Donate

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Barack Obama Ballot Challenge Proceeding Forward in the NJ Supreme Court

               Barack Obama Ballot Challenge Proceeding Forward in the
                                               NJ Supreme Court


                                            By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                August 8, 2012




The candidate Barack Obama presidential election ballot challenge in New Jersey is proceeding forward. On July 2, 2012, I filed on behalf of my clients, Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran, a Petition for Certification with the New Jersey Supreme Court. See my post entitled, Purpura and Moran File Petition for Certification With the NJ Supreme Court in Obama NJ Ballot Challenge , with 439 comments, accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/07/purpura-and-moran-file-petition-for.html . The Petition for Certification may be read here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/98923880/Purpura-Moran-Petition-for-Certification-FILED-7-2-12 .

On July 16, 2012, candidate, Barack Obama, through his attorney, Angelo J. Genova, Esq., filed his Opposition Letter Brief which can be read here, http://www.scribd.com/doc/102405426/Purpura-Moran-Opposition-Letter-Brief-by-Obama-to-NJ-Supreme-Ct-7-16-12 . On July 19, 2012, the New Jersey Secretary of State, through the New Jersey Attorney General (by Deputy Attorney General Alan C. Stephens) filed her Opposition Letter Brief which can be read here, http://www.scribd.com/doc/102405496/Purpura-Moran-Opposition-Letter-Brief-of-SOS-to-NJ-Supreme-Ct-7-19-12 .

Today, Wednesday, August 8, 2012, I filed with the Supreme Court petitioners’ Reply Letter Brief. A copy of the Reply Letter Brief can be read at http://www.scribd.com/doc/102405635/Purpura-Moran-Reply-Letter-Brief-to-NJ-Supreme-Ct-FILED-8-8-12 .

The New Jersey ballot challenge case is now ready for submission to the Chambers of the New Jersey Supreme Court Justices for decision on whether the Court will grant our Petition for Certification. A Petition for Certification shall be granted on the affirmative vote of 3 or more justices. If certification is granted, the matter shall be deemed pending on appeal in the Supreme Court and the Court would then decide the appeal on the briefs, appendices, and transcript filed in the Appellate Division. The Supreme Court may render a decision with or without oral argument.

In the Petition for Certification, we argue that our petition presents questions of general importance which have not been but which should be settled by the Supreme Court and that the interest of justice requires that the Supreme Court grant certification. A democratic majority does not have the constitutional right to elect a President who is not constitutionally eligible. Hence, whether a person running for President is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and constitutionally eligible for that office is a question of great public importance. What role the State of New Jersey through the Secretary of State (“SOS”) has in vetting candidates who are running for the Office of President is also a question of great public importance. Whether New Jersey is responsible for determining the eligibility of its presidential candidates is a significant question for the state to answer. For sure, how best to protect the integrity of New Jersey elections for the Office of President is a question of great public importance to the State of New Jersey, which is guaranteed by Article IV, Section 4 of our Constitution a republican form of government. These questions and their answers are special reasons enough for this Court to grant certification.

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. Hence, Obama is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” 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”).

What this means is that since Obama is neither an Article II “natural born Citizen” nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 he is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

I will update this post as soon as I receive new information.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
August 8, 2012
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved



602 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 602   Newer›   Newest»
Linda said...

@js,

Please, show me what legal texts, references or court opinions you use in support of your understanding that Minor defined NBC and that a NBC can't be born with dual citizenship.

Puzo1 said...

Linda,

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

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

Id., at 167-68.

Indeed, the Court explained that Virginia Minor was a "citizen," who belonged to the "natural born Citizen" class. This decision is well written and easy to understand. We do not need a text book to tell us what the Court wrote in plain words.

Puzo1 said...

Linda,

A “natural born Citizen” is implicitly defined by the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 and explicitly defined by The Venus (C.J. Marshall concurring), Inglis, Shanks, Dred Scott (J.Daniels concurring), and Minor. Minor explained that under “common-law” which which the Framers were familiar when they adopted the Constitution, Virginia Minor was a "citizen," who belonged to the "natural born Citizen" class. Minor and these sources which preceded it all relied upon the law of nations, as explained by Vattel in The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) and treated as American “common-law” and national law, to conclude that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. This original definition of a “natural born Citizen” is the supreme law of the land as is the other two presidential eligibility requirements under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, i.e., age of at least 35 years and residency of at least 14 years. Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark changed that American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen.” What the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark did was provide a definition of a “citizen of the United States” at birth, by looking to the colonial English common law as an aid in construing the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause, which is not the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Wong Kim Ark defined a “citizen of the United States” which is a different class of “citizen” from the “natural born Citizen” class. Hence, your reliance on Wong Kim Ark to support your theory that the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” the same as the English defined a “natural born subject” under the English common law is misplaced. Rather, today the definition of a “natural born Citizen” continues to be a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of the country at the time of the child’s birth.

Linda said...

@Mr. Apuzzo,

You reference Shanks v Dupont in saying that the child inherits the citizenship of the father. Shanks was born before the Declaration of Independence, a British subject. Her family remained after the revolution, acquiring American citizenship. That is the citizenship the Court said she inherited, they were not talking about at her birth.

Shanks married a British officer and went with him to England at the evacuation of Charlston, where she remained until her death. The Court held that she was also a British citizen and her children could inherit according to the Treaty of Peace.

"It cannot be doubted that Mrs Shanks might have inherited any lands in England, as a British subject, and her heirs might have taken such lands by descent from her. It seems to us, then, that all British born subjects whose allegiance Great Britain has never renounced, ought, upon general principles of interpretation, to be held within the intent, as they certainly are within the words, of the treaty of 1794."

js said...

too funny Linda

gee, i guess is your book then if a child is born in the USA to a Russian father and Chinese mother whose grandparents were dual citizens of Saudi Arabia, South Africa on the parernal side and India and VietNam on the maternal side, that child must be a natural born citizen of...shoot..7 different nations...!!! howzat work bozo...

Face it, the term natural born to you is meaningless. You can pick up the actual meaning of natural born citizen right here, because dozens of explanations have been given to you on a silver platter. You dont need common sense to read and put the picture together here. You are a weasel and use this porcupine technique to evade answering for your own BS.

Either you are drowning in stupidity and refuse to accept help, or you are a well paid idiot stirring shxt on this blog backed by...oh I'd say...some well place communists whose dream it is, is to overthrow the United States Government by pushing it into anarchy. Which is it?

MichaelN said...

Linda said...

"Please, show me what legal texts, references or court opinions you use in support of your understanding that Minor defined NBC and that a NBC can't be born with dual citizenship."

@ Linda.

Here you go Linda, straight from the horse's mouth, from Lord Coke in Calvin's case, which YOU are adamant the US founding fathers, framers and judiciary followed with regard to citizenship.

Lord Coke:

"....and so in case of an alien born, you must of necessity have two several ligeances"

Dual allegiance at birth = alien-born.

Here's more from English common law, per Lord Coke in Calvin's case (translated from the Latin in footnote 151....

"[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.]"

So Linda, the English common law texts are good when they suit your argument, but no so good when they show your argument is based on hopey-changey.

Here's some more from English common law, per Lord Coke in 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."

