English "municipal law" in the form of the Queen Anne Statutes, et seq., as construed by Lord Coke and Sir Blackstone. mmm mmm mmm

Had he bothered to consider U.S. Law on the subject he would have found that prior to the "collective naturalization born provision" of the 14th Amendment there did not exist a Jus Soli component to U.S. Citizenship except as it "naturally" occurred among EXISTING Citizens."

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

Seems like Gray was in the habit of going off on a tangent.

"Gray is well known for his decision in Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. This case was heard twice, though only the second hearing resulted in a decision; the justices, feeling that the opinions written had not adequately explained their view of the situation (the case was about the constitutionality of a national income tax), wished to rehear the case. After the first hearing, Gray wrote that he sided with the defendant (Farmer's Loan & Trust), arguing that the tax was indeed constitutional. He was in the minority, however. After the second hearing, Gray changed his stance, joining with the majority in favor of the plaintiff. He chose not to write a dissenting or concurring opinion, in either hearing."

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

John Woodman,

You are wrong concering MichaelN’s Footnote 151. If you disagree with MichaelN, take it up with the translator, not with him.

Again, here is what Lord Coke said in Calvin’s Case which includes the Latin quote:

“1. An Alien is a subject that is born out of the ligeance of the king, and under the ligeance of another, and can have no real or personal action for or concerning land; but in every such action the tenant or defendant may plead that he was born in such a Country which is not within ligeance of the king, and demand judgment if he shall be answered. And this is in effect the description which Littleton himself maketh, lib. 2. cap. 14. Villen. fol. 43. Alienigena est alienae gentis seu alience ligeantiae, qui etiam |[16 b] dicitur peregrinus, alienus, exoticus, extraneus, &c. Extraneus est subditus, qui extra terram, i.e. potestatem regis natus est.”151
And here is the editor’s translation of the Latin: 151. ][Ed.: An alien born is of foreign birth or foreign allegiance, and is also called peregrinus (foreigner), alien, exotic, stranger, etc. A stranger is a subject who is born outside the land, that is, outside the king’s power.]

Here is what St. George Tucker thought was an “alien born.” Tucker gives us a list of all persons who were “alien born.” See Volume I, Note E of his Commentaties where he explains that Congress can exercise its naturalization powers over a person “provided the party were an alien born.” He then shows that after being naturalized by a state or federal statute, these persons were no longer considered “aliens by birth.” The list is instructive because it shows who Tucker considered to be “alien born.” These were persons who needed to be naturalized in order to no longer have the status of “alien[] by birth.” And what is most instructive is that Tucker included as “alien born” children born in the United States to alien parents, who could lose their “alien[] by birth” status upon their parents naturalizing during their minority and during a time when the minor was dwelling in the United States. So Tucker considered children born in the United States to alien parents to be “alien born.” He therefore considered these children to be of “foreign birth” and “foreign allegiance,” and therefore in need of Congressional naturalization in order to be accepted as “citizens of the United States.”

MichaelN said...

@ John Woodman

English common law for you...

Lord Coke (Calvin's case)

"And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate NOR THE SOYL, but ligeantia and obedientia THAT MAKE THE SUBJECT BORN;"

Oh, and the footnote translation of Coke's Latin passage was perfectly correct and in complete agreement with Coke's holding that native-birth is NOT SUFFICIENT to make a "subject born" aka "natural born subject".

For the 17th century English, an alien visiting in friendship was embraced as a "subject", and ONLY as such, his children if born in the realm were "natural born subjects"

i.e. TWO qualities were REQUIRED to make a "natural born subject", they being natural descent as the PARAMOUNT quality and native-birth.

Now IF we are to resort to the English common law for guidance and accept that "subject" and "citizen" are analogous, then for a child born native in US to be a "natural citizen", his father would have to be a US "citizen".

It was all about the "subject" status of the father, to the 17th century English and it was all about the "citizen" status of the father in the 18th century US republic.

Epic fail for you too John.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

The Obots have put all their eggs in the Wong Kim Ark basket. They tell us that all they need to win the Obama eligibility case is a 3-4 page brief that just cites Wong Kim Ark. One would think that part of that 3-4 page brief would include a quote from the question the Court addressed and from the holding as written by the Court as evidence of their position. But when we look at that question and holding, we can see why the Obots have not included in their 3-4 page brief the Court’s question and holding. Here is the question and holding:

The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Id. at 653.

And here is the holding:

The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.

Id. at 705.

There is nothing in either the “single question” presented or in the holding about an Article II “natural born Citizen?” The question concerned a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. There is no mention of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The same is true about the Court’s holding. Now we know why the Obots only keep their briefs to only 3-4 pages.

John Woodman said...

@Linda:

I've given a more accurate translation above (in actual context this time, how about that?) of the footnote whose English translation MichaelN quoted.

MichealN quoted the translation of the footnote accurately, but he (of course) completely ignored the two sentences, one before and one after the Latin quote, that negate what he's claiming about the Latin quote.

The entire passage doesn't support his claim in the least, and in fact -- surprise, surprise -- negates it.

MichaelN said...

It is an established fact that the English common law held that an alien-born, visiting 17th century England in friendship was a "subject" by virtue of "temporary ligeance" and further that such a "subject" is "presumed by law to be sworn to the king".

English common law per Lord Coke (Calvin's case):

"First, every subject (as it hath BEEN AFFIRMED by those that argued against the Plaintiff) is presumed by Law to be sworn to the King,....",

But NOT LIKE England, the US did NOT embrace ANY aliens visiting US as "citizens" nor did US PRESUME such aliens "by Law to be sworn to the" US.

Aliens to US, had to (by US Law) notify intention, apply, be accepted, swear an oath of allegiance and renounce any other allegiance to become a US "citizen".

Seeing as the 17th century English REQUIRED the father to be an English "subject" for his native-born child to be a "natural born subject", then it follows that (IF the EC Law is a guide)a person must be a US "citizen" for his native-born child to be a "natural born citizen".

i.e. the English alien-born "subject" was presumed to be sworn but the US alien-born "citizen" was REQUIRED to be sworn to the US.

MichaelN said...

John Woodman in his deceitful manner, said...

"@Linda:

I've given a more accurate translation above (in actual context this time, how about that?) of the footnote whose English translation MichaelN quoted.

MichealN quoted the translation of the footnote accurately, but he (of course) completely ignored the two sentences, one before and one after the Latin quote, that negate what he's claiming about the Latin quote.

The entire passage doesn't support his claim in the least, and in fact -- surprise, surprise -- negates it."

Oh how you soooo wish John.

But alas, you are wrong AGAIN!

The allegiance has to do with the sovereign and NOT the PLACE.

English common law per Lord Coke (Calvin's case)

"That the most usual and best pleading in this case is, both exclusive and inclusive, viz. extra ligeantiam domini Regis, &c. et infra ligeantiam alterius Regis,152

[152. ][Ed.: outside the allegiance of the lord king, etc. and within the allegiance of the other king.]

as it appeareth in 9 Ed. 4. 7. Book of Entries, fol. 244, &c. which cannot possibly be pleaded in this case, for two causes; First for that one king is Sovereign of both kingdoms; second, One ligeance is due by both to one Sovereign, and in case of an alien there must of necessity be several kings, and several ligeances.

Secondly, NO PLEADING WAS EVER extra regnum,153 or extra legem,154

[153. ][Ed.: OUTSIDE THE KINGDOM]

[154. ][Ed.: outside the law]

WHICH ARE CIRCUMSCRIBED TO PLACE, but extra ligeantiam,155

[155. ][Ed.: OUTSIDE ALLEGIANCE]

WHICH (as it hath been said) IS NOT LOCAL OR TIED TO ANY PLACE"


ANOTHER EPIC FAIL on your part John.

It's all about allegiance of the subject/citizen.

MichaelN said...

@John Woodman

In EC Law, it's all about the allegiance, and NOTHING to do with place.

English common law per Lord Coke (Calvin's case)

"Whosoever are born under one natural ligeance and obedience, due by the Law of Nature to one Sovereign are natural born Subjects"

i.e. those who are born out of the allegiance of the sovereign, which may be or may not be within the realm, are alien-born.

Coke:

"The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject. And therefore if any of the king’s Ambassadors in forein Nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the Common Laws of England they are natural born subjects, and yet they are born out of the king’s dominions."

I will repeat, it IS A PROVEN FACT!

Native-birth alone DOES NOT MAKE a "natural born #######"

Learn to live with it!

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Vattel broke people down into:
-“natural-born citizens”
-“citizens”
-“Naturalized” “citizens”
-“inhabitants,” which were either “inhabitants” or “perpetual inhabitants”
-“foreigners”

See Sections 212-14 of The Law of Nations.

Birth had two circumstances: “born in the country” and “born . . . of parents.” Section 212.

Under the law of nations, only one who was “born in the country” and “born . . . of parents who are citizens” could be a “natural-born citizen.” Section 212. Hence, both birth circumstances had to be satisfied in order to be a “natural-born citizen.”

Under the law of nations, if a child was “born in the country” to parents who were “inhabitants,” the child was born an “inhabitant” (foreigners who were permitted to settle and stay in the country). Section 214 and 215.

Under the law of nations, if a child was “born in the country” to parents who were “perpetual inhabitants,” the child was born a “perpetual inhabitant” (those who have received the right of perpetual residence, a kind of citizen of an inferior order). Section 214 and 215.

Vattel also informed that in England, the “single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” Section 214. Hence, Vattel did not recognize children born in England to foreigners as “natural-born citizens” of England. Rather, he said that English law naturalized those children from the moment of birth. Being naturalized at birth, those children could not be “natural-born citizens.”

The Founders and Framers, who adopted the law of nations as part of the law of the land, would never have considered a child born in the United States to alien parents a “natural born Citizen.” In fact, we know that they consider such a child not even a “citizen,” let alone a “natural born Citizen.” Our early Congresses (many founders and framers were part of our early Congresses) passed the early naturalization acts (1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855) in which they treated children born in the United States to alien parents to be themelves aliens and allowed those children to become naturalized “citizens” upon the naturalization of their parents if done during their minority and if dwelling in the United States at the time of such naturalization. What this means is that the early naturalization acts alone tell us what a “natural born Citizen” is. And these early acts passed shortly after the time of the adoption of the Constitution are much stronger evidence than Wong Kim Ark will ever be on the true meaning of a “natural born Citizen.”

jayjay said...

MichaelNThe OOPS Troops do not understand those words (and don
t want to).

They merely create their own definitions and try to muddy the waters.

It;s called "confabeffusicaste" or something like that and it comes from Saul Alinsky.

Robert said...

Regarding the posts explaining the importance of allegiance:

After the Revolution the Patriots had to determine who would be included as Citizens of this new nation. The importance of allegiance was, of course, paramount. Clearly, there were quite a few inhabitants of this continent that were still loyal to the King or otherwise not interested in being a part of the new nation.

With what we have clearly observed it is quite easy to extrapolate that if Mr. Obama had been born within the states prior to 1776 neither he, his parents, nor his grandparents would have been considered citizens.

None of them have ever shown any allegiance to our country, our Constitution, or the principles of liberty espoused in the Declaration of Independence.

Those who now defend Mr. Obama(for who knows what insane reason) would have been rejected, too.

And yes, this means that he would not have been eligible to become President under the Grandfather clause, either.

Linda said...

@Mr. Apuzzo

Everything you said below is also true of Minor v Happersett.

"There is nothing in either the “single question” presented or in the holding about an Article II “natural born Citizen?” The question concerned a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. There is no mention of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The same is true about the Court’s holding."


Minor's single question:

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

Minor's holding"

"Being unanimously of the opinion that the Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon anyone, and that the constitutions and laws of the several states which commit that important trust to men alone are not necessarily void, we
Affirm the judgment."

MichaelN said...

jayjay said...

MichaelN The OOPS Troops do not understand those words (and don't want to).

They merely create their own definitions and try to muddy the waters.

It;s called "confabeffusicaste" or something like that and it comes from Saul Alinsky."
---------------------

Yes jayjay, these traitorous apologists for the lying usurper know in their hearts and souls that the Framers meant for a citizen by natural descent from a citizen parents and native-birth to be an Article II "natural born Citizen".

Through their toxic treachery they are determined to poison the minds of the naive or less educated all for the sake of their political agenda, they sell their souls.

All we need to do is keep publicly slapping them down with the truth and exposing their vile, dark deceitful agenda.

It is to be expected, much like a circus, that you can keep slapping-down the clowns and they keep coming back for more, such is the nature of the clowns like John Woodman, RealityCheck, etc.

MichaelN said...

Expect the results of some serious "cherry-picking" to be forth-coming a la "honest" John Woodman, our resident hypocrite extraordinaire.

I can just see "honest" John, doing HIS selective "cherry-picking" (which he accuses others of), feverishly searching, cutting, pasting, twisting, squirming......LOL

John, you would have been better off writing a joke book, you might get some sales, no one wants to pay for your book of deceitful drivel.

Linda said...