Linda, do you really believe the US founding fathers, framers and judiciary somehow ignored all that English common law, and took the opportunity to ignore or reduce the national security of the office of POTUS, by allowing people born under "foreign allegiance" to be eligible for POTUS.

Think again Linda!


MichaelN said...

This part Linda!

i.e. Where the SCOTUS in the Minor case, not only INTRODUCED the doubts existed, they ALSO RECOGNIZED that the doubts had MERIT, by saying that the doubts were yet TO BE SOLVED.

"These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts."

cfkerchner said...

OH PI Susan Daniels Files Affidavit Seeking Criminal Prosecution For Obama Using Connecticut SSN since 1986, a state that Obama never lived in or worked in during the 1970s when the SSN was issued.
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/09/08/oh-pi-susan-daniels-files-affidavit-seeking-criminal-prosecution-for-obama-using-ct-ssn/

Linda said...

@Michael

You said "Dual allegiance at birth = alien-born."

Obviously, that is not correct, as England claim children of English citizens born abroad, NBS, even though they would be citizens, also, of the country they were born in.

Linda said...

@js

You said "gee, i guess is your book then if a child is born in the USA to a Russian father and Chinese mother whose grandparents were dual citizens of Saudi Arabia, South Africa on the parernal side and India and VietNam on the maternal side, that child must be a natural born citizen of...shoot..7 different nations...!!! howzat work bozo..."

Yes, if born in the US, I would. What is controlling is US law, that grants citizenship at birth. What other countries chose to grant citizenship to children born to their citizens, former citizens, grandchildren of citizens, does not matter. US law controls. If that were not the case, Iraq could say that all children born in the US had NBC status in Iraq. Would that exclude all of our children, who would otherwise be eligible? Of, course not.

If you have an legal authority that supports you, let me know.

Puzo1 said...

I of II

Linda,

You have not correctly read Inglis. If the demandant was born after July 4, 1776 and before September 15, 1776, in New York, he would have been born on American territory (born in the country). But even if born in the country, he was born to a British subject father. Justice Story in his minority concurring opinon ruled, relying on the jus soli rule of the English common law, that under such circumstances the demandant was an American “citizen,” regardless of the British subject status of his father. The majority did not agree with Justice Story, ruling that since a child of minor years does not have the capacity to decide which citizenship of which nation he or she wants to have, the child simply inherits the citizenship of his or her parents and is free to renounce that citizenship and take on another upon reaching the years of discretion. Hence, the Court held that if the demandant was born under the stated facts, the demandant was a British subject and not a U.S. “citizen,” even though born in the United States, because he was born to a British subject father. This is the same rule stated by Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations.

"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."

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of II

See the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 (treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens).

See also the James McClure citizenship case of 1811. James McClure was born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785. His British subject father naturalized in South Carolina on February 20, 1786 when his son was dwelling in the United States and was still a minor. “Publius” argued that there was no U.S. law allowing McClure to be a “citizen of the United States” by mere birth in its territory. Rather, it was maintained that McClure was a “Citizen of the United States” by naturalization under the Naturalization Act of 1802. U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Johnson, assisting the James Madison Administration, ruled that based on “the laws and usage of the United States,” James McClure was a “Citizen of the United States.” He did not rule that he was a “natural born Citizen.”

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

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

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

Justice Story in Shanks, which was decided after the Inglis decision, abandoned his minority position in Inglis and espoused in Shanks the same rule that the Inglis majority provided, i.e., a minor child inherits the citizenship of his or her parents. Justice Story held:

“If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country.”

Id. at 245.

Linda said...

@Mr. Apuzzo,

No, the majority opinion ruled if born between 7/4/76-9/15/76, Inglis, upon reaching his majority would have the right to disaffirm the choice his father made for him. He didn't, which means if he was born during that time, he in fact chose British citizenship for himself.

"2. If born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September of the same year, when the British took possession of New York, his infancy incapacitated him from making any election for himself, and his election and character followed that of his father, subject to the right of disaffirmance in a reasonable time after the termination of his minority, which never having been done, he remains a British subject and disabled from inheriting the land in question."

Puzo1 said...

Linda,

I do not know why you insert the English common law into all matters of American citizenship. Did you know that in his Federalist No. 42, James Madison called the English common law “a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” for defining terms in the Constitution? With such a view, I doubt very much that Madison would have relied upon the English common law to define our republic’s “natural born Citizen” or a “Citizen of the United States.”

Linda said...

Shanks was born prior to the Declaration of Independence, and as such, was a British subject. Her family remained after the revolution and became citizens of South Carolina. That is the citizenship she inherited. The Court ruled she never lost her British citizenship and her children inherited her property according to the Treaty of Peace.

Puzo1 said...

Linda,

Your comment on Inglis proves nothing. You are wasting my time with you little gentle pushes.

Linda said...

@Mr. Apuzzo,

Did you know Madison said this?:

"It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States"

Puzo1 said...

Linda,

Why do you not also tell us about the price of bread on Tuesday.

Linda said...

@Mr. Apuzzo,

The Courts comments on Inglis prove he was born with US citizens, if born between 7/4/76-9/15/76.

MichaelN said...

Linda said...

"Shanks was born prior to the Declaration of Independence, and as such, was a British subject. Her family remained after the revolution and became citizens of South Carolina. That is the citizenship she inherited. The Court ruled she never lost her British citizenship and her children inherited her property according to the Treaty of Peace."

@ Linda.

Ann Shanks's maiden name was Ann Scott.

From the decision of the SCOTUS in Shanks v Dupont case.

"Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina.

There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782.

Whether she was of age during this time does not appear.

If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina.

If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country."

And what was her father's citizenship, Linda?

A citizen of South Carolina?

So do you suppose those adults who joined the revolution and were self declared US citizens before the formal Declaration of Independence, considered their minor children as still British subjects?

Carlyle said...

Unfortunately, Linda is partly right - in that you cannot pick up a random textbook from a random reputable law school and find a discussion of NBC, let alone a definition.

On one hand that is a problem - it is just one more thing that chums the water. On the other hand - it is not unexpected in that the topic is obscure, directly applies to only a handful of people in the history of the universe, and is usually not an issue.

Further confusing things is that several supposedly reputable and high profile entities have written legal opinions that disagree with Mario. I lean in Mario's direction (and hang out here) because, to me, his description is the most thoroughly researched, less errors, and requiring fewer leaps of faith. I believe he is right. This is further bolstered by my deeply held belief that the NBC clause was meant to be restrictive, and that continues to be important for national security.

But because of the confusion, and the lack of specific focused SCOTUS ruling, I think NBC is currently, for all PRACTICAL purposes UNDEFINED. Like I have mentioned before, a famous baseball umpire once said "it ain't nothin' 'til I call it". I feel that is were we currently are.

It is also why I believe additional emphasis must be but on demonstrating that The Obama is not currently an American Citizen of any kind at all. It is a bit riskier because we do not know that for sure. But there is significant circumstantial evidence and serious doubt. Further 'the apocalypse' is nigh on us and we have nothing to lose.

cfkerchner said...

Israel Science And Technology Confirm Obama Birth Certificate Forged: Slams U.S. Congress
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/israel-science-and-technology-confirm-obama-birth-certificate-forged-slams-u-s-congress/

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

Puzo1 said...

The Obots like my logical analogy that uses dogs, cats, and animals.

Here is the final moment that we have been all waiting for. You vote for which one is correct:

The Obots say: "All dogs and animals are animals" or all "natural born Citizens" and "citizens of the United States" are "citizens of the United States."

Mario Apuzzo says: "All dogs and cats are animals" or all "natural born Citizens" and "citizens of the United States" are "citizens."

cfkerchner said...

Discover the networks of the far, far left and their overt and covert connections to the Communist Party of the USA and/or its long term agenda to subvert our constitutional republic:
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/09/09/discover-the-networks-of-the-far-far-left/

William St. George said...

With reference to Carlyle and Linda regarding law books . . . What libraries are apt to have the oldest collection of law books, journals, etc.? Has anyone done a real search of older texts? I am thinking of books written in the 19th century for example. I would think the oldest law schools would be a good place to look.
Unlike Carlyle I have no doubt that Puzzo is right. Leo Donofrio also came to the same conclusion after a great deal of research on his now closed blog. If the 14th Amendment had intended to change the presidential requirement there would have been contemporary discussion regarding that matter and probably intense debate. The 20th century mind set was different enough from the previous century that people really lost track of how their ancestors thought and believed. The fact that a prominent Harvard Law School professor, regarded as an expert on Constitutional law, would side with Obama also shows how much the elite back each other. I think it fair to say that the elite and their top servants do not regard the law as applicable to them. Power and wealth they believe certify their superiority over the masses--a kind of secular Calvinism. They are the new Sovereign, and as Hobbes pointed out the Sovereign is above the law.

Carlyle said...

Mario -

(or other legal experts)

One thing that bothers me a great deal is a lack of available due process. Originally, there were a number of cases filed in various courts accusing The Obama of this and that. All were rejected due to standing or jurisdiction. ALL. NONE have ever been heard on merits.

At this point, don't we now have a much worse and much more sweeping problem? Are not our constitutional rights being trampled on by denying us timely due process? Is there not an actionable claim here? Is there nowhere we can sue for lack of hearing our grievances?

The fact that the government - or an individual - can run roughshod over our rights seems illegal and frankly Un-American.

Time is running out. We need drastic and immediate action. The Republic will not survive another term of the Muslim, Marxist, Usurper. I am not being a 'sore loser' or differences in political ideology - I am talking about an urgent and extreme threat to National Security.

Unless we can force legal action of some sort - to get to the bottom of this - The Obama will win, and cannot lose. Based on actions last time and many hints since, they will do 'anything' possible and 'everything' necessary to win. Perhaps vote fraud will be enough, but they will not stop there. Please consider deeply the true meanings of 'anything' and 'everything'.

js said...

Here ya go linda;

"SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

88 U.S. 162

Minor v. Happersett"

“Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides that ‘No person except a natural-born citizen or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President,’ …


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

(that is precedent in US Law)

So now I showed you mine, now show me in exact words where US Law states that a dual citizen is a natural born citizen.

Or, are you going to weasle out AGAIN?

Linda said...

All,

For those who maintain that an NBC cannot hold dual citizenship, please see Perkins v Elg, 307 US 325, which upheld the lower court ruling that Elg was an NBC even though she had acquired derivative Swedish citizenship.

The Court quotes an opinion letter by US Atty General, Edwards Pierrepont, regarding a young man, born in the US to a naturalized Prussian father. At age 4, his father returned to Germany, and by their laws, regained his German citizenship and his son was naturalized.

"Young Steinkauler is a native-born American citizen. There is no law of the United States under which his father or any other person can deprive him of his birthright. He can return to America at the age of twenty-one, and in due time, if the people elect, he can become President of the United States..."

Also in the opinion of Mr. Pierrepont, (though not quoted by the Court), the Attorney General refers to the naturalization in the US:

"In North Germany, as in the United States, the minority of the child continues until the age of twenty-one years; and minor children of naturalized parents domiciled and living with such parents in North Germany, though such minor children were born in the United States, are made German subjects with rights of German citizens, much the same as minor children of naturalized parents (though the children are foreign-born) are rendered citizens of the United States by the naturalization of the parents of the parents of such minors.
(emphasis mine)

Linda said...

@js

I am familiar with Minor v Happersett, but as I have said repeatedly, my understanding is different than that of those here. The only references I find that cite Minor not say it defined NBC. They don't reference NBC at all.

If you have a legal resource that attributes defining NBC to Minor, please let me know.

Weasle out of what?

thalightguy said...

Mario Apuzzo says: "All dogs and cats are animals" or all "natural born Citizens" and "citizens of the United States" are "citizens."

Wouldn't it be, "All dogs and cats are animals" or all "natural born citizens of the United States" and "citizens of the United States" are "citizens."

Linda said...

The court refers to the children of an illegal immigrant as "natural-born citizens".

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/700/1156/117304/#fn1

Linda said...

@William St. George,

I believe the Harvard Law School library has the oldest collection. I search online.

I don't believe the 14th Amendment changed or intended to change presidential eligibility requirements. As Justice Gray said in WKA (referring to the first sentence of the amendment) "As appears upon the face of the amendment, as well as from the history of the times, this was not intended to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship, or to prevent any persons from becoming citizens by the fact of birth within the United States who would thereby have become citizens according to the law existing before its adoption. It is declaratory in form, and enabling and extending in effect. Its main purpose doubtless was, as has been often recognized by this court, to establish the citizenship of free negroes, which had been denied in the opinion delivered by Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford, (1857) 19 How. 393, and to put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States. "

Linda said...

@MichaelN

You said "So do you suppose those adults who joined the revolution and were self declared US citizens before the formal Declaration of Independence, considered their minor children as still British subjects?"

Of course, not. I was trying to say is that when the Court said the child's citizenship followed that of the parent, it was not referring to citizenship at birth, but her later acquired citizenship by virtue of the naturalization of her father.

js said...

I really am not affected by your misunderstanding of what Minor is. You can cite all the errors in college text books you want, but you dont have squat that over-rules SCOTUS.

Sit on that and spin for a while, see if you actually can show us any SCOTUS ruling that reversed MINOR. (SEE, i told you that you could support your BS, that instead you would use porcupine...you dont have a leg to stand on, thats why you think I need to prove that SCOTUS rulings are wrong? MUSTSUCKTOBEYOULINDA )

js said...

Stop blowing smoke linda, you twist the words around and lie to us. You are a dirtbag.

Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939) established that a child born in the US to 2 citizen parents was a Natural Born Citizen. It doesnt matter if the childs parents took him back to Sweden and reestablished thier previous citizenship, nor that Germany recognized the childs.

The fact is that 2 US citziens had a child in the US makes him a Natural Born Citizen. He was not born with dual nationalities because his parent has to renounce Swedish citizenship as a condition of thier US Citizenship (standard oath after 1929).

"An official standard text for the oath of allegiance did not appear in the regulations until 1929. The regulation said that before a naturalization certificate could be issued, the applicant should take the following oath in court:

I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, State, or sovereignty, and particularly to __________ of who (which) I have heretofore been a subject (or citizen); that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion: So help me God. In acknowledgment whereof I have hereunto affixed my signature."..

Sorry Linda, you just dont have a leg to stand on. You can hang onto errors that rely on errors as long as you want, but it is still all one big LIE.