@MichaelN

"But you have failed to acknowledge that a person can be native-born and still be an alien, because of the allegiance of the father."

I haven't seen it. Calvin's case held that the Calvin was a natural born subject. Footnote 151 " An alien born is of foreign birth or foreign allegiance, and is also called peregrinus (foreigner), alien, exotic, stranger, etc. A stranger is a subject who is born outside the land, that is, outside the king’s power."

The "foreign allegiance" referred to means that even if a child is born within the realm, that will have make NBsubjects of the children of ambassadors, invading armies, etc.

"Every man is either Alienigena, an Alien born, or subditus,164 a subject born. "

"And Tournay was under the obedience of Henry the eighth., as it appeareth by 5 Eliz. Dyer, fol. 224. for there it is resolved, that a bastard born at Tournay, whiles it was under the obedience of Henry the eighth, was a natural subject, as an issue born within this realm by aliens. If then those that were born at Tournay, Callice, &c. whiles they were under the obedience of the king, were natural subjects, and no aliens, it followeth, that when the kingdom of France (whereof those were parcels) was under the king’s obedience, that those that were then born there, were natural subjects, and no aliens."

"Whosoever is born within the King’s power or protection, is no Alien: But Calvin was born under the King’s power and protection; ergo he is no Alien."

Anonymous said...

Linda said...
@Mr. Apuzzo

Everything you said below is also true of Minor v Happersett.

In Justice Waites determination he also FOUND that;

"...The amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of a citizen. It simply furnished an additional guaranty for the protection of such as he already had...."[Pg 171]

Which raises 3 questions that are relevant in seeking to establish the "Legal", (enforceable) Constitutional definition of NBC.

1] Is "birthright citizenship" a protected Right under the Constitution....?

2] Is the "eligibility" to the Office of POTUS a protected "Privilege" reserved to NBC's to the exclusion of all others....?

3] Is the nature and circumstances requisite to being an NBC "Immune" from 'abridgments, enlargement or other forms of modification" by the Congress in whole, save for the Amendment process....?

Should the affirmative be successfully argued of the 3, then in combination with the proper explanation of what the words of the "Acts" say and what they require; under the Rules of Law and upon the authority of specific Statutes a case can be made for redress standing on the affirmatives of the former and authorities of the later.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

Linda,

Regarding the question that Minor addressed, the Court stated what question the parties presented to it. It did not say it was limiting itself to the question presented to it by the parties. It is clear from the content of the decision of the Court that it thorough addressed two questions, to wit, (1) was Virginia Minor a “citizen” and (2) if she was a “citizen,” could Missouri through its constitution and statutes deny her the right to vote simply because she was a woman. In its first holding, the Court held that she was not only a “citizen,” but also a “natural-born citizen.” In its second holding, it also held that even though she was a “citizen,” she did not have a constitutional right to vote under the privileges and immunities clause of Article IV which Missouri could not abridge because of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Regarding the first question and holding which are what is relevant for our purposes, the Court did not assume as the parties did that Virginia was a “citizen.” The Court thoroughly and carefully set out to show that not only based on what society assumed but also based on our laws that women had always been just as much “citizens” as men. In proving that the law treated women as “citizens,” the Court explained the history and development of citizenship in the United States and went through constitutional provisions and federal laws that had always treated women as “citizens.”

The Court first explained who the original “citizens” were during the Founding. It also informed how more “citizens” could be made after the Founding. It covered how the Constitution allowed more “citizens” to be made by birth and naturalization. It then explained how birth citizens could be made and said that they were children born in a county to parents who were “citizens” of that country. It did not say that these were children simply born in the country with the English “common law” exceptions of being born to parents who were diplomats or military invaders. Hence, what the Court expressed as the rule for birthright citizenship was that of the law of nations and not that of the English “common law.” It then said that these “citizens” were not only “citizens,” but they were “natural-born citizens.” Again, the Court made no reference to the English “common law” “natural born subject.” Rather, it made direct reference to the law of nations “natural-born citizen,” even using a hyphen between “natural” and “born” (“natural-born citizen”) which is how the 1797 English edition of Vattel’s The Law of Nations presents “natural born Citizen.” So not only did the Court paraphrase Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen,” but it also used the translator’s hyphen. It is critical that in defining a “natural-born citizen,” a unanimous Minor United States Supreme Court in 1875 did not make one mention of the English “common law” or cite to one English authority. Rather, the definition that the unanimous Court provided came directly out of the law of nations and not the English “common law.” Moreover, the Court even said that the Founders and Framers were familiar with that “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen.” This more than makes the incontrovertible case that the Founders and Framers did not rely upon the English “common law” to define an Article II “natural born Citizen,” but rather the law of nations which the Court called “common-law” that was familiar to the Founders and Framers.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Minor did mention that “some authorities” contended that there was another class of persons who could also be “citizens.” The Court said that these were “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.” The Court did not say that under the “common-law” that was familiar to the Founders and Framers, these other persons could also be “citizens.” Rather, it spoke about “some other authorities” making this claim. Additionally, we also know that the Court was here referring to the Fourteenth Amendment, for it did not use the artful language of the law of nation, “born in a country,” but rather paraphrased the amendment’s language, “born . . . in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It is telling how the Court stated that these other “authorities” viewed the issue as being one only about being born in the United States and not also one about giving meaning to the word “jurisdiction.” It said that while there never has been any doubt regarding the “natural-born citizen” class, it cautioned that “there have been doubts” whether members of this other class of persons were “citizens.” This other class of persons could be “citizens,” depending on how the doubts were resolved, but they could not meet the Court’s “common-law” and constitutional definition of a “natural-born citizen.”

We have to understand that the “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen” that the Court provided was not just a court-constructed definition. That was a definition which the Court said existed at “common-law” with which the Founders and Framers were familiar. Hence, that was the definition that the People incorporated into their Constitution and upon which they relied to provide eligibility standards for the President and Commander in Chief of the Military. That definition became a vital part of the Constitution and thereby under Article VI the supreme law of the land. The Constitution itself prescribed at Article V how it can be changed which it said can be done only by duly adopted and ratified amendment. That amendment process included changing the constitutional definition of a “natural-born citizen.” This means that a court, like Wong Kim Ark, could not just come along later on and decide to change that constitutionally binding definition without telling us that it was doing so and providing the constitutional basis for doing so. And Wong Kim Ark recognized its limited powers in that regard. Wong Kim Ark cautioned in its holding: “The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion.” The Court explained in its question that the “single question” had to do with the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and not the interpretation and expansion of Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause. Hence, Wong Kim Ark only defined a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.” It neither defined nor expanded the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” to include children born in the country to alien parents.

BrianH said...

@Michael N

Horace Gray's WKA court ruled that the US equivalent to the English NBS, was a "citizen of the United States"

In Part II of the opinion, J. Gray states that the ECL rule of NBS was purely jus soli.

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born."

Then in Part III, J. Gray makes direct comparison between that ECL rule and the common law rule of NBC here. And the citation to Justice Curtis, among others, makes that NBS/NBC comparison absolutely clear:

"In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:

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

So Gray is comparing an NBS rule which he sees as being jus soli to an NBC rule which he sees as equally jus soli. At this point of the opinion (Part III), Gray isn't even yet discussing the 14th Amendment. You and Mario both keep trying to pretend Gray is comparing NBS only to the 14th Amendment. You both are wrong. In Part III, the comparison is between NBS and NBC.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I received this email dated July 11, 2012 from our dear friend, Miki Booth:

Friends,

It is with a heavy heart that I inform you that Victoria passed away this morning at 4:15AM after a sudden illness. She is survived by her daughter, Deborah Rhodus, her mother, Betty Pugh, both of Colorado and 3 grandchildren. Prior to moving to Richmond, VA, Victoria lived in San Diego, Denver and Amarillo. Victoria ran a blog entitled, "Windsor's America" on the website, "Richmond Patriots" or "The Patriots." She was a champion for liberty defending the Constitution and instrumental in exposing corruption in the state of Virginia and criminal activity in and of the Obama administration. Victoria fought the good fight for our country and now deservedly and peacefully rests with God.

Victoria Brein Windsor
April 17, 1946 - July 11, 2012
Rest in Peace

Donations to help defray funeral
expenses can be sent to
Victoria Windsor
c/o Ron Hartley
12509 Doverton Road
Henrico, VA 23233

And then this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHHm5rA7rR0


The visitation will be 4:00 to 6:00 Saturday, July 14th and a short memorial will begin at 6:00.
Bennett Funeral Home
11020 West Broad Street
Glen Allen, VA 23060
804 270 6321
A reception will be at the home of Laura Alcorn.
The burial will be on Sunday, July 15th at 1:00 at Hanover Memorial Gardens
4447 Mechanicsville Turnpike
Mechanicsville, VA 23111
804 779 1003
A memorial/donation page (in lieu of flowers) for Victoria should be up today.
Here is the domain name RememberVictoria.com .

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

May the righteous cause for which Victoria fought bring blessings upon her and her family.

Anonymous said...

Puzo1 said...
II of II

" ... “The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion.” The Court explained in its question that the “single question” had to do with the interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and not the interpretation and expansion of Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause. Hence, Wong Kim Ark only defined a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.” It neither defined nor expanded the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” to include children born in the country to alien parents ..."

Correctly citing the Courts interest in the decision deflates most of the "oppositions" arguments regarding the WKA interpretations and current application of "customary usage".

What is often lost to consideration is the FACT that the Lil'Ark's parents were "legally resident" under the authority of the Burlingame Treaty.

But that same "authority" proscribed 'naturalization" of any and all covered by the Treaty in it Article VI.

So, not only did Justice Gray ignore the relevant Act's of Congress on naturalization/citizenship, he ignored the text and spirit of the Treaty agreed to with a foreign Nation and perpetrated an act of Judicial Kidnapping of an alien foreign national.

Dissecting the current affects and effects of Title 8 it is found that the ONLY beneficiaries of the "collective naturalization "born" provision" are the children born of "alien foreign nationals", whether present legally or otherwise; which could be argued as "State sanctioned kidnapping" of alien foreign nationals children.

BrianH said...

@Mario A

1) Minor interpreted the meaning of a “natural-born citizen.”
***
6) Justice Curtis in his Dred Scott dissent was motivated to show that blacks too were “citizens” rather than analyzing what the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of a presidential “natural born Citizen” was.


How can you be any more inconsistent?

The Minor case didn't involve a question under Article II either. She wasn't running for President. It was merely showing that the non-controversial point that Virgina Minor would have been deemed a citizen under the pre-14A law, but that since citizenship then didn't carry with it the inherent right to vote, the 14A didn't grant her anything greater than she would have had prior.

So when Minor, which wasn't an Article II presidential case but was only concerned with her citizenship, uses the term "natural born citizen," that you take as significant as to Article II. But when Justice Curtis uses the same term "natural born citizen," that is insignificant since all that Curtis was concerned about is citizenship.

LOL. How convenient.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

BrianH,

I see that you are having trouble understanding the words of our U.S. Supreme Court. The point is rather simple. Anything that Justice Curtis said in 1857 in his Dred Scott dissent about the meaning of a “natural-born citizen” was overruled by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor in 1875. Also, Minor, after informing us as to the definition of a “natural-born citizen” used by the Founders and Framers, acknowledged that “some authorities” maintained that a child could be a citizen by mere birth in the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. Minor said that “there have been doubts” about whether such “authorities” were correct. Clearly, what Minor identified as a possible other class of “citizen” was not a class that existed during and shortly after the adoption of the Constitution, but rather a class of some other type of “citizen” whose persona developed after the Founding and down to the time of the Court’s decision. Minor simply made no connection between that other class of “citizen” and the Founding period.

Wong Kim Ark was faced with the question that Minor left open, i.e., whether a child could be a “citizen” from birth under the Fourteenth Amendment by mere birth in the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of the parents. In answering that question, it is significant that Justice Gray never said that he disagreed with Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen.” And he did not have to disagree because he was tasked with telling us what a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” was, not what an Article II “natural born Citizen” was.

Justice Gray’s relied on colonial English common law to help him decide the question of whether Wong, who was born in the United States although to alien parents, was born “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” He did not use that law to help him define an Article II “natural born Citizen” which issue was not before him. Because the English “common law” in determining whether one was a “natural born subject” gave controlling weight to being “born in the country” with only some limited exceptions (parents could not be foreign diplomats or military invaders), Justice Gray was willing to find that Wong was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Gray even said that the same exceptions still applied in defining such a “citizen.” Minor, which defined a “natural-born citizen,” did not at all rely upon the English “common law” for its definition and did not include any such exceptions in its definition, for such a “citizen” is always born to “citizen” parents and is never born to parents who are diplomats, of royalty, or foreign military invaders. We should also note that Justice Gray did not include in his exceptions a child being born to royal parents which the Founders and Framers absolutely prohibited not only to be a “natural-born citizen,” but also of any “citizen” naturalized from the moment of birth. In other words, Justice Gray, given his limited purpose, analogized a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth to an English “common law” “natural born subject.” He did not and could not constitutionally analogize an Article II “natural born Citizen,” the birth national character called for by the Constitution to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military, to an English “natural born subject.”