MichaelN said...

Linda said...

"All,

For those who maintain that an NBC cannot hold dual citizenship, please see Perkins v Elg, 307 US 325, which upheld the lower court ruling that Elg was an NBC even though she had acquired derivative Swedish citizenship."

The dual citizenship of Miss Mary Elizabeth Elg was not at birth.

Anyone BORN with foreign allegiance is an alien-born.

Try again.

Puzo1 said...

Linda,

You can cite and quote all the lower court and later commentators you want who did not and do not understand the constitutional distinction between an Article II "natural born Citizen" and a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States" at birth. Rather, what I rely upon are commentators from the Founding period, early Naturalization Acts of Congress, and decisions of our U.S. Supreme Court. Your lower courts and commentators may want to change the constitutional American "common law" definition of a "natural born Citizen," but they did not nor do they have the power and authority to do so.

Linda said...

@js

This is what you said "So now I showed you mine, now show me in exact words where US Law states that a dual citizen is a natural born citizen."

SCOTUS held that Elg was an NBC despite having acquired derivative Swedish citizenship. NBC with dual citizenship.

Atty General of the US, as quoted in Elg, says child born in US, who acquired derivative German citizenship was eligible for the presidency. NBC with dual citizenship.

In the US Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, the Court said the children of an illegalMexican immigrant were NBCs. Mexico grants citizenship to children of their citizens born abroad, so the children had dual citizenship. NBCs with dual citizenship.

Where is the lie?

Linda said...

@Mr. Apuzzo,

Perkins v Elg is SCOTUS, not a lower court.

Puzo1 said...

I of IV

Linda,

You would have us define an Article II “natural born Citizen” based on James Madison saying during the 1789 David Ramsay-William Smith Congressional debate that, in the United States, place of birth “is the most certain criterion” of allegiance." Your reliance on the Madison quote is misplaced for the following reasons.

(1) Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides "natural born Citizen" and "citizen" of the United States as two separate tests for eligibility. These are separate and distinct terms which must be given their own meaning. For births after the adoption of the Constitution, one must be a "natural born Citizen" to be eligible to be President. Madison’s soil criterion was used by our nation only to establish the status of “citizen of the United States” for the first generation of Americans into which Smith fell. These were those the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 called “Citizen[s] of the United States,” at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” As David Ramsay eloquently explained, birthright citizenship for those born after July 4, 1776 was reserved only for the children of the citizens. This fact is confirmed by, among other historical sources, St. George Tucker and the Congressional and judicial activity which followed the Founding. Hence, the issue with Obama is whether he is a "natural born Citizen," not whether he is a "citizen" of the United States.

Madison was speaking in 1789 about the definition of a "citizen of the United States” which was the status needed for eligibility to be a Congressman under Article I, Section 2, Clause 2. We know from Article II itself that such a "citizen" is not necessarily a "natural born Citizen." The only issue that the Congress debated and decided was whether Representative William Smith had been a "citizen of the United States” for 7 years which is the requirement of Article I, Section 2, Clause 2 for anyone wanting to be a Representative. The debate was not whether Smith was an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Madison concluded that at the time of the Declaration of Independence, Smith, being a minor and being born into the society which after the declaration of independence became the new American society, still owed primary allegiance to that new society, no longer owed secondary allegiance to the British government, and was therefore a “citizen of the United States” and that he did not lose that status at any time thereafter by any neglect or over act. But at the time of the Declaration of Independence, no minor or adult in being of the Founding generation was a "natural born Citizen." Only children who were born after July 4, 1776 could be “natural born Citizens.”

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of IV

(2) In the Ramsay-Smith debate, Ramsay had maintained that William Smith had not been a citizen of the United States for the requisite 7 years under Article I, Section 2 because he stayed in Britain while the Revolution was going on and only came back to the United States when it was over and thereby not being present and residing in revolutionary America for the needed 7 years. The House did have an investigation on the matter. During the debates, William Smith argued that he was a “citizen.” Smith did not refer to the English common law to show that he was a “citizen of the United States” for the requisite 7 years. Rather, he cited Emer de Vattel for support and said he did not have enough money to come back to America. In his own defense William Smith quotes Emerich de Vattel as follows:

“The Doctor [Ramsay] says the circumstances of birth do not make a citizen–This I also deny. Vattel says: ‘The country of the father is that of the children and these become citizens by their tacit consent.’ I was born a Carolinian [before the Declaration], and I defy the Doctor to say at what moment I was disenfranchised. The revolution which took place in America made me a citizen, though then resident at Geneva…. There was never a moment when I was a citizen of any other country.”

Smith was able to convince the House that he was a 7-year “Citizen of the United States” and so he prevailed.

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

III of IV

(3) Anything that James Madison said about U.S. citizenship relative to the William Smith debate was abrogated by Congress’s Naturalization Acts passed in 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855. Remember that Smith was born before July 4, 1776 in South Carolina and his case was decided in 1789, or one year before the 1790 Act was passed. In any event, Smith was also declared a “Citizen of the United States,” not a “natural born Citizen.”

The Constitution gave Congress the power to make uniform the naturalization laws. Congress first exercised that power in 1790. The act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, c. 3, provided for the naturalization of aliens and then provided that "the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States."

The third section of the act of January 29, 1795, 1 Stat. 414, 415, c. 20, provided "that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States," etc.

The fourth section of the act of April 14, 1802, 2 Stat. 153, 155, c. 28, carried into the Revised Statutes as section 2172, was: "That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing of any law on that subject, by the government of the United States, may have become citizens of any one of the said States, under the laws thereof, being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States."

The provision that children born in the United States to alien parents was carried in all the following naturalization acts, including the that of 1804, 1855, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which required that the child be born in the United States and not be “subject to any foreign power.” Given the world-recognized doctrine of jus sanguinis (also utilized by our own Congress in 1790 to consider children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents as “natural born citizens” and starting with 1795 “citizens of the United States”), the only way such a child could be born not subject to any foreign power was to be born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents or to parents who had long lost any foreign nationality who at that time were American slaves and their descendents.

As we see, Congress, in all of these acts, did not make any exception for children born in the United States. It simply said that any child of any person who naturalized would fall under the act. This is broad language and included also children who were born in the United States. If Congress meant to exclude children born in the United States from having to naturalize it surely knew how to do so by using simple language. Hence, Congress considered children born on U.S. soil to alien parents to be themselves aliens. See Secretary of State Blaine, February 1, 1890 (he drew no distinction between the children born in the U.S. and those born out of it if they were born to alien parents). Here we can see that for Congress, it was the citizenship of the child’s parents that controlled and not the place where the child was born. Congress did not even give controlling effect to the fact that the child might be born in the United States, considering that child an alien if his or her parents were not U.S. citizens and allowing that child to naturalize at the moment the parents naturalized if done before that child reached the age of majority and independently on his or her own if done thereafter or never done.

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

IV of IV

(4) As to how certain soil allegiance is, that is a debatable point. The evidence shows that it is parents and not soil that is a better gauge for allegiance.

Even Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case (1608) recognized and confirmed that neither climate nor soil make a "natural born subject." He proclaimed in Calvin’s case: “Neither the climate nor the soil but ligeantia (allegiance) and obedientia (obedience) that makes the subject born.”

A military draft was proposed in 1862 because of the Civil War. Under this law, there was a section called “Aliens,” which exempted from having to serve in the armies of the United States: “(1) All foreign born persons who have not been naturalized; (2) All persons born of foreign parents and who have not become citizens.” Papers relating to foreign affairs, 1862, p. 288 (cited in Breckenridge Long, Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a “Natural Born Citizen” Within the Meaning of the Constitution? Chicago Legal News, Vol. 146, p. 220 (1916)[Charles Evans Hughes]. We can see that Congress exempted both children born in the United States and out of the United States to alien parents from the draft the same way that Congress exempted them from citizenship. It looks like Congress did not trust children born to aliens when it came to military matters even if they were born on U.S. soil.

If soil is such a great measure of allegiance, why were “citizens of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment born in the United States to Japanese parents along with their alien parents put in concentration camps during WWII? See Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1945). In Korematsu, the U.S. Supreme Court recognized that U.S. citizens born on U.S. soil to foreign parents or born abroad to U.S. citizen parents have double allegiance which significantly affected that person’s allegiance and political and military rights and obligations. U.S. law explicitly warns about the dangers and problems of dual allegiance. See also Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325, 344-48 (1939); Kawakita v. United States, 343 U.S. 717, 723-26, 733-36 (1952). These cases show what our U.S. Supreme Court before, during, and shortly after World War II said about the loyalty of children born in the United States to alien parents.

A "natural born Citizen” (not a “native” or “native-born citizen” as those words came to be confusedly used by our courts following Wong Kim Ark (1898)), as recognized and accepted in the United States since our Founding and confirmed in numerous cases of our U.S. Supreme Court (e.g. see Minor v. Happersett (1875)) and lower courts and as implicitly stated in all our citizenship and naturalization Acts of Congress, needs both birth in the U.S. and birth to U.S. citizen parents, for neither territory nor parentage are the “most certain criterion” alone when it comes to the eligibility requirement to be President. Satisfying just one of these conditions, a person is still born with dual allegiances (with the other allegiance gained by jus soli or jus sanguinis), creating a split allegiance at birth and giving the person the right to choose, based on loyalty, affiliation, and sympathy, between two allegiances. Such birth circumstances also obligate two or more nations to have to give their protection to that individual. How certain is anyone’s allegiance under such circumstances? We can tolerate such a scenario for ordinary citizens. Should we as a nation tolerate it for the President and Commander in Chief of the Military, who unilaterally possesses great civil and military power? Or should we demand as the Founders and Framers did when they wrote the Constitution that, because of the critical nature of the offices, the person to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military be “naturally a part of the Government under the jurisdiction of which he happened to be born?” Charles Evans Hughes.

Hence Madison’s place of birth as “the most certain criterion” of allegiance quote does not define an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Puzo1 said...

Linda said...
@js

Minor held that the US constitution did not give anyone the right to vote, so state laws reserving that right to men alone were not unconstitutional. The passing of the 19th amendment effectively overturned it.

Please let me know if you are able to find a legal resource that says Minor defined NBC.


Puzo1 said...

MichaelN said...

Linda you cite opinions of attorney general etc, and expect that they have weight.

What about the opinion of the US Citizen and Immigration Service?

Do you suppose they have sought advice and opinions from the highest possible legal entities, to come up with their interpretations and advisories?

Here, from....

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html

"(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.

The words "shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922", as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born OR natural-born citizen (WHICHEVER existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired. "

TWO types of born citizens, Linda!

MichaelN said...

Linda said .....

"In the US Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, the Court said the children of an illegalMexican immigrant were NBCs. "

Cite the case, or give a direct link to the full text of the case.

cfkerchner said...

Article II Section 1 Clause 5 history, facts, and SCOTUS cases which affirm that it means per original intent and self evident natural law restrictive meaning as to whom can be President and Commander of the Military after the founding generation is gone, born in the USA to parents who are Citizens. The children of Citizens. At least 2nd generation Americans via both parents and born in the USA.
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html

Anonymous said...

@Linda

In 1772, British law defined a natural born subject as a child born to a subject, even if born outside the king's dominion.

In 1776, the colonies broke away from the British monarchy. In 1798, the constitution was adopted. In 1790, the First Uniform Naturalization statutes were enacted.

In that 1790 Act, a minor child of an alien was alien until such time the father naturalized. A child of an alien, born on U.S. soil (the waiting time for naturalization was five years) was of the father's nationality, i.e., national jurisdiction.

Anyone claiming the 1790 Act exempts U.S.-born children of aliens is confused, biased, and lying to themselves.

Natural Law favors jus sanguinis, as do the British and U.S. nationality acts. Only under a feudal system over subjects can a nation claim jurisdiction over the children born of an alien. In addition, even the old English laws making any child born within the king's dominion exempt, if the alien 'denizen' father objected.

Our current misconception of 'citizenship at birth' devolving from Place of Birth began in 1898 in a terrible holding giving Wong Kim Ark citizenship status, even though he and his parents were Chinese nationals. That court violated existing U.S. statutes, the Burlingame Treaty, the Chinese Exclusionary Act, and misinterpreted the 14th Amendment.

Wong Kim Ark did cite Minor's judicial notice of what, without doubt, a Natural Born Citizen was . . . Wong Kim Ark, of course, did not declare Ark a natural born citizen as some oddball cases have, without legal reasoning.

'Of the jurisdiction thereof' is a restatement of 'not subject to any foreign power' directly from the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

The 14th Amendment was proposed immediately after passage of the 1866 Act in order to protect that act from manipulation, revision, or revocation by latere congresses.

Anonymous said...

@Linda

In 1772, British law defined a natural born subject as a child born to a subject, even if born outside the king's dominion.

In 1776, the colonies broke away from the British monarchy. In 1798, the constitution was adopted. In 1790, the First Uniform Naturalization statutes were enacted.

In that 1790 Act, a minor child of an alien was alien until such time the father naturalized. A child of an alien, born on U.S. soil (the waiting time for naturalization was five years) was of the father's nationality, i.e., national jurisdiction.

Anyone claiming the 1790 Act exempts U.S.-born children of aliens is confused, biased, and lying to themselves.

Natural Law favors jus sanguinis, as do the British and U.S. nationality acts. Only under a feudal system over subjects can a nation claim jurisdiction over the children born of an alien. In addition, even the old English laws making any child born within the king's dominion exempt, if the alien 'denizen' father objected.

Our current misconception of 'citizenship at birth' devolving from Place of Birth began in 1898 in a terrible holding giving Wong Kim Ark citizenship status, even though he and his parents were Chinese nationals. That court violated existing U.S. statutes, the Burlingame Treaty, the Chinese Exclusionary Act, and misinterpreted the 14th Amendment.

Wong Kim Ark did cite Minor's judicial notice of what, without doubt, a Natural Born Citizen was . . . Wong Kim Ark, of course, did not declare Ark a natural born citizen as some oddball cases have, without legal reasoning.

'Of the jurisdiction thereof' is a restatement of 'not subject to any foreign power' directly from the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

The 14th Amendment was proposed immediately after passage of the 1866 Act in order to protect that act from manipulation, revision, or revocation by latere congresses.

Jack said...