BrianH said...

@Mario A

(7) You continue to cite and quote Wong Kim Ark reference to Rhodes: ***
But I have repeatedly asked you to show me what definition of “all persons born in the allegiance of the United States” did Justice Swayne give to that clause.


What "allegiance" means in Justice Gray's eyes is easily seen by noting the citations which follow the citation to Rhodes:

"The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts,*** early held that the determination of the question whether a man was a citizen or an alien was "to be governed altogether by the principles of the common law," and that it was established, with few exceptions,

that a man born within the jurisdiction of the common law is a citizen of the country wherein he is born. By this circumstance of his birth, he is subjected to the duty of allegiance which is claimed and enforced by the sovereign of his native land, and becomes reciprocally entitled to the protection of that sovereign, and to the other rights and advantages which are included in the term "citizenship."

Garder v. Ward (1805), 2 Mass. 244, note. And again:

The doctrine of the common law is that every man born within its jurisdiction is a subject of the sovereign of the country where he is born, and allegiance is not personal to the sovereign in the extent that has been contended for; it is due to him in his political capacity of sovereign of the territory where the person owing the allegiance as born.

Kilham v. Ward (1806), 2 Mass. 236, 265. It may here be observed that, in a recent English case, Lord Coleridge expressed the opinion of the Queen's Bench Division that the statutes of 4 Geo. II, (1731) c. 1, and 13 Geo. III (1773), c. 21, (hereinafter referred to) "clearly recognize that to the King in his politic, and not in his personal, capacity is the allegiance of his subjects due." Isaacson v. Durant, 17 Q.B.D. 54, 65.

The Supreme Court of North Carolina, speaking by Mr; Justice Gaston, said:

Before our Revolution, all free persons born within the dominions of the King of Great Britain, whatever their color or complexion, were native-born British subjects; those born out of his allegiance were aliens. . . . Upon the Revolution, no other change took place in the law of North Carolina than was consequent upon the transition from a colony dependent on an European King to a free and sovereign [p664] State; . . . British subjects in North Carolina became North Carolina freemen; . . . and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State. . . . The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law, and the change of phrase has entirely resulted from the change of government. The sovereignty has been transferred from one man to the collective body of the people, and he who before as a "subject of the king" is now "a citizen of the State."

So "allegiance" as J. Gray sees it in Part III wherein he compares "NBS" and "NBC" means simply "born in the jurisdiction of political sovreign." Parental status is not at all in view here in defining "allegiance."

So when Gray cites to Rhodes:

"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . "

-- we have SCOTUS authority clearly comparing NBC to NBS under the same jus soli rule.

This is all in Part III of Gray's opinion; he isn't yet talking about the 14A.

This is one of the several reasons to note as to why C.J. Fuller in dissent complained the majority opinion made someone like Mr. Wong presidential eligible. Gray clearly frames common law NBC as jus soli.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

United Natural Born Citizens,

You said that Justice Gray engaged in "State sanctioned kidnapping" of alien foreign nationals' children.”

Is this not what the English King did both at birth (with his broad allegiance, whether natural and perpetual or local and temporary, owed to both the natural and political King by anyone born within the King’s dominions) and continuing after birth (consider the War of 1812)?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

BrianH,

Justice Curtis in his Dred Scott dissent, because it was assumed by many (and so ruled by the majority) that blacks were not “citizens,” was looking for a way to make blacks “citizens.” So, rather than dealing with the issue of slavery as an impediment to citizenship, he unconstitutionally attempts to change the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” On the other hand, Justice Waite in Minor, because it had always been assumed that women were “citizens,” only looked to confirm that popular notion by showing that both the Constitution and acts of Congress actually so provided.

BrianH said...

@Mario A

Do not tell me how to behave. Have you seen the conduct engaged in by the Obots against me?

Suggesting (as you did to me on your very first post directed to me) that someone "turn on their brain" is nothing you could ever think to get away with in a courtroom. So why do you think it's appropriate to toss that sort of insult on a blog? And did I get my nose bent out of joint when you did? No, I just responded with arguments to you.

And if you feel aggrieved at how others treat you, take the high road. That's no license for insulting me at your first opportunity.

So, yes, I will lecture you. Because I'm right here. (And while I'm at it, you'd do well to corral in some of the minions here; I won't name names.)

You have your reading of Wong Kim Ark and I have mine. We will just have to agree to disagree.

Indeed.

But do not think that I will let you get away with your forced and tortured interpretation of the case which you espouse for the purpose of achieving your political agenda rather than protecting and defending the Constitution and its values.

LOL. My "forced and tortured interpretation" is the same held by the Chief Justice of that very court: that the majority opinion renders a person like Mr. Wong presidential eligible. It's the "guidance" that the Ankeny court saw. It's the same as what these other Courts (Farrar, Purpura and Moran, Tisdale) have seen.

But nice rhetoric.

Your smugness shines bright in your 4-5 page brief. I’d love to see you present that 4-5 page brief to the U.S. Supreme Court.

I didn't say at the SCOTUS level. Briefing there has its own conventions and protocol. But at any court below SCOTUS, WKA suffices.

Better yet, I’d love to see you on your feet arguing your 4-5 page brief in front of that Court.

I trust the picture you've entertained in your mind has you arguing there, not me. But you will never get there, as there will never be a circuit court split, nor any state supreme court ruling that President Obama is not an NBC, because every lower court will read WKA the same way.

The Supreme Court does not start with case law. The court starts with constitutional text. If the text does not resolve the matter, then it looks to contemporaneous evidence of meaning of the words at issue.

Yes, like looking at "natural born subject" as a guide to understanding the meaning of "natural born citizen." You still don't get that part. You keep trying to argue like the dissent did -- that "subect" and "citizen" are like night and day, so as to make comparing them impossible.

Contemporaneous historical evidence is critical.

Yet the WKA court in construing the term "natural born citizen" and "citizen of the United States" looked only to the ECL. Any lower court is going to follow the SCOTUS lead here and disregard all this other historical evidence you want them to consider. That pattern has held true so far; and so it shall remain.

But referencing the original post to this thread:

"We also argue that the ALJ misapplied . . .United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), all which he used to find that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.”"

So you are out to persuade the N.J. Supreme Court that ALJ Maslin read WKA incorrectly, even though how Maslin read the majority opinion tracks how the Chief Justice of the court which heard the WKA case read the majority opinion.

Well, good luck with that.

With this post, my time here is done. Schedule ahead is busy.

When the N.J.S.C. tosses your appeal (which it surely will do), perhaps I'll come by and give a wave.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

BrianH,

There is no escape for you. You just are so typical of your ilk. You want others to adhere to standards (what you call the "high road") to which you yourself do not want to adhere.


You said: "The 50 to 200 pages of historical stuff you'd be blathering about would go for naught."

It that something that you would write in a brief to a court?

And if I made some comment, just do not repeat my comment. Be sure to include what I was responding to. My college creative writing English professor said that when we write, we have to think about what we are saying. Is that not turning on your brain?

Finally, do not waste my time with your little personal stuff.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

BrianH,

Thank you for engaging in this debate on my blog. Hopefully the public will have benefitted from what both of us have said on this issue.

cfkerchner said...

Mario,

You said to BrianH, and you nailed him when you said it.

----------------------
BrianH,

There is no escape for you. You just are so typical of your ilk. You want others to adhere to standards (what you call the "high road") to which you yourself do not want to adhere.
-----------------------

What you said to BrianH points out that BrianH is following the tactics taught by Saul Alinsky in his book, the progressives tactical training manual, Rules for Radicals, in this instant instance it is rule #4 BrianH is using, which rule they themselves do not live up to since they follow the prime directive of Saul Alinsky ... win at all costs, use any trick or lie or underhanded method, the end justifies the means. The Obots have no rules. Read more about Alinsky tactics which Obama and his Obot followers use every day combined a lot with rule #5 too, at this link:
http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm

The Obots are well trained in Alinsky tactics. Obama as a community organizer taught these tactics to ACORN and SEIU leadership. Obama was considered the grandmaster of Alinsky say anything, do anything, the end justifies the means ... just win. Nothing is sacred to the Obots. They simply wish to subvert and undermine the Constitution and will do and say anything to do it. There is no honor among Alinskyites. Fascist socialist control of the country is their goal and they will do and say anything to achieve their goal. We see that side of them here in these debates ... as you just pointed out to BrianH.

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
ProtectOurLiberty.org

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Commander Kerchner,

Yes, indeed, the Obots do not play by the same rules they impose upon others. They are not nice people. Their main tool is marginalization by way of ridicule, humiliation, and demagoguery.

They paint a picture of the “birthers” as a group that deviates from what is the accepted norms of our society. By doing so, they seek to win the Obama eligibility argument without providing an argument that is truly convincing on its merits.

BrianH said...

@Mario

Can you release my last post so that it's clear I'm not posting anytime soon after this, so that everyone else knows not to expect further replies?

Thanks

(this note itself does not need to be posted)

cfkerchner said...

Looks like the Obot Alinskyite troll BrianH is leaving. You certainly gave them a fair chance to make their case, I mean spin the historical and legal evidence.

But he'll be replaced by another member of the Obama disinformation team operating out of the war room (actually a very large building filled with paid disinformation and social engineer experts working the net 24x7) in Chicago and of course out of the White House itself. A new ID but the same team and working briefs they're working off of to debate you. Spin, spin, spin, disinformation, disinformation, disinformation from the Obot social engineering think tanks such as the Center for American Progress and other George Soros funded operations ... and the Obama campaign of course too.

The Obots operate online as part of an organized team and effort to spread disinformation far and wide regarding Obama's constitutional eligibility and Obama's true legal identity. BrianH's has already passed the baton to his Obot tag-team Alinskyite teammate who came her awhile ago ... Linda ... to carry on for him. The Obots are in that way like a professional wrestling tag team. And their arguments are about as real too.

But if the team does go quiet for awhile in your blog, have not fear, they will not stay away long. Your writings are a threat to them and Obama. That is why they must attack you and your writings. Alinksy taught them to ignore as long as possible people who are not a threat and to viciously attack those who are. You are their number one target these days. Thus you are a major threat to them. Let's see if BrianH has truly retired from the scene here or if he like John Woodman ... or some new Obot ID but part of the same Obama paid disinformation team ... will reappear with a smile and say ... I'm back. :-)

Keep up the good work Mario. No matter how hard the Obots try, they cannot bury the truth about the history and legal meaning of "natural born Citizen" when the founders and framers put that "restrictive" clause into Article II Section 1, as to who can be President and Commander of our military after the founding generation is gone. The truth is coming out more and more each day. Bravo Zulu for all you do.

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
ProtectOurLiberty.org

MichaelN said...

BrianH said...

@MichaelN who said

"Horace Gray's WKA court ruled that the US equivalent to the English NBS, was a "citizen of the United States" "

In Part II of the opinion, J. Gray states that the ECL rule of NBS was purely jus soli.

"It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born."

Response:

BrianH.

Things are not always as they "appear".

You fail again BrianH, here's why.

The "aliens while residing in the dominions possessed by the crown" were "SUBJECTS" if they were not ambassadors or other diplomatic agents of a foreign State or of an alien enemies in hostile occupation.

BECAUSE they were subjects, then their children, if born in the realm, were NBS.

It was NOT BECAUSE they were born native that made them NBS.

If the aliens were not subjects, then their children could not be NBS, even if born in the land.

The ambassadors or other diplomatic agents of a foreign State or of an alien enemies in hostile occupation, were NOT SUBJECTS, and BECAUSE they were not subjects, their children could not be subjects, even if born in the realm.

Do you have a comprehension problem?

Lord Coke (Calvin's case)

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

Ergo, a child born native to the land WAS NOT A SUBJECT AT ALL!!!!!! if his father was NOT A SUBJECT!!!!

I REPEAT, it was NOT NATIVE-BIRTH alone that made a natural born subject.

NOW SAY IT WITH ME are you ready?

THE - FATHER - MUST - BE - A - SUBJECT - FOR - NATIVE-BORN - CHILD - TO - BE - A - SUBJECT.

NATIVE - BIRTH - ALONE - DID - NOT - MAKE - A - NATURAL - BORN - SUBJECT.

MichaelN said...

Part 1 of 2

BrianH said

"Then in Part III, J. Gray makes direct comparison between that ECL rule and the common law rule of NBC here. And the citation to Justice Curtis, among others, makes that NBS/NBC comparison absolutely clear:

"In Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, Mr. Justice Curtis said:

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

So Gray is comparing an NBS rule which he sees as being jus soli to an NBC rule which he sees as equally jus soli. At this point of the opinion (Part III), Gray isn't even yet discussing the 14th Amendment. You and Mario both keep trying to pretend Gray is comparing NBS only to the 14th Amendment. You both are wrong. In Part III, the comparison is between NBS and NBC."