FYI - Israel Science and Technology
http://www.science.co.il/Obama-Birth-Certificate.htm

States: Long-Form Birth Certificate of Obama is a Forged Document

Of course we already knew this.

Talk about a shot across the bow with a 16" shell. The piece covers what is already known to those who know the putative Emperor has no clothes or valid papers, but the fact the report comes from a former science adviser to Netenyahu is what makes this report the cherry on top.

"I established the first version of this site during my term as The Science Adviser to the Prime Minister Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu during 1996-1999. Since then, the site has been vastly expanded." - http://www.science.co.il/About.php

It is nice the piece blasts Congress and the Courts on behalf of the free peoples of the world who are affected by this travesty.

What does the overwhelming proof the document is a forgery do to all the cases that supposedly used the WH pd as evidence for place of birth?

MichaelN said...

Linda said .....

"In the US Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit, the Court said the children of an illegalMexican immigrant were NBCs. "

Well Linda, I am searching for your alleged NBC children of illegal alien Mexicans and so far, here is what I found....

"Marin-Garcia v. Holder"

The use of "natural-born citizen" in this case is obviously intended to mean born as US citizens, via 14th amendment and is merely a casual, passing reference to who, throughout the rest of the dicta of the case, are termed as "citizens" and not "natural born Citizens" for the intents and purposes of the USC Article II definition for POTUS eligibility.

I would bet, given the level of infiltration of the judiciary, courts, positions as clerks and associated ancillary offices and departments, by the revisionists and traitors, that the use of "natural-born citizen" in this instance is one of the many that either have already been or will continue to be, cunningly, strategically and improperly placed within the transcripts of the courts records to build and swell the bank of bogus "precedents", for people just like you, to draw upon in your quest to water-down the security of the US.

Linda, you and your agenda have and are being exposed as each moment passes.


js said...

You must be daft Linda.

To base you position on errors in the courts is presumptuous. The court neither documented any precedent or explained the logic behind using the NBC terminology. As stated before me as well, the rest of the entire case was based on naturalization, as such citizenship under the 14th amendment normally falls. You, however, assume that the only time the court used the term in the entire case was precedent and not error. Foolish.

So you have proven my point beyond any doubt. Your tact is called porcupine. This is the practice of an evolved con man. YOU never defend yourself, instead, you deflect and demand proof from your opponent no matter how ridiculous your claims are. You have failured to show how a dual citizen is ruled a NBC in any court case that can stand in the light of day. Instead you defer to errors that are not based upon federal law or SCOTUS findings. The entire excercise you have put us through here was nothing but an excercise in futility.

js said...

note to linda (RE: ELG)

Prior to 2001, Swedish citizens automatically forfeited thier citizenship if they swore allegiance to any other nation. Sweden did not recognize dual citizenship until 2001.

Linda said...

@paraleaglenm

The Court in WKA quoted Minor and said immediately following:

"Minor v. Happersett (1874), 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 166-168. The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship."

Note that they called her a "citizen" not an NBC. Note that they said the decision was that she was not entitled to vote, not that it defined NBC.

SCOTUS decisions as recorded, studied and taught. Show me a legal authority that says Minor defined NBC.

Naturalization Acts do not naturalize those born in the US. See Attorney General Bates' opinion letter.

Linda said...

Atty General Bates opinion letter

Children of aliens do not require naturalization.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/92120429/10-Op-Atty-Gen-328-29-1-Sep-1862-Stanton-Children-Born-of-Alien-Parents-Are-Native-Born-Citizens

Linda said...

@MichaelN

I gave a direct link above, but here it is again.

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/700/1156/117304/

Linda said...

Letter from William L. Marcy,
Secretary of State of the US, 1854

Children of one or both alien parents NBC and eligible for the presidency.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/95114170/MARCY-Sec-of-State-to-Nones-Native-Natural-Born-Citizens-of-Alien-Parents-16-Mar-1854

Puzo1 said...

Linda,

You say that Congress does not act upon those born in the United States, even if born to alien parents.

Show me where Congress ever said that before 1898.

Also, tell me what the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was. Did it not act upon person born in the United States?

Finally, why does Congress have a statute, 8 U.S.C. 1401 (a) which parrots the Fourteenth Amendment as to "citizens of the United States" at birth?

cfkerchner said...

U.S. House of Reps Judiciary Committee Hearing Scheduled: The Obama Administration’s Abuse of Power « CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/09/10/house-judiciary-hearing-scheduled-the-obama-administrations-abuse-of-power/

Puzo1 said...

UPDATE:

The New Jersey Supreme Court has denied the Purpura & Moran Petition for Certification. As soon as I get a copy of the Order, I will publish it.

thalightguy said...

Am I understanding this correctly?

The 14th Amendment was needed because the Supreme Court in Scott v Sandford ruled slaves were not citizens because their parents were not citizens and being of African descent could never become naturalized.

Linda said...

I did not say Congress doesn't act upon those born in the US. I said the Naturalization Acts do not naturalize those born the US.

jayjay said...

Linda does not seem to grasp the fact that the term "citizen" is a more inclusive term than "natural born Citizen" and that one can be the former while being also the latter.

Being one (a citizen) does not mean the other is somehow precluded or prevented (a natural born Citizen).

Andy said...

Gosh...that's like I said a month ago - you weren't proceeding forward.

I love being right!

(I'm sorry you don't know how that feels!)

Puzo1 said...

Linda,

You said:

"I did not say Congress doesn't act upon those born in the US. I said the Naturalization Acts do not naturalize those born the US."

Why do you not stop wasting our time.

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

What a pity for you. You waited a whole month to post another comment here and you are still wrong.

Linda said...

@Mr. Apuzzo,

No problem.

Linda said...

@Carlyle,

There have been several cases that have been ruled on the merits, 7,8,9,10, somewhere in there. I am sure Mr. Apuzzo can point you to them.

ksdb said...

Laughing at Linda ... you keep citing Supreme Courts that defeat your own argument. Why did Gray affirm that Virginia Minor was found to be a citizen by being born in the country to citizen parents?? The Minor decision didn't make that statement, but Gray recognized the holding in the ruling. Why would he cite citizen parents, especially if he believed in the fundamental rule of citizenship by birth that doesn't rely on citizen parents??

Puzo1 said...

Linda,

Would you be so kind to give us what sources, if any, these cases (7,8,9,10) relied upon when reaching those merits.

MichaelN said...

Linda said...

"I said the Naturalization Acts do not naturalize those born the US."

Where don't they?

The act of 1802 naturalizes the alien-born (i.e.native-born of foreign allegiance) minor children of aliens along with their parents, if they are resident in US.

There is nothing in the act of 1802 that says that those children native-born and of foreign allegiance (i.e alien-born children) are excluded from the naturalization act of 1802.

Linda, you have avoided to address the points I have made about the English common law (which you say was followed by the founding fathers and framers), where a child may be native-born, yet be a alien-born due to foreign allegiance.

You have also ignored the fact that the English common law naturalized native-born, i.e. Robert Calvin (a natural born subject) in Calvin's case, according to Lord Coke....

Quote:
"Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right,"

So how does that figure Linda?

You say the founding fathers and the framers followed English common law, but the English common law says that native birth alone does not suffice to make a NBS, and that a native-born child MUST be "born under the ligeance of a subject" to be a subject.