Response:

I REPEAT, NATIVE-BIRTH ALONE DID NOT AND DOES NOT MAKE A "NATURAL BORN #######"

You are clutching at straws, just accept the gems of truth, instead of your desperate mining for worthless fool's gold.

I have high-lighted the part of your quote that relates.

"Undoubtedly, this language of the Constitution was used in reference to that principle of PUBLIC LAW, well understood IN THIS COUNTRY at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth."

That "principle of PUBLIC LAW, well understood IN THIS COUNTRY at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, which referred citizenship to the place of birth", is NOT THE ENGLISH COMMON LAW.

IT WAS THE LAW OF NATIONS.


It was the SAME "common law" referred to by the SCOTUS in the Minor v Happersett court of 1875.

"Emmerich de Vattel was the most popular of all writers on the law of nations in America before, but especially after, the American Revolution. Vattel's {The Law of Nations} arrived, shortly after its publication, in an America, which had already been greatly influenced by Leibniz. No later than 1770, it was used as a textbook in colleges. It was often quoted in speeches before judicial tribunals and legislatures, and used in formulating policy. Following the Revolution, Vattel's influence grew. Vattel was cited far more often than Grotius and Puffendorf, in court proceedings, from 1789 to 1820.

MichaelN said...

Part 2 of 2

"Among those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall......

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...

"May the righteous cause for which Victoria fought bring blessings upon her and her family."

Hear, hear!

MichaelN said...

MichaelN said
"But you have failed to acknowledge that a person can be native-born and still be an alien, because of the allegiance of the father."

Linda said...
"I haven't seen it.
Calvin's case held that the Calvin was a natural born subject. Footnote 151 " An alien born is of foreign birth or foreign allegiance, and is also called peregrinus (foreigner), alien, exotic, stranger, etc. A stranger is a subject who is born outside the land, that is, outside the king’s power."

"The "foreign allegiance" referred to means that even if a child is born within the realm, that will have make NBsubjects of the children of ambassadors, invading armies, etc."

Response:

Run that again, you are not making any sense.

Linda quoted....
"Every man is either Alienigena, an Alien born, or subditus,164 a subject born. "

"And Tournay was under the obedience of Henry the eighth., as it appeareth by 5 Eliz. Dyer, fol. 224. for there it is resolved, that a bastard born at Tournay, whiles it was under the obedience of Henry the eighth, was a natural subject, as an issue born within this realm by aliens. If then those that were born at Tournay, Callice, &c. whiles they were under the obedience of the king, were natural subjects, and no aliens, it followeth, that when the kingdom of France (whereof those were parcels) was under the king’s obedience, that those that were then born there, were natural subjects, and no aliens."

"Whosoever is born within the King’s power or protection, is no Alien: But Calvin was born under the King’s power and protection; ergo he is no Alien."

Linda, I have no idea what on earth you are trying to say.

Would you kindly state your case.

Linda said...

Thanks to Mr. Apuzzo and others here for politely responding to my questions. My goal was to have at least a better understanding of your point of view, how it differs from mine and why, and I think this helped.

Thanks again.

MichaelN said...

BrianH said

"So "allegiance" as J. Gray sees it in Part III wherein he compares "NBS" and "NBC" means simply "born in the jurisdiction of political sovreign." Parental status is not at all in view here in defining "allegiance."

So when Gray cites to Rhodes:

"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . "

-- we have SCOTUS authority clearly comparing NBC to NBS under the same jus soli rule."


You are talking nonsense BrianH.

The "allegiance" referred to is not that of the child, but that of the parent, and has nothing to do with the native birth place of the child, except only that the child is born where his father is in allegiance in the case of an alien-born "subject" father who is of temporary local allegiance.

Lord Coke (Calvin's case)

"And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum, neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born"

Alas YOU LOSE BrianH.

jayjay said...

Puzo1 & TWIMC:

Godspeed to Virginia and her family ... rest in peace noble warrior!!

Frank Bailey said...

I have watched with fascination the way BrianH has been treated here. He has calmly presented factual and logical arguments and has been treated with derision and a few frankly lame attempts at rebutting the points he has made. Mr. Apuzzo has been fairly civil although of late his frustration level at being bested is showing. The rest of the crew here like Mr. Kerchner and MichaelN have completely embarrassed themselves.

He says he would like to see BrianH argue in front of the Supreme Court. I believe he would fair very well because the record shows his points have won consistently in the courts for 125 years and Mr. Apuzzo's have failed every time.

Why anyone would want to engage in long discussions on this blog escapes me. It is frankly just a terrible forum for that purpose. There are much better venues like forums and blogs that are not moderated. Mr. Apuzzo seems to want the discussion to continue here but I think he needs to make improvements like removing moderation of comments, eliminating CAPHCA, and curbing the ad hominem attacks from the peanut gallery if he expects this to be a place where issues are discussed rationally.

My personal view is that until something changes in the courts there is no issue. It is childish to keep saying that the judges are on the take or have been threatened. That is the lament of a loser. Mr. Apuzzo can declare victory on his blog that maybe 50 people read in a week but that is worth nothing.

If the goal is to somehow make the President's chances of reelection less likely that does not seem to be working either.

Have fun attacking me for I really could care less. A series of childish attacks will do nothing but further prove my point. I will check back in a week or two for a chuckle.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Frank Bailey,

Like a true Obot--proclaim victory after having his ____ handed to him. And best of all, tell others how to behave.

Anonymous said...

Puzo1 said...
United Natural Born Citizens,

You said that Justice Gray engaged in "State sanctioned kidnapping" of alien foreign nationals' children.”

Is this not what the English King did both at birth (with his broad allegiance, whether natural and perpetual or local and temporary, owed to both the natural and political King by anyone born within the King’s dominions) and continuing after birth (consider the War of 1812)?


You very astutly recognized the tweak directed at the "ANTI-COLONIALIST LEFTIES" that so often decry IMPERIALISM.

I coined that "proposition" several years ago when the thought of having a rational debate with those that hold up WKA as "established law" ....

...they just do not have the intellectual honesty to see the hypocracy of what they are saying.

In response to the U.S. "customary usage policy" of blessing the children of illegal aliens with U.S. Citizenship the Mexican Guv'mnt passed a Nationality Act that states, MOL, "born as or to a Mexican National then always a Mexican National". Not even taken an Oath to a new Country nullifies the right of repatriation as a Mexican National. (It works kinda like the 1% Rule, generationally).

So much for the concept of alligience Justice Gray.

Want to fix the Border problem...? Stop all "remittences" to Mexico and they'll shut the border down on the Southern Side of the Rio....

(Sorry for the off topic remark..)

Anonymous said...

Well, frankly I no longer care to debate the thoroughly discredited WKA case being unable to find a single point in which Justice Gray, appointed by Chet Arthur, could be said to have referenced the Constitution or Laws of the U.S. passed by the Congress pre 14th and then to totally distort the intent of the collective naturalization 'born' provision along with the plain meanings of residence and domicile, allegiance and Jurisdiction.

Gobble-de-gook written in high English to farcible to be included at an Alice in Wonderland High Tea Party.

If Jurisdiction is territorial and ends at the borders and shores how then are foreign born children of U.S. Citizens then U.S.Citizens. Which requires the consideration that 'jurisdiction' follows Citizenship, not only of U.S. Citizens but of ALL nations.

And on and on insofar as WKA is concerned, irrational and unconstitutional policies have been decided and applied emanating from a grossly egregious opinion.

MichaelN said...

Frank.

BrianH has simply run away from the truth when confronted with it.

Do you have anything to say about the way Mario has been so badly treated on RealityCheck's and John Woodman's blog?

Anonymous said...

Private....

oops, should be;

Gobble-de-gook written in high English too farcical to be included at an Alice in Wonderland High Tea Party.

Darn spellcheck...?

Anonymous said...

Private.....

After a quick read I say;

It will be difficult for the SCOTUS to pass this up because of the State issues presented .... it's a good case, what is known as a "Bona Fide Petition" with substantial issues that ONLY the SCOTUS can resolve.

Way to go Mr.Van R. Irion ...!!!

MichaelN said...

Looks like "honest" John Woodman has gone into shock, since being smacked-down with the truth.

MichaelIsGreat said...

Hello Mr. Apuzzo,

You surely read the following article but it is worth mentioning. It is "Supremes asked: Who is ‘natural born citizen?’" at http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/supremes-asked-who-is-natural-born-citizen/

Now, will the Supreme Court accepts the case? My answer is no!
In case they do, it will go nowhere because there is a majority in favor of Obama at the Supreme Court and the result is that they will side with Obama even if it means trampling on the Constitution of the USA!!!!

Anonymous said...

To puzo1 and cfkerchner;

I was wondering if you would help me with a proposition arguing the fallibility of the WKA "opinion" that goes to the "jurisdictional' and "resident, domicile" arguments that attempts to establish "Jus Soli" as the sole criteria of being a "U.S. natural born Citizen".

If Jurisdiction is solely determined by territorial limits then by what authority does the Congress have to grant '"citizenship" to foreign born children of U.S.Citizen parents, post 14th ...?

If "residency and or domicile", whether "in transitu" or for the purpose of "animo manendi" determines the fullness of "jurisdiction" over an individual then must not the "citizenship" of those foreign born children of U.S. Citizen parents be then the 'citizenship' of the host Country...?

If WKA annulled Jus Sanguinis in favor of Jus Soli for all purposes of citizenship then are not ALL subsequent Acts providing for naturalization suspect in the authority...?

However, if BOTH Jus Sanguinis and Jus Soli are mutually compatible doctrines, (Rules), for the purposes of U.S. Citizenship/naturalization must there not be an identifiable delineation of when one ends and the other begins in their affects and effects based on specific circumstances, including the prospect of the two merging due to specific circumstances....?

jayjay said...

Frank Bailey:

Guess it's your turn in the barrel eh Frank???

You of the OOPS Troops brigade seem to take turns so you're not reamed out so badly you can no longer sit.

Anonymous said...

MichaelIsGreat said...

Now, will the Supreme Court accepts the case? My answer is no!


Well, based on the date of filing, between June 13th and Sept. 6th, the Conference Date should be September 24th, 2012.....

The case is coming out of the Georgia State Supreme Court involving State Election Law, (think Gore v Bush 2000). So there is precedent with the Court for expediting time sensitive issues such as this. (Hanging chad re-counts)

The SCOTUS divides the Country into Circuits and a Justice is assigned to oversee the processing of cases once they are filed in preparation to a Conference hearing where it is decided to take up the Case or not.

Influence can be exerted by the Justice presiding over the Circuit prior to and at the Conference.

So here's the source for my holding onto this glimmer of hope that we can save Our Republic under the Rule of Law peacefully.

Justice Clarence Thomas is the presiding Justice over the 11th Circuit, Alabama, Georgia and Florida.

Carlyle said...

Mario -

Please accept this complaint in a positive helpful way.

IMHO your blog is no longer fulfilling your glorious mission: "A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers". It has become a den of confusion, and frankly a swirling vortex of chummed waters.

Once a person has come here and asked a question and received an answer, letting them stay and whine and spin just adds a lot of volume to your blog but adds nothing. Even worse, it makes it impossible for an interested person to come here and wade through the muck to find the occasional gem.

One very practical suggestion I can offer is the following. I think a couple of topics have been beat to death here and certain results achieved which are uncontestable at this point. Perhaps you can moderate any further posts trying to undo these valid conclusions. In particular I include the following:

1. A Citizen and a Subject are not the same thing. They are certainly related and may, under certain circumstances, inform each other, but such application is perilous and best left alone. Among other things, it is irrelevant to the NBC discussion.

2. Neither a Native Born Citizen nor a Citizen at Birth are the same thing as a Natural Born Citizen. NBC is something quite special and very restrictive.

Adopting these rules would remove over half of the posts on your blog and about 90% of the drivel.

Thank you for your consideration,
and all your hard work.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I just posted this comment at Officer Terry Lakin's Amazon.com book review comment page.
******************

Officer Lakin swore an oath to perpetuate and preserve American society as conceived and constituted by the Founders and Framers and the People through their Constitution. Given that oath, Officer Lakin’s greatest duty and right was to make sure that his President and Commander in Chief of the Military was in fact a "natural born Citizen." His commanding officers, including the President and Commander in Chief of the Military himself, who also swore to that same oath and who should have known what an officer’s oath entails, should have reasonably assisted him in that pursuit, rather than condemning and shaming him and causing the disruption of military command.

Anonymous said...

Puzo1 said...

I just posted this comment at Offier Terry Lakin's Amazon.com book review comment page.


The shame is that the minutia of the rules of law have been used to thwart every attempt to uphold the CONSTITUTION and the Rule of Law that it guarantee's.

There is no doubt that Officer Lakin's intent of heart was in the right place and not guided by any prejudice except that prejudice OWED to his Oath and the Constitution.

It can rightfully be debated whether he chose the correct actions and venue to press his case but there can be no doubt that anyone who presses the case does so with the spirit of an Officer's Oath guiding them.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Carlyle,

Thank you for your summary. Since you have gone through all the comments on this thread, I need to learn from you what is your definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Given that you have carefully followed this discussion, your answer is very important to me. Your response will be much appreciated.

jayjay said...

United Natural Born Citizens:

Per the schedule on their website, SCOTUS is "out of pocket" until the new session which starts in Oct 2012 with the first conference date being Oct 2, 2013.

Mick said...

United Natural Born Citizens said...
"Well, frankly I no longer care to debate the thoroughly discredited WKA case being unable to find a single point in which Justice Gray, appointed by Chet Arthur, could be said to have referenced the Constitution or Laws of the U.S. passed by the Congress pre 14th and then to totally distort the intent of the collective naturalization 'born' provision along with the plain meanings of residence and domicile, allegiance and Jurisdiction.

Gobble-de-gook written in high English to farcible to be included at an Alice in Wonderland High Tea Party.

If Jurisdiction is territorial and ends at the borders and shores how then are foreign born children of U.S. Citizens then U.S.Citizens. Which requires the consideration that 'jurisdiction' follows Citizenship, not only of U.S. Citizens but of ALL nations.

And on and on insofar as WKA is concerned, irrational and unconstitutional policies have been decided and applied emanating from a grossly egregious opinion."





USNBC---- Please stop falling into the OBOT trap about the faultiness of the WKA decision. The decision is based on the law of nations principle of Permanent Domicile of a non native, and the allegiance derived therefrom. This principle has solid precedence in "The Venus" (pg. 278), which as stated was derived from law of nations (See also, Vattel, LON, page 92, 93, and Twiss Law of Nations in Peace, pg. 237).

Gray may have been trying to confuse the issue for the benefit of his benefactor, Arthur, but his decision is solidly based, and explicitly so (SEE PG. 693)on INHABITANCE and the allegiance that permanent domicile engenders. Gray construed the 14th A correctly in the end, concluding that the children of domiciled aliens were US Citizens "by operation of the same principle" (Binney)of allegiance and domicile of the parents. Thus WKA was "subject to the jurisdiction" due to the inhabitance of the parents. Page 693 and 705 contain the holding of the case, and on page 693, by attaching Binney's quote to WKA, and to the holding, he EXPLICITLY says that WKA is not a natural born Citizen. Thus it can be said that WKA not being a nbC is a precedent of the case, since it is directly linked to the holding.

The only thing needed to shut the OBOTS down is POINT TO PAGE 693. It is all there in plain words.

MichaelN said...

@ Mick

Here's more that supports what you have pointed-out (from WKA decision)....

"in an opinion delivered by Justice Van Syckel with the concurrence of Chief Justice Beasley, said:

The object of the Fourteenth Amendment, as is well known, was to confer upon the colored race the right of citizenship.

It, however, gave to the colored people no right superior to that granted to the white race.

The ancestors of all the colored people then in the United States were of foreign birth, and could not have been naturalized or in any way have become entitled to the right of citizenship.

The colored people were no more subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, by reason of their birth here, than were the white children born in this country of parents who were not citizens.

The same rule must be applied to both races, and unless THE GENERAL RULE, that, WHEN the PARENTS ARE DOMICILED HERE, BIRTH ESTABLISHES THE RIGHT TO CITIZENSHIP, is accepted, the Fourteenth Amendment has failed to accomplish its purpose,, and the colored people are not citizens."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZO.html

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

MichaelN,

Wong Kim Ark was quoting from Benny v. O'Brien (1895), 29 Vroom (58 N.J.Law), 36, 39, 40, which is a case from the New Jersey Supreme Court. There are two major fabrications in Benny which Wong Kim Ark adopts simply because it was convenient to do so. First, chidren born in the United States to alien parents were born subject to a foreign power. It is an outright lie to hold otherwise. Second, blacks were not born subject to any foreign power. The Civil Rights Act fit well for blacks for whom it was written. It fit well because blacks had been born for generations in the U.S. and were “not born subject to any foreign power.” There were no foreign nations claiming their allegiance. But for the disability of slavery which had been removed by the Thirteenth Amendment, they had been for generations “natural born Citizens.” You would think that our whole Congress would have know whether what it wrote would make blacks citizens or not. Both Benny and Wong Kim Ark used the argument that unless they gave the Fourteenth Amendment an expansive application blacks would not be citizens as a pretext to make “citizens” out of children born in the U.S. to white alien European parents like the children of blacks born in the U.S. were already “citizens” under both the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment.

Unknown said...

Mario-why can't Article I, Section 7, Clause 2 be used as a back door avenue to resolve this issue?

If Obama is not a natural born citizen, then every law he has signed into law is actually no law and not binding on anyone. It would seem to me that an individual who has been adversely affected by one of these so-called laws would have standing to challenge its constitutionality on this basis.

At a minimum it would force a ruling on something other than standing.

MichaelN said...

Mario,

It is with regard to the 14th Amendment that the domicile element for the alien parents that I was high-lighting.

i.e. "the general rule, that, when the PARENTS are DOMICILED here, birth establishes the right to citizenship...."

This makes for "subject to the jurisdiction".

But with US citizen parents, already domiciled in US, not only "establishes the right to citizenship" for their native-born child, where the child would be a "citizen of the United States per 14th Amendment, but also gives the child the extra quality i.e. "born under the allegiance" of a citizen

The extra quality of "born under the allegiance" is clearly recognized and acknowledged as THE PARAMOUNT element by the Framers, the US Congress and the US Senate (consisting of some of the Framers)in the first act of naturalization in 1790.

Hence the TWO qualities which are required to make a "natural born Citizen".

Mick said...

MichaelN said...
"@ Mick

Here's more that supports what you have pointed-out (from WKA decision)...."


Right, Michael. Gray compared WKA to the children of slaves born before the 14th Amendment. Since they were made US Citizens by the 14A, as children of permanently domiciled aliens, then so too should WKA be a citizen, born to permanently domiciled aliens. Neither class were nbC, eligible for President, but their children were, if born in America.

Anonymous said...

Mick said...

USNBC---- Please stop falling into the OBOT trap about the faultiness of the WKA decision

Which tells me he has fallen into the trap Gray laid out in his web of irrelevant thoughts concerning a child that was born a TREATY BABY who was PROSCRIBED from the benefit of "NATURALIZATION" in the host country.

Odd how so very few look at the immediate fallout from Gray's act of 'Treaty busting and Judicial kidnapping" of a Foreign National present in the country ONLY because of the TREATY.

SCREW CASE LAW......Case Law is suppose to be based on the ACTUAL LAWS promulgated under the authority of the Constitution.

There is NO case Law specific to A2S1C5.

Not even Minor touched on the “transient Political aspects” attached to a U.S. natural born Citizen so that EVEN it’s precedent-ial value is limited to ONLY the “Citizenship aspects”.

In the end the determination of the “Citizenship” aspects will be proved to be sufficient, but only after the “transient Political aspects” that the usage in A2S1C5 created are reconciled.

Gray consulted foreign law and NOT U.S. Law.

In an attempt to give a condensed understanding of ALL of the English Common Law cited in these various cases on the subject at hand please accept that any reference to the "natural laws" is made in the CONTEXT of how it applies to the English "municipal laws" as DICTATED by Queene Anne, et seq, under the authority of the interpreted "natural laws" political concept of the Divine Right of Kings.

The Common Law of England is meant to describe a SYSTEM that honors prior decisions made regarding the APPLICATION of English municipal laws, (which are presupposed as conforming to the natural Law because of the Kings right to make law.)

Yes, the more ancient 'laws of nature and natures laws' as formulated by the Divine Creator are present, but they are also bent to conform to the Political doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings.

” … But it is not as a juror only that the English gentleman is called upon to determine questions of right, and distribute justice to his fellow-subjects: it is principally with this order of men that the commission of the peace is filled.

And here a very ample field is opened for a gentleman to exert his talents, by maintaining good order in his neighbourhood; by punishing the dissolute and idle; by protecting the peaceable and industrious; and, above all, by healing petty differences, and preventing vexatious prosecutions.

But, in order to attain these desirable ends, it is necessary that the magistrate should understand his business; and have not only the will, but the power also, (under which must be included the knowledge,) of administering legal and effectual justice.

Else, when he has mistaken his authority, through passion, through ignorance, or absurdity, he will be the object of contempt from his inferiors, and of censure from those to whom he is accountable for his conduct. ..”

Blacksone; Commentaries; Intro, [Pg 9]
http://files.libertyfund.org/files/2140/Blackstone_1387-01_EBk_v6.0.pdf

Anonymous said...

JayJay;

Here’s the docket sheet on the petition;

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/12-5.htm

and here’s the Conference distribution schedule;

http://www.supremecourt.gov/casedistribution/casedistributionschedule2012.pdf

(This assumes it is on the “summer list” since it does not appear to have been on the June 21st Conference list)

The question is, will the Solicitor General respond in the 1st instant or decline to do so choosing to “wait and see”….?

Of course another question that is raised by the fact that the Solicitor General is involved on the “personal” matter of “eligibility”….WHY ...?

Carlyle said...

Puzo1 said...

Since you have gone through all the comments on this thread, I need to learn from you what is your definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

July 14, 2012 3:30 PM

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

Pardon my long answer, but this is what I have gleaned and what I believe is legally and original-intent-wise defensible.

1. A baby born in the United States to Citizen parents is a Natural Born Citizen. Vattel is the defining document, and clearly the only widely read respectable document of the times where this subject is covered.

1a. There appears to be some wiggle room, at the margins, as to the exact definition of 'in the United States', regarding territories, embassies, military bases, etc.

1b. There are occasional and informal hints that other configurations may result in an NBC as well, but I can find nothing definitive. All attempts at arguments that I have seen are lacking proper context or reading, or are otherwise a reach.

2. Given that long ago adequate attention was not given to women's rights, suffrage, and citizenship, I say that one could 'bend' the rule to say that only the father needed to be a Citizen.

3. I have never understood how you get Jus Soli out of the 14th amendment. It makes no sense. The 14th amendment was about a one time good deal of enfranchising the emancipated slaves, not about changing fundamental definitions forever. Defining a Citizen (let alone NBC) simply because the mother happens to be traveling through, or sneaked through a border fence, is frankly insane. It does not pass even the most liberal smell test.

3a. Allegiance comes through parentage, not birthplace.

3b. This to me opens up another area of concern: adoption. Do we apply the spirit of the letter of the law here?

4. Clearly and undeniably the NBC clause was meant to be restrictive. Even if there were any doubt or ambiguity in the origin and meaning of NBC, it is impossible for me to believe that the Founders used any but the most restrictive possible meaning. Again, even the most liberal smell test boggles at a loosened definition.

5. I think the most unfortunate accomplishment of the Obots posting here has been to prove that, without a single definitive USSC source, and a lot of related but not focused USSC discussion and decisions, that almost any 'tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, but signifying nothing' could past muster as a reasoned USSC opinion.

5a. I therefore know that the USSC will not touch this during the tenure of a contested president, or if they do they will likely rule in favor of the looser diversity sort of definition.

5b. But even if they get it right, they will grandfather the incumbent and apply a better definition in the future.

That is where my head is at the moment.

PS - I don't know how to formulate it into a legal principle, references, citations, etc. to give it teeth, but in the end, my #4 is The Killer Reason that the Vattel definition is the right one. To me, it basically trumps all other considerations. i.e. What is the purpose of the NBC clause? Was it just grandstanding? Was it to ensure maximum possible/reasonable diversity? Or did it directly and purposefully mean something important?

Anonymous said...

To ALL who seek to interpret the "English Common Laws" as citied in the various case, bending them to one conclusion or another, it is held within the production of the words cited that they are predicated on the DOMINION of the Divine Right of Kings, the source of English Law, whether compatible with the law of nature and nations or not.

In order for the 14th to have the AUTHORITY, i.e., DOMINION, over aliens of all sorts that Justice Gray implies, the Act must be said to have DOMINION over any and all peoples in the world should they by happenstance set foot in this country.

Aliens 'enjoy' the protections of the Constitution when present, BUT, only Citizens are meant to enjoy the totality of "Rights, Privileges and Immunities" under the terms of the Constitution.

Justice Gray abrogated a Treaty in effect in order to apply the DOMINION he conceived existing within the 14th.

But when you reconcile the existing Acts on Citizenship/naturalization with the intended effect of the 14th a much different condition emerges, which maintains the Congress' plenary power over naturalization and allows for control of our borders.

"Domicile, residency, inhabitance, et al" mean one thing to a King and another to a free peoples who Pledge Allegiance by their own CONSENT.

Carlyle said...

On a related topic -

Something nobody can ignore, nor the USSC finesse away an opinion:

The Obama is not now, currently, any kind of US Citizen. He is a foreigner at the head of our government. Now, THAT, my friends is the mother of all National Security issues.