So wouldn't it follow that if the framers followed English common law, then for a native-born child to be a US "natural born Citizen", the child would have to be "born "under the ligeance of a" US citizen?

You are all over the place Linda.

In one instance you claim the framers followed English common law, then when that bites you on the arse, you say the framers followed some US attorney, or opinionated academic commentator, who cam along after the framers.

Now kindly clarify your position Linda.

Do you say that the framers followed the English common law?

Can you show where in the English common law it is held that native-birth alone sufficed to make an English "natural born subject"?

Waiting Linda.

js said...

@Linda “Atty General Bates opinion letter”
1. The letter is from Secretary of State Marcy, not AJ Bates.
2. Omission is a lie if that omission was intentional and designed to confer a false impression, like an out of context quote that means something completely different than what it means in its original context.
3. The full context of the subject matter you introduced:
“The cases which it mentions are not embraced by any law of the United States, upon the subject of Naturalization; and, it is believed, have not been decided by any Court in this country. Although, in general, it is not the duty of the Secretary of State to express opinions upon points of law, and doubts may be entertained of the expediency of making an answer to your inquiries an exception to this rule, yet I am under the impression that every person born in the United States must be considered a citizen, notwithstanding one or both of his parents may have been alien at the time of his birth. This is in conformity with the English Common Law, which law is generally acknowledged in this country; and a person born of alien parents would, it is presumed, be considered such natural born citizen, in the language of the Constitution, as to make him eligible to the Presidency.”
As stated above; the issue has not been litigated or ruled on, it is on the subject of naturalization; it is not the duty of the SoS to make any opinion on that point of law. The SoS is familiar with English Common Law, however, he fails in disclosing the difference between subject and citizen, natural born citizen and natural born subject, and a host of conflicting legal issues when using English Common Law to interpret the US Constitution.
4. You intentionally lied through omission.
5. You failed to disclose exactly what part of English Common Law or US Statute that endorsed the opinion.

Conclusion; You are a troll.

Puzo1 said...

I of II

js,

There exists another statement by Mr. Marcy. I am reprinting the first statement followed by another statement that he made so that we have them together.

(1)

Honorable William L. Marcy,Secretary of State of the United States,Washington City, D. C.Department of State,Washington, March 16, 1854.

Joseph B. Nones, Esq., New York City:

Sir: Your letter of the 11th instant has been received. The cases which it mentions are not embraced by any law of the United States, upon the subject of Naturalization; and, it is believed, have not been decided by any Court in this country. Although, in general, it is not the duty of the Secretary of State to express opinions upon points of law, and doubts may be entertained of the expediency of making an answer to your inquiries an exception to this rule, yet I am under the impression that every person born in the United States must be considered a citizen, notwithstanding one or both of his parents may have been alien at the time of his birth. This is in conformity with the English Common Law, which law is generally acknowledged in this country; and a person born of alien parents would, it is presumed, be considered such natural born citizen, in the language of the Constitution, as to make him eligible to the Presidency.

I am, Sir, respectfully,

Your obedient servant,

W. L. MARCY.

Continued . . .

Puzo1 said...

II of II

(2)

Mr. Marcy, Secretary of State, in 1854, in an instruction to Mr. Mason, United States Minister to France, said: “In reply to the inquiry which is made by you, . . . whether ‘the children of foreign parents born in the United States, but brought to the country to which the father is a subject, and continuing to reside within the jurisdiction of their fathers country, are entitled to protection as citizens of the United States,’ I have to observe that it is presumed that, according to the common law, any person born in the United States, unless he be born in one of the foreign legations therein, may be considered a citizen thereof until he formally renounces his citizenship.” Mr. Marcy to Mr. Mason, June 6, 1854, MSS. Inst. France.

There are many problems with Mr. Marcy's opinion as stated in these letters. They are:

1. While Mr. Marcy is correct in believing that the matter of children born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents falls under Congress’s naturalization powers, he mistakenly believes that Congress had not yet acted on the matter. He is mistaken because Congress did so act in the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, an 1802 (also later in 1855).

2. He states that the question of whether a child born in the United States to one or two alien parents was “not embraced by any law of the United States.” This is not correct, for the law of nations on matter of citizenship was a “law of the United States” and this law was further confirmed and codified by Congress in the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802. These Congressional naturalization acts treated children born in the United States to one or two alien parents as aliens. Hence, such children could under no circumstances be Article II “natural born Citizens.”

3. How can a child who is naturalized according to Marcy then be “considered such natural born citizen.” Simply stated, a “natural born Citizen” is not naturalized in any manner, whether it is at birth or after birth.

4. He states that the issue has not yet been decided by any court. But we did have the U.S. Supreme Court cases of The Venus (per C.J. Marshall), Inglis, and Shanks which provided guidance as of that time. The historical record along with the early Naturalization Acts of Congress also provide sufficient guidance.

5. He states that the English common law is “generally acknowledged in this country.” But he fails to recognize that the English common law had application in the individual states, but not on the national level. Moreover, he fails to recognize that Congress with the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802 abrogated any English common law that may have had any application on the national level in matters of citizenship.

6. He only “presumes” that a child born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents is a “citizen” or a “natural born Citizen.”

7. In ascribing a national character to the child, he uses both the word “citizen” and the clause “natural born citizen,” using both as though they meant the same thing. He therefore conflates and confounds a “citizen of the United States” with a “natural born Citizen” which was so commonly done by many lower courts and commentators.

8. He concedes that deciding the legal issue of whether one is a “citizen” or “natural born Citizen” is not a matter for the Secretary of State.

So as we can see, there are many problems with Mr. Marcy’s opinion on matters related to defining an Article II “natural born Citizen.” On the contrary, Congress since 1790 had already provided Mr. Marcy with the answer to the question he sought to answer. That child born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents was an alien and could not be a “natural born Citizen.”

Andy said...

Mr. Puzo, you stated this:

"While Mr. Marcy is correct in believing that the matter of children born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents falls under Congress’s naturalization powers, he mistakenly believes that Congress had not yet acted on the matter. He is mistaken because Congress did so act in the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, an 1802 (also later in 1855)."

What, in the act of 1795, actually does anything about children born here to two alien parents, unless and until their parents make a choice to pursue citizenship?

We know that the Common law made the natural born citizens, at least according to Wong Kim Ark, but you're trying to disprove another's agreement with that. Can you point to the specific text that does so without the parents actions involved?

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

The third section of the act of January 29, 1795, 1 Stat. 414, 415, c. 20, provided "that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States," etc.

The provision that children born in the United States to alien parents was carried in all the following naturalization acts, including the that of 1804, 1855, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which required that the child be born in the United States and not be “subject to any foreign power.” Given the world-recognized doctrine of jus sanguinis (also utilized by our own Congress in 1790 to consider children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents as “natural born citizens” and starting with 1795 “citizens of the United States”), the only way such a child could be born not subject to any foreign power was to be born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents or to parents who had long lost any foreign nationality who at that time were American slaves and their descendents.