At a minimum, the glimpses of historical evidence are so strong, that we MUST force a disclosure of his hidden documents, and most especially his passport history.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Bob Greenslade,

I agree with you that a bill signed into law by Obama which adversely affects a person (especially a criminal defendant or any person forced to pay money) could be used as a basis to create standing in that individual to attack the validity of the law by collaterally attacking Obama’s legitimacy to be President as a basis to have the law declared unconstitutional under Article I, Section 7, Clause 2. See my June 29, 2011 article on this issue entitled, Bond v. United States and Standing to Challenge Putative President Obama on His Eligibility to be President, accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/06/bond-v-united-states-and-standing-to.html .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

MichaelN,

A case from our U.S. Supreme Court, Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964), clearly shows that our Court does not consider a “native born citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment to be the equivalent to a “natural born Citizen” under Article II. The Court said: “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person [under the Fourteenth Amendment] are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the "natural born" citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, 1. Id. at 166.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

The confusion and doubts concerning Obama’s identity and place of birth would not exist if he released to the public competent and sufficient documentary evidence removing those doubts.

Again, it does not matter where Obama was born. He was not born to two U.S. citizen parents. If born in Hawaii, he was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. But being born to an alien father, he was also born “subject to a foreign power” which disqualifies him from being an Article II “natural born Citizen,” the status that applies only to presidents and commanders in chief who must be born within the full and complete civil, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States.

Unknown said...

@ Mario

Thanks. Read your article on the Bond case.

Any plans or willing people with standing to move as you stated?

Mick said...

UNBC--

You are partially correct. I believe Gray illegally wrote new law. His decision was technically wrong for that reason. But it has been over 100 years since, and what he established needs to be restricted to the actual holding. He created a US citizen at birth who was subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power. However that citizenship would be resolved at the age of majority by choice of residence.

"The writers upon the law of nations distinguish between a temporary residence in a foreign country for a special purpose and a residence accompanied with an intention to make it a permanent place of abode. The latter is styled by Vattel "domicile," which he defines to be, "a habitation fixed in any place, with an intention of always staying there." Such a person, says this author, becomes a member of the new society, at least as a permanent inhabitant, and is a kind of citizen of an inferior order from the native citizens, but is nevertheless united and subject to the society without participating in all its advantages. This right of domicile, he continues, is not established unless the person makes sufficiently known his intention of fixing there, either tacitly or by an express declaration. Vatt. 92-93." The Venus, 12 US 253, 278
SEE ALSO, Morse "A Treatise on Citizenship", pg 102 (citing Phillimore, "Int. Law, pg. 381); Twiss, "Law of Nations in Peace", 231-237

Permanent domicile establishes jurisdiction over a non native, even w/o naturalization of that non-native. Gray concluded that the children born of those permanently domiciled were "subject to the jurisdiction" w/in the meaning of the 14A, and thus citizens, but he specifically said they are not nbC by his citation of Minor, and by the citation of Binney diectly to his discrption of WKA on page 693 "and this child is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a Citizen." PAGE 693 of 169 US 649 disproves ALL OBOTS. I'm curious as to why Gray did not cite The Venus, since that case discusses the principle of domicile in depth, incl. Judge Marshall, starting on pg. 288.

It could be said that Gray wrote new law though, by changing the definition of "citizenship" in Rev. Statutes 1992 to something less than "subject to no other foreign power", but he certainly did not allow those born of "visitors" and other non domiciled aliens to be US Citizens. His wiggle room on "subject to the jurisdiction" has caused immense problems because of deceitful lawyers and politicians. As for the Treaty w/ China, it can be said that Nations have the right to make their own naturalization law, but not for Judges to write it. So yes it was a technically bad decision, and it is what it is--- no changing it now. At least it was based on law of nations, and the right of election. It just needs to be held to the strict holding it was-- and that was that children of permanently domiciled aliens are US citizens, but not natural born Citizens.

Teo Bear said...

Prior to the 14th Amendment there existed natural born citizens, and if we consider the fact that the 14th Amendment and the Wong Kim Ark ruling were required to give the children of aliens citizenship if born in the country, proves by the process of elimination that when the Constitution was adopted the children of aliens were not considered natural born citizens.

End of fricken discussion.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Carlyle,

I do not agree with you that the U.S. Supreme Court would make grandfather Obama and make its decision on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” prospective. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 has existed since 1790. The definition of the clause, as explained by Minor, i.e., a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country, was well know to the Founders and Framers when they wrote the Constitution. The Court would therefore not be establishing any new rule. Its decision would not establish any new policy. Reasonable expectations of parties would not be violated. Hence, the only thing the Court could do is just confirm what the rule has always been since the adoption of the Constituiton and that it has never been changed by any constitutional amendment or decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. Under such circumstances, the Court’s decision could only be retroactive to the adoption of the Constitution.

jayjay said...

United Natural Born Citizens:

I guess I've not explained it understandably. I've not said that material from the action is not within SCOTUS, ut that their own alendar shows the first Conference date available to be Oct. 3 when they return from "hiatus".

After all do we want them to burn up their brains by working ore than 9 months" :-)

Check the court's calendar for Jul thru Sep - it's on the SCTUS site.

Carlyle said...

Mario -

I agree with you legally that the USSC would just be affirming a definition that has always been and just lived on without alteration.

However, whether due to a defunct education system, complicit MSM, or whatever, I would say that 99% of educated and well-meaning Americans would say that NBC means "I don't know", "It's an arcane technicality", or "Born in the country". Almost nobody (including congressmen, judges, lawyers, etc.) would get it right. i.e. they would be VERY surprised if the USSC said it meant dirt and blood.

People (especially savages) don't like surprises. There would be riots and maybe even war. I don't believe that The Obama can be put down on such a 'technicality'. BUT, when it becomes known that he is not a citizen at all, then that is a different story.

The USSC will claim that the legal definition has never changed, but it has been unclear and ambiguous to the voting public. Therefore everybody will be given a pass on a one-time mistake and the reaffirmed definition used in the future.

Is this 'right' and 'moral'? No. Is it 'legal'? Very questionable. But it is imminently practical, and everybody will sigh a relief and it will not be questioned.

Of course, I am just a practical fellow and not a legal scholar. So that is just my opinion.

On the other hand, if what you say is true - they just couldn't or wouldn't pull that off, then they will ensure that they continue to avoid the issue or they will issue a pro-Obama holding. There is NO WAY they will risk the 'storm' of ousting The Obama.

Carlyle said...

Of course there is another entirely different way of looking at this. And probably the primary reason you and the Obots never spiral to a conclusion.

IT DEPENDS ON THE QUESTION YOU ASK.

1. Can I use the existing materials to show rather conclusively that The Obama is not NBC? Yes.

2. Can I use the existing materials to show that The Obama is 'close enough' NBC to not overturn the will of the sovereign voters? Quite possibly.

3. In a purely objective legal/academic non-loaded, non-emotional, non-topical manner, what is the correct, logical, or most probable meaning of NBC?

This 3rd question is what needs to be answered. However, at this point in time, there is no one saintly enough or disengaged enough to claim to be able to ask this with a straight face.

Depending on bias, everybody is asking either the 1st or 2nd question.

The answer to the 1st question is stronger, the 2nd is the weaker argument. But given that the guy is already 'in power', I'm afraid that this answer will prevail.

I'm hoping Sheriff Joe has some gems this week. We don't need The Answer immediately, we just need enough circumstantial evidence to force a formal investigation (congressional hearings?)

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Carlyle,

The Founders and Framers and the People had a specific reason for putting in their Constitution the “natural born Citizen” clause. The clause says “No person . . . shall be eligible. . .” The clause is there for purposes of preserving and perpetuating the political society that the People established when they passed their Constitution. For the U.S. Supreme Court to allow Obama another four more years should he be elected, knowing that he does not meet the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” would be tantamount to the Court accepting on its hands the blood of the damage and injury done to our constitutional republic by his unconstitutional presidency.

Carlyle said...

Mario -

The court is in recess until October. I don't see how they could possibly hear and decide this case in order to make an orderly removal of The Obama for the early November election.

Besides, if he were removed by reason of eligibility, what to do about the 4 years already passed. This seems like a gargantuan and insolvable problem.

Otherwise I hear you loud and clear and desperately want you to be right. But I just don't see a workable practical path from here to there.

Carlyle said...

Teo Bear said...
End of fricken discussion.
July 15, 2012 5:02 PM
-------------------------

Good one. That ought to drive a stake (adorned with a silver cross) through the heart of more than one Obot vampire!

Carlyle said...

Mario -

Here is an important 'hypothetical' question that may become really important soon (I'm still hoping for Sheriff Joe to break the code).

Suppose a baby were born a Vattel-type NBC, then lost or renounced his citizenship for some years or decades, then thought better and became naturalized to be a US Citizen again. Would it be proper to regard him then as a constitutional NBC, eligible for President?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Carlyle,

Let’s assume that Bill needs brain surgery. There is Dr. John who was a board certified brain surgeon and could have in the past done the surgery. But then he gave up being a brain surgeon and became an orthopedic doctor. Do you think that Bill should still allow Dr. John to do his brain surgery?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

In Section 212, of the Law of Nations (1758), Emer de Vattel wrote:

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 the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.
Id.

Sec. 212 Citizens and natives.

President James Monroe, in his First Inaugural Address of March 4, 1817, warned:

"What raised us to the present happy state?...The Government has been in the hands of the people. To the people, therefore...is the credit due...

It is only when the people become ignorant and corrupt, when they degenerate into a populace, that they are incapable of exercising the sovereignty.

Usurpation is then an easy attainment, and an usurper soon found. The people themselves become the willing instruments of their own debasement and ruin...

President Monroe then stated on December 7, 1824, in his 8th Annual Message:

"For these blessings we owe to Almighty God...with profound reverence, our most grateful and unceasing acknowledgments....

Having commenced my service in early youth, and continued it since with few and short intervals, I have witnessed the great difficulties to which our Union has been exposed, and admired the virtue and intelligence with which they have been surmounted...

That these blessings may be preserved and perpetuated will be the object of my fervent and unceasing prayers to the Supreme Ruler of the Universe."

Source: Monroe, James. Dec. 2, 1817, First Annual Message. James D. Richardson (U.S. Representative from Tennessee), ed., A Compilation of the Messages & Papers of the Presidents 1789-1897, 10 vols. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, published by Authority of Congress, 1897, 1899; Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Literature & Art, 1789-1902, 11 vols., 1907, 1910), Vol. II, p. 12, as found at http://www.americanminute.com/ .

President Monroe was most dedicated to seeing that the new nation be “preserved and perpetuated.” Did you notice that Vattel, in speaking about a “natural-born citizen” mentions “perpetuate” and “preservation.” Sure looks like President Monroe was reading Vattel, especially Section 212. And also note that President Monroe saw usurpation as a most serious threat to preserving and perpetuating the new nation and its blessings. Again, sounds like Vattel.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

On Friday evening, over 20 people collapsed at a campaign event for President Obama in Roanoke, Virginia, Joel Gehrke reported at the Washington Examiner.

According to CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller, Obama told supporters there were "paralegals" available to help those who felt weak from the heat.

"Catching his mistake," Knoller tweeted, Obama corrected himself and told the crowd, "you don't need lawyers."

See the full story here: http://www.examiner.com/article/media-silent-as-obama-tells-fainting-supporters-to-get-help-from-paralegals

So was that a Freudian slip (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freudian_slip ) by Obama? Yes, indeed, it was. He was probably thinking of his army of Obot commentators who flood the internet with all their lies and personal attacks and insults against anyone who dare question Obama’s eligibility to be President. These commentators many times make it a point to tell us they are not lawyers and how they gain great pleasure in showing that they are smarter than lawyers. Well, then they are “paralegals.”

Anonymous said...

THE
LAW OF NATIONS
OR
PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF NATURE APPLIED TO THE CONDUCT AND AFFAIRS OF
NATIONS AND SOVEREIGNS
FROM THE FRENCH OF
MONSIEUR DE VATTEL

BOOK I.
OF NATIONS CONSIDERED IN THEMSELVES

CHAP. III.
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF A STATE, AND THE DUTIES AND RIGHTS OF THE NATION IN THIS RESPECT


§ 30. Of the support of the constitution and obedience to the laws.
The constitution and laws of a state are the basis of the public tranquility, the firmest support of political authority, and a security for the liberty of the citizens. But this constitution is a vain phantom, and the best laws are useless, if they be not religiously observed: the nation ought then to watch very attentively, in order to render them equally respected by those who govern, and by the people destined to obey. To attack the constitution of the state and to violate its laws, is a capital crime against society; and if those guilty of it are invested with authority, they add to this crime a perfidious abuse of the power with which they are intrusted. The nation ought constantly to repress them with its utmost vigour and vigilance, as the importance of the case requires.

It is very uncommon to see the laws and constitution of a state openly and boldly opposed: it is against silent and gradual attacks that a nation ought to be particularly on its guard. Sudden revolutions strike the imaginations of men: they are detailed in history; their secret springs are developed. But we overlook the changes that insensibly happen by a long train of steps that are but slightly marked. It would be rendering nations an important service to show from history how many states have thus entirely changed their nature, and lost their original constitution. This would awaken the attention of mankind: — impressed thenceforward with this excellent maxim (no less essential in politics than in morals) principiis obsta, — they would no longer shut their eyes against innovations, which, though inconsiderable in themselves, may serve as steps to mount to higher and more pernicious enterprises

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

United Natural Born Citizens,

Emer de Vattel said in Book I, Chapter III, Section 30, The Law of Nations (1758), “a long train of steps.” Thomas Jefferson said in the Declaration of Indepence, para. 2 “a long Train of Abuses.” I guess we know who was reading and adopting Vattel.

Mick said...

"[W]here Congress borrows terms of art in which are accumulated the legal tradition and meaning of centuries of practice, it presumably knows and adopts
the cluster of ideas that were attached to each borrowed word in the body of learning from which it was taken and the meaning its use will convey to the judicial mind unless otherwise instructed. In such a case, absence of contrary
direction may be taken as satisfaction with widely accepted definitions, not as departure from them. Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 263 (1952). See also Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19, 32 (1990) (“We assume that Congress is aware of existing law when it passes legislation”)."


The SCOTUS has HELD, in Inglis v. Trustees of Sailor's Snug Harbor, 28 US 99 (1830), that British Common Law, with respect to citizenship, ENDED in America with the Declaration of Independence (and the Treaty of Peace from the British point of view) when it adopted the "right of election" and ended "perpetual allegiance".

"This right of election must necessarily exist in all revolutions like ours, and is so well established by adjudged cases that it is entirely unnecessary to enter into an examination of the authorities. The only difficulty that can arise is to determine the time when the election should have been made. 28 US 99, 122 (1830), quoting, Vattel, B. 1, ch. 3, sec. 33; 1 U. S. 1 Dall. 58; 2 U. S. 2 Dall. 234; 20 Johns. 332; 2 Mass. 179, 236, 244, note; 2 Pickering 394; 2 Kent's Com. 49.,

When the US adopted the "right of election" then it adopted the cluster of ideas attached to "law of nations" as evidenced also by A1S8C10. Natural born Citizen is a "term of art" within "law of nations". It cannot be defined by breaking it into its constituent words, and only by the meaning it has w/in "law of nations."

“where a phrase in a statute appears to have become a term of art . . . , any attempt to break down the term into its constituent words is not apt to illuminate its meaning.” Sullivan v. Stroop, 496 U.S. 478, 483 (1990)

"Natural Allegiance, or the obligation of perpetual obedience finds no countenance in the law of nations, and is in direct conflict with the incontestable rule of that rule of law." Twiss, Law of Nations in Peace, pg. 231

"The doctrine of perpetual allegiance is inadmissible in the US, that matter settled by the Revolution." Cushing, Foreign Relations of the United States, Part 2, pg. 1280 (Cushing was a member of the first Supreme Court)

Perpetual Allegiance is an INADMISSABLE concept in US law. Therefore any construction of natural born Citizen that seeks to equate it with the perpetual allegiance of natural born subject is INADMISSABLE.

CONT.>>>>>>>

Mick said...

"[T]he modern doctrine favors the presumption that constitutional provisions are intended to be self-operating. This is so because in the absence of such presumption the legislature would have the power to nullify the will of the people expressed in their constitution, the most sacrosanct of all expressions of the people." Gray v. Bryant, 125 So. 2d at 851. And see, Schreiner v. McKenzie Tank Lines & Risk Management Services, Inc., supra.

“The mandatory ‘shall’ . . . normally creates an obligation impervious to judicial discretion.” Lexecon, Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35 (1998).

"No person but a natural born Citizen SHALL BE ELIGIBLE..."


“when Congress enacts a statute . . . it does not intend to make its application
dependent on state law.” Dickerson v. New Banner Inst., 460 U.S. 103, 119 (1983) (quoting NLRB v. Randolph Elec. Membership Corp., 343 F.2d 60, 62-63 (4th Cir. 1965)).

It is the judiciary's DUTY to determine eligibility of POTUS candidates, and is not based on any duty of the state SOSs discretion w/ respect to POTUS candidates. Nor is it the duty of the electoral college, since they only convene when there is a "president elect" not a "presidential candidate". Further, the SCOTUS has held that members of the electoral college are NOT members of the government (McPherson v. Blacker, 146 US 1, 35), and that their vote as an elector carries the same weight as a voter voting for a member of Congress. Id.

Florida Supreme Court has held that "eligibility is a judicial determination upon any challenge properly brought." Shevin v. Stone , 279 So.2d 17 (Fla.1972

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of III

I just posted this at Amazon.com’s Officer Lakin’s page for Obot “Whiskey,” who wants to talk about me rather than about Obama:
**************

Whiskey,

The issue was standing in the Third Circuit, not whether Mr. Barack Obama is a “natural born Citizen” which he is not. Talking about standing really does not address the issue. The Court was more than satisfied with my work and discharged the order to show cause.
Also, I am not here to talk about myself. I am here to talk about Mr. Obama, who under our Constitution is not a “natural born Citizen” and not eligible to be President and Commander of our armed forces. So, let us you and I talk about the real issue.

Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States provides in relevant part: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Nobody alive today can claim eligibility to be President under the grandfather clause, for he or she, including Obama, was not a “Citizen of the United States” at the time the Constitution was adopted. Hence, being a “Citizen of the United States” is not sufficient to satisfy Article 2’s presidential eligibility requirements. What is necessary is that a person be a “natural born Citizen.” A brief review of the manner in which a “natural born Citizen” has been defined throughout our history shows that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” and is therefore not eligible to be President. Here are the legal and historical sources (the list is no exhaustive):

(1) The “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);

(2) Founder and historian, David Ramsay, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789) (citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776.” Id. at 6);

(3) Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 (our early Congresses considered any child born in the United States to alien parents an alien);

(4) St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (1803) (the “civil right” to be elected President is “inherited by all whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens”);

(5) The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring) (“The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”);

(6) Speaker of the House, Rep. Langdon Cheves, in the House of Representative in 1814, reported in The Historical Register of the United States, Vol 3, Part 1, Sec. 7, p. 174 (Philadelphia 1814) (“The children have a natural attachment to the society in which they are born: being obliged to acknowledge the protection it has granted to their fathers, they are obliged to it in a great measure for their birth and education. … We have just observed that they have a right to enter into the society of which their fathers were members. But every man born free, the son of a citizen, arrived at years of discretion, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join in the society for which he was destined by his birth”);
Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of III

(7) Alexander McLeod, A Scriptural View of the Character, Causes, and Ends of the Present War (2nd ed. 1815) (“I readily admit, that there is something in the idea of native country, which is intimately connected with the doctrine of allegiance. It is not, however the spot of earth, upon which the child is born, that connects him with the national society; but the relation of the child's parents to that society. . . . In the present discussion, nevertheless, it is necessary, that I distinctly state the true bond, which connects the child with the body politic. It is not the inanimate matter of a piece land, but the moral relations of his parentage. Let a child be born within the walls of a church, that does not make him a church member; but if the parent or parents be in connexion with the church, so is the offspring. Visible society, as it is provided for in the constitution of human nature, naturally seeks to perpetuate its own existence, by conferring upon children the membership of their parent. Each citizen too is supposed to reserve for his off spring the benefits of society. The Governor of the universe approves of this provision. Thus it is, that the country of the father is that of the child, and not because he happened to be born in its territory. . . . ‘By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights. The place of birth produces no change in this particular—for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction.’ Vattel, Sec. 216—220.” Id. at 170-71);

(8) Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830) (children born in the country follow the citizenship of their parents);

(9) Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (“children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country”);

(10) Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring) (“The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”);

(11) John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) U.S. Congressman, March 9, 1866, Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291(1866) (commenting on Civil Rights Act of 1866 said that “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen”);

(12) Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27 ("[A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States");

(13) Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 21 L.Ed. 394, 16 Wall. 36(1872) (the Fourteenth Amendment “was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States”);

(14) Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (said that the Fourteenth Amendment does not define a “natural-born citizen,” but rather the under the “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”);

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of III

(15) Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) (“The law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition of affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the same rule. Vattel, in his Law of Nations (page 101), says: ‘As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, these children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to their rights. * * * The country of the father is, therefore, that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.’ Again, on page 102, Vattel says: ‘By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights.’ This law of nature, as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any positive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case”);

(16) United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (“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”);

(17) U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) (a child born in the country to domiciled and resident alien parents is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, but a child born in the country to “citizen” parents is a “natural born Citizen”);

(18) Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325(1939) (a child born in the United States to “citizen” parents who became so through naturalization was a “natural born Citizen”); and

(19) Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163, 165 (1964) (a naturalized citizen has the same rights as a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, but only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be president).

Obama’s father was born in Kenya when it was a British colony. Under the British Nationality Act 1948, he was born a British citizen. Under that same act, any child born to Obama the father, no matter where born, also became a British citizen. See the British Nationality Act 1948 (was similar to our statutes which provided that any child born abroad to British parents was a British citizen). Obama was born to an alien father who never became a U.S. citizen. That made Mr. Obama born subject to a foreign power as much as if he had been born to two alien parents. Yes, Mr. Obama was born a citizen of Great Britain. So, Mr. Obama may have been born a “citizen of the United States,” if he was born in Hawaii, but he was also born a British citizen. At age 2, under the British Independence Act 1963 and the Kenyan Constitution, his British citizenship also automatically converted to Kenyan citizenship. Under the current Constitution of Kenya, Mr. Obama is a citizen of Kenya.

Owing allegiance to any foreign power, Obama cannot be President and Commander in Chief. Under the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the Commander in Chief, given his duties and daily workings in the international arena and his need to command our troops in time of war, must, from the moment of his birth, be in allegiance and loyalty only to the United States. Indeed, the President and military Commander must be born within the full and complete civil, political, and military allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. In the eyes of the Founders, Framers, and the People, because Mr. Obama was born subject to a foreign power (Great Britain and Kenya), Mr. Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and is therefore not eligible to be President. Born in the United States to two non-U.S. citizen parents, Marco Rubio is also not a “natural born Citizen” and not eligible to be Vice-President.

Teo Bear said...

Like life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, being a natural born citizen is a natural right. It does not depend on any law made by man. This is why it was never defined by the founding fathers. At the constitutional convention no one demanded a citizenship clause or law for those who were citizens of the United States at the time of adoption. No laws were passed by the first congress, defining an American citizen for them this was the law of nature and nature's god which no man could change. I am a natural born citizen not from any act of government, but because it was my parents right to pass on to me their citizenship and because I was born in the United States I needed no privilege, no law of man to wash any alienage from me.

Children of American parents born overseas inherit American citizenship as a legal right but still must be washed of alienage.

Children born to alien parents are afforded the legal right to be called "citizens of the United States" because of the constitution, but are not washed of the blood alienage that they may have inherited from their parents.

The laws of Congress can change, any legal right given today can be changed tomorrow if Congress so chooses. Even a right given today by the Constitution may be revoked within next year or two if the people so choose. A natural right based upon the law of nations is inalienable and can never be taken away until the nation itself ceases to exist. When government gives you a right and can revoke it, it is is not a right, it is a privilege. Even those rights enshrined in the constitution are in truth nothing more than deeply entrenched prividges given to us, by ourselves. I say deeply entrenched because all it takes is three-fiths of the People.

The American people are sovereign and as sovereigns only they have the natural right to create natural born citizens, not congress, not the courts and not even Obama himself can change this.

jayjay said...

Carylyle et al:

I'm afraid I can never concede that having a man who has never shown himself to be legally eligible ato hold the office he now occupies - even though he's been repeatedly challenged - is a "good thing" or a "soluble solution" to the current situation.

With a criminal as the CEO of the country it makes all he has done null and void ... and that should be faced up to and acted upon. New laws can be passed - and should be. This isn't the only Constitutional crisis this country has had.

Pretending that it's "not a problem" just won't get the job done. It is a huge problem to have a criminal who is hell-bent on destroying this country as its top executive is idiotic in the extreme.
He should be removed under the XX Amendment. Even Rush Limaugh took 3 plus to figure the man was out to destroy us ... something many of us have seen as ovbious much longer than that. It has nothing to do with any R vs D political game as many of the media seem to suppose.

It hsd to do vith severe violations of the Constitution of the US which is a contract between the Government and the People. Pretending otherwise is foolish. Let's tar and feather the guy and ge on with straightening up the Government.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Article 2 challenges Gen. Colin Powell.

Read all about it here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/100256810/Article-II-Super-PAC-Gen-Powell-Obama-25-000-Challenge-W-T-Print-Ad-July-16-2012

MichaelN said...

You have nailed it, Teo Bear.

MichaelN said...

This is for RealityCheck and John Woodman.

No doubt St George Tucker was very conversant with this.

Lord Coke (Calvin's case, the same case cited by Horace Gray in the WKA court)

"An alien born is of foreign birth OR foreign allegiance,..."

So who was born of "foreign allegiance" and is therefore "an alien born"?

Answer: Barack Hussein Obama II

Carlyle said...