As we see, Congress, in all of these acts, did not make any exception for children born in the United States. It simply said that any child of any person who naturalized would fall under the act. This is broad language and included also children who were born in the United States. If Congress meant to exclude children born in the United States from having to naturalize it surely knew how to do so by using simple language. Hence, Congress considered children born on U.S. soil to alien parents to be themselves aliens. See Secretary of State Blaine, February 1, 1890 (he drew no distinction between the children born in the U.S. and those born out of it if they were born to alien parents). Here we can see that for Congress, it was the citizenship of the child’s parents that controlled and not the place where the child was born. Congress did not even give controlling effect to the fact that the child might be born in the United States, considering that child an alien if his or her parents were not U.S. citizens and allowing that child to naturalize at the moment the parents naturalized if done before that child reached the age of majority and independently on his or her own if done thereafter or never done.

Andy said...

"Here we can see that for Congress, it was the citizenship of the child’s parents that controlled and not the place where the child was born. "

Actually, no. You're making an assumption. One that you can't back up.

There is NOTHING in the text dealing with naturalizing those born to alien parents.

You assume that it excludes them, so they aren't citizens.

The courts have ruled that they are excluded, but not because they aren't citizens, but because their birth here makes them such.

Do you have any case law in the US to back up your assertion? (I know I do!)

Andy said...

And, yes, Mr. Blaine did notice a difference:

"The child born to an alien in the United States loses his citizenship on leaving the United States and returning to his parent’s allegiance.” (in 1881)

He states pretty clearly there that those born here, even to an alien, are citizens. It's only after leaving that they could LOSE their citizenship. (But that doesn't mean they never had it!)

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

First, the plain text of the early naturalization statutes speaks for itself. Under this language, children born in the United States were not excluded from the statutes requirements. When Congress wanted to refer to children born out of the United States, it in plain language referred to them. And it did so when it provided that children born out of the United States to "citizen" parents were "considered as natural born citizens" (1790 Act) and then later changed to "considered as citizens of the United States" (1795 Act). But for children born to aliens, Congress did not specify whether the statute reached children born in or out of the United States. This means that Congress reached children born under both circumstances and provided that when their parents naturalized, so did the minor children.

Second, see the James McClure citizenship case of 1811. This case convincingly proves that under the Naturalization Act of 1802, children born in the United States to alien parents were aliens and became “citizens of the United States” if and when their parents naturalized during their minority and if dwelling in the United States.

Third, the holding in Minor v. Happersett (1875) as to who were "natural-born citizens" under "common-law" (children born in a country to "citizen" parents) and its discussion of the early Naturalization Acts also proves my point. What overruled these naturalization acts was United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and its interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment under which it held a child born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents to be a “citizen of the United States” at birth. But Wong Kim Ark, holding Wong to be a “citizen of the United States” at birth, only overruled the naturalization acts application to children born in the United States, not the American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

js said...

No Andy.

The Madison Administration absolutely held the position that children born to aliens in the US were not US Citizens. The only way that could have been done was naturalization, a power exclusive to congress, which was not excercised until the 14th amendment.

The power to award citizenship prior to the 14th was a States power as well. Any citizen recognized by any of the States became a US Citizen. The 14th was passed to insure that ex-slaves were given full rights of citizenship.

"The American naturalization process required all males to twice renounce all allegiances with other governments and pledge their allegiance to this one before finally becoming a citizen.

House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” It wouldn’t be practical for the United States to claim a child as a citizen when the child’s natural country of origin equally claims him/her because doing so could leave the child with two competing legal obligations, e.g., military duty." (from the Federalist Blog)

MichaelN said...

Andy said...

"There is NOTHING in the text dealing with naturalizing those born to alien parents."

Yes there is, Mario just pointed it out to you.

You're dreamin' Andy.

Besides, it was common knowledge, to the US founding fathers, framers, judiciary, etc that native-birth, to alien parent, resulted in a child that was "alien born".

17th English common law, per Lord Coke, Calvin's case, held that for a child to be an English "natural born subject", that child MUST BE "born under the ligeance of a subject", otherwise the child, although native-born could not be an English subject of any type.

Here Andy, straight from the horse's mouth (from Calvin's case) .......

"lienigena 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

Foot-note translation:

"[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.]"

Lord Coke per Calvin's case made it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR that native-birth alone was NOT SUFFICIENT to make a NBS.

Here Andy, straight from the horse's mouth again.

"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."

Can you show where in English common law, it holds that native-birth alone suffices to make an English NBS????

YOU CAN'T....... BECAUSE IT DOESN'T!

One MUST be BORN UNDER THE ALLEGIANCE OF A SUBJECT/CITIZEN, to be a "natural born subject/citizen"....... PERIOD!

Now snap out of your hopey-changey trance, and get with the program Andy/Linda.

thalightguy said...

Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)

Ann Scott was born in South Carolina before the American revolution, and her father adhered to the American cause and remained and was at his death a citizen of South Carolina. There is no dispute that his daughter Ann, at the time of the Revolution and afterwards, remained in South Carolina until December, 1782. Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country.




MichaelN said...

@ John Woodman, NBC, Ballantine, RealityCheck et al

Come out from where ever you are hiding.

Time to recognize and face the truth, and snap-out of your hopey-changey trance.

Can you show where in 17th century English common law, it was held that native-birth alone sufficed to make an English NBS?

Andy said...

Mario said:

"Stuff that isn't from the naturalization act of 1795..."

Right. So you'll admit that the act doesn't act on those born here to aliens unless the parents naturalize.

Since we will now both agree on that (even though you won't admit it, but can't point to any language in the law that did so), we can infer one of two things:

1. Either those born here to alien parents aren't citizens at all

or

2. They are citizens by virtue of their birth on US soil

I believe the courts have decided which of those two inferences is correct.

Andy said...

@js

You make the assumption that allegiance is passed by parents. Why is that?

Andy said...

@MichaelN

You make the assumption that "born under the legiance of a subject or citizen" means born to a subject or citizen.

Why would the interpretation not be "born with the legiance of a subject of citizen?"

And it appears you are either misreading Coke, or misunderstanding it. Is it your interpretation that someone who is born outside of the United States, but loves it so much, is a citizen? That is, after all, what allegiance is. That's what Coke says in your interpretation, since we know, via the Supreme Court, that the English Common law is the basis of citizenship law.

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

You said: "[You'll admit that the act doesn't act on those born here to aliens unless the parents naturalize."

You are confused. The acts did act on children born in the U.S. to alien parents, treating them as aliens unless the parents naturalized during their minority and while the children dwelled in the U.S.

Robert said...

Andy, Linda, etc.

So, how do you determine any US citizenship for a person who has no legitimate documentation showing that he was born anywhere in the USA and whose only witnesses of his birth say he was born in Kenya to an underage US citizen mother and a British/Kenyan father?

Andy said...

@Puzo:

Show me, where in the text, any action or change is performed on those born to alien parents before or until their parents naturalize.

That act said NOTHING about those children. The courts later showed us why: because the common law covered them.

js said...

@andy

Do you propose that a child born to 2 american citizens on vacation in Japan are not eligible for US Citizenship? Maybe they can also refuse to allow the child to return to the USA with its parents, do you think?

The fathers allegiance passes to his children from time immemorial. Up until sufferage the citizenship of the father only applied, after, both father and mother in the US, but not all other nations. Natural descent isnt something that needs to be explained, it plays out in nature all by itself without any laws to make it happen.

js said...

"since we know, via the Supreme Court