I doesn't look like the Sheriff Joe news conference is detailing anything we did not already know. If that is all he's got, the MSM will not touch it, nor will any Federal Agency.

Very disappointing.

We just need to know the truth - the complete truth - whatever it is.

We already know conclusively that the 'long form BC' has been diddled with. What we don't know is who diddled it or why. We already know that The Obama is a puppet (specifically, he personally did not do all this scurrilous stuff), but who is the puppet master?

For all we know, it could be relatively benign or it could be the mother of all infiltrations or anything in between.

I'm afraid the Powers That Be will (continue) to conclude that you shouldn't ask questions that you won't like the answers to. Perhaps they believe they can intervene before he does anything TRULY awful, and in the meantime hope for a successful election and the whole thing just quietly goes away.

But my main concern is that a President has too much power, and that he can exercise it quickly. I don't think we/they can intervene fast enough.

I quake.

Ray said...

Carlyle,

I disagree.

The birth certificate pdf was shown to be inconsistent on its face. The '9' required for federal encoding indicated "blank", yet the box was not blank.

Secondly, the numbering scheme has been verified to be geographical then chronological. The number on the candidate's birth certificate is not in sequence.

Thirdly, the proof-of-citizenship value of Hawaiian birth certificates has been thoroughly impeached.

The first two points are no longer "internet conjectures". The third exposes a serious problem in its own right. It also means that anything less than microfiche is pretty much worthless.

Carlyle said...

Ray -

If the MSM pick this up and run with it - seriously, not mocking - within the next day or two, and it is positively covered on the Sunday News shows, then I will eat crow.

On the other hand, like I said, nothing new here that would make the MSM do this. So then you can eat the crow.

Teo Bear said...

Carlyle,

I understand your frustrations as well as anyone here. Fighting this obamination of our Constitution for four years now I have hoped for that silver bullet from the smoking gun, but even if there was one it would be buried.

The media, those so called bulwarks of democracy have turned a blind eye. They swallow the camel sized blatant lies of the cover-up and chock on the gnat sized truth that people have serious doubts about Obama's claim to be a natural born citizen. They call us crazy because we only want to defend the constitution, but I take a degree of comfort in the saying, "In an insane world, a sane person must appear insane."

But having run thebirthers.org for the past 3 1/2 years what I really take comfort in is people like yourself, Michael, Robert, NBC, Charlie K, Mick, JayJay and so many others who I have had the honor to call my brothers, people who still defend the Constitution and the wisdom of those who wrote it. You do not cower at the threats of ridicule from the Obots and MSM. You fight on, you fight not for a man like the Obots do, but for an ideal, it is the same ideal shared by all men who still believe in the unfettered human spirit. The ideal of an America that liberates and not enslaves the spirit. The ideal that men can be lead by their God that they serve and not by the government that serves them.

But all I can say to you in dark times like these is to .... Keep the faith. Faith that truth ultimately triumphs over lies,faith that what you say and do today is remembered and recorded in eternity. Keep the faith for your wisdom is much needed

Carlyle said...

The Big News that is needed and was hinted that they had was who buggered up the LFBC and why. Or at a minimum, a very short list of suspects.

As you all are now very well aware, the Obots are like persistent mosquitos. Only a solid swat will deter them. The Sheriff Joe thing today was like a mild wave, or shoo, not the swat that was needed.

I think we all need to take a deep breath and back away from the trees a bit and survey the forest.

We need to figure out a way to get public opinion to become alarmed that The Most Transparent President Evah is clamped down tight on a lot of stuff, not just an arcane detail here and there. We need to press most urgently to get College Records, Passport Records, Social Security Disclosure, Selective Service Disclosure, and information surrounding Circumstances of Birth - in approximately that order of priority.

Time is running out. The Juggernaut is rolling.

Unknown said...

Actually I think today's Cold Posse presentation was quite valuable. It confirmed that the birth certificate was a forgery--beyond the shadow of a doubt. Probably that Obama was not born in a hospital in Hawaii. That Hawaii birth certificates do not carry anything like the legal weight that most do. This latter is important as it means many passports have been issued without any real verification of place of birth.
The underlying motive on the part of Hawaii for its slack requirement for a birth certificate has been all along Federal moneys--and not facilitating Barack Obama of course. But now Obama's situation has brought something to light that Hawaii is not at all happy about. Really they had no choice but to go along with Obama and conceal his information to protect their hand in the Federal money trove.
This very enhanced presentation regarding the alleged birth certificate as well as the lax standards of Hawaii for issuing them will circulate wide and far. Remember it was a little boy that saved Holland with his hand by plugging a leak in the dike.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Carlyle,

There are some who call our Constitution "arcane."

bdwilcox said...

Carlyle must have seen a different presentation than I did because I was able to glean the following gems from Arpaio's press conference:

1) The notation on the LFBC PDF makes it a self-contradicting document. Where notation was made that no data was submitted ("9") data was present. Some of this data was suspect to begin with (e.g. use of the race of "African" rather than Negro or Black.)

2) They learned the self-contradicting nature of the various notations from the horse's mouth; i.e. the very woman who oversaw the notation. She confirmed what the notations were supposed to mean and that such notation was tightly controlled, double-checked by two set of eyes, and not prone to error.

3)We leaned that Hawaiian birth certificates can freely be used as toilet paper since their probative value is about as high.

4) We learned that Hawaiian authorities literally went into panic mode whenever they showed up and went as far as calling the police to shew them away.

5) We learned two document techs experimented with up to 600 various tests each and still couldn't reproduce the document's anomalies.

6) Hawaii was fully aware for decades that their laws would allow ineligible people to obtain Hawaiian birth certificates but didn't care or move to close the loopholes.

7) Hawaii's current lax birth/immigration laws are a national security threat and run counter to federal laws.

8) Hawaii failed to verify Obama's birth date to the Arizona SOS Bennett even though it was requested.

9) The Hawaiian Deputy AG hinted that the Obama PDF document was altered from the copy that Hawaii supplied them.

10) There are additional "persons of interest" in this investigation.

11) The birth certificate number indicates that the birth would not have been in Kapiolani Hospital but instead was reported in a field office.

12) The proof that the information was powerful came by way of the little Alinskyite from CBS channel 5 who threw invective to try to discredit the investigators rather than their findings. He was a planted distraction and it shows they are concerned with the information that has come out so far. I was hoping Mike Zullo was going to ask him if he was a reporter or a representative from the Obama administration.

Finally, our suspicions that the original that Hawaii supplied was modified to cover up notations of a late or altered original or perhaps other inconvenient information (such as Father: "Unknown") were given further credence.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

It is unbelievable the lies that the Obots spread all over. Here is one example and my response to “J. Powell” who is debating me over at Officer Lakin’s page at Amazon.com:
**************
J. Powell

You said: “You are incorrigibly unreasonable. Emer de Vattel did not write our constitution. What kind of "patriot" would rather believe an 18th century Swiss scholar over the US Constitution?”

You really are ignorant about the influence that Vattel had over the Founders and Framers. Vattel, through his master treatise, The Law of Nations (1758), whose first English edition was printed in 1759, presented the law of nations to the Founders and Framers. Both the French and English editions made their way to the colonies before the American Revolution. Editions were received at both Harvard College and at the Library Company of Philadelphia. There is no doubt that great use of Vattel and the law of nations was made by the Continental Congress when devising policy for our nation and by the Framers who sat in the constitutional convention in writing the Constitution. Did you not know that our Constitution expressly recognizes the law of nations as being a part of the law of the land?

See Thomas Willing Balch, The Beginnings of International Law, in 20 Publications of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, Colonial Society of Massachusetts 2 (1920).

Carlyle said...

TeoBear,

Thank you for encouraging remarks. But alas, I am still extremely depressed. I fear nothing will ever be investigated and the truth will never be known.

Puzo1,

Indeed! 'Arcane" it is. For years and decades (perhaps 2 centuries) this has been the case. Mere mortals, such as We The People, are not allowed to 'interpret' the constitution. The accepted elitist view is that we are ill-equipped to understand the arcana and only the USSC can say what it means. Until that time, any or all statements in the constitution are meaningless. (see following post for example/analogy).

bdwilcox,

Yes, that is exactly what I hear also. Most of that was reasonable surmised before. A single zealot/bigot (<--- liberalspeak) adds not a drop of credibility. My point, again, is that this is not enough. i.e. hohum

ray,

All quite on all media fronts, except for an occasional snicker.

I think that the Powers That Be think this is inconsequential or arcane, they won't touch it. On the other hand, if what we expect is true, the only possible outcome is for El Presidente Wetback (and at least to handful of other very senior officials) to literally sw-ing from r-pes. i.e. their crime is worse than Saddam Hussein. Perhaps the PTBs just don't want to go there.

I continue to quake.

Carlyle said...

Example

A very famous Major League umpire once remarked in his memoirs, in regards calling balls and strikes, something very close to "It ain't nothin' 'til I call it".

This is a very astute observation on the role of the umpire, the nature of ground truth (at least in that context), and the concept of fairness.

It is clear that for quite a long while, the USSC (and the MSM, and the PTBs, and the education system, and the general public) has adopted the exact same stance in regard the USSC and The Rules (i.e. the constitution).

This is further evidenced by the fact that in major Ivy League universities, Constitutional Law students are never walked through the constitution systematically. They only study the USSC rulings. That is what 'Constitutional Law' has come to mean.

One real example is that the prevailing wisdom is that NBC has never been defined by the USSC - so until they do, it doesn't have any legal meaning.

Another real example is in regards the intersection of the 14th and 2nd amendments - which amazingly enough was decided by the USSC only in recent months. Until that time, it was officially/legally undecided and therefore meaningless and not enforcible.

FYI, here is the nutshell of that particular issue.

The 14th Amendment inverts the provisions of the constitution and applies them to the states. Specifically, the Bill of Rights contains a list of Thou-Shalt-Nots that prevent the Federal government from doing certain things. The 14th amendment then applies that to the states and therefore prevents the states from doing the same certain things.

Surprisingly and bizarrely, the USSC decided that this paradigm could not be just applied in a straightforward manner, but had to agonized by them one detail at a time. As you might suspect, anything related to Civil Rights was given the highest priority and worked over first. And at least for 50 years that has all been pretty well settled. That process is so important that it even has a formal legal name - it is called "Incorporation Against the States", or just "Incorporation".

Until very recently, the 2nd Amendment had never been Incorporated. That meant that the states were legally free to violate your gun rights and there was nothing the federal authorities could to about it. Recently that has been repaired - at least mostly - barring some nuances yet to maybe appear.

So, back full circle, in a very practical sense, The Constitution does not exist. The only thing that exists is the body of USSC rulings. Some might say that this is essentially the same thing and that I am swatting at gnats. I hope I have convinced you that it is a Huge Thing and makes all the difference in the world - especially as regards the difference between LIBERTY and TYRANNY.

(That is also why Constitutionlists are considered Terrorists by DHS. Weep now.)

PS - the only way you can get things decided is to bring cases - so we gotta keep doing what we are doing - I just want to help clarify the rules of the game and how they are stacked against us. Be brave, but be cautious and wary. We have few if any friends in high places. To most of them the truth is worse than the lie.

Ray said...

Carlyle - "Constitutional Law students are never walked through the constitution systematically. They only study the USSC rulings"

We can thank Oliver Wendell Holmes for that. He promoted this idea. But, it must be said, the seed of this idea was planted circa 1845 in Harvard.

cfkerchner said...

CDR Kerchner (Ret) discusses Sheriff Arpaio press conference of yesterday re Obama forged docs on the Baer Haggerty Offensive a.m. Radio Show out of Philadelphia PA. Listen to it via Podcast here:
http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/radio-tv-news-interviews.htm

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
ProtectOurLiberty.org
CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

"Vital records in Hawaii have some of the highest levels of privacy protection in the nation. Not only are Hawaii’s vital records some of the best managed, but they also have some of the strongest restrictions on access to prevent identity theft and fraud."

Joshua A. Wisch
Special Assistant to the Attorney General
State of Hawaii
Dept. of the Attorney General
425 Queen Street
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813

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

We want to confirm where Obama was born and Mr. Wisch tries to impress us with Hawaii's privacy laws. Like someone is going to steal Barack Obama's identity. You think someone would have done it by now given that both of his alleged "birth certificates" and his "Social Security number" are on the internet. And just think, if someone does steal Obama's identity, we will get a new president before the November election.

Mick said...

Brian H said,
"Those provisions about children of aliens covered the case of children who emigrated to the U.S. with their alien parents. But assuming for arguments sake that you are correct, that J. Gray was in error, how then did that "error" affect his conclusions as to the pre-Fourteenth Amendment law? Does that allow one to explain why C.J. Fuller writing in dissent saw the majority opinion as effectively making a person like Mr. Wong eligible for the presidency? "


No it didn't liar. The proviso say that NO ONE shall be naturalized who's father was not resident for 2 years.

Mick said...

Florida eligibility case appealed today

http://www.scribd.com/doc/100458261/Klayman-Appeals-Judge-Terry-Lewis

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 455   Newer› Newest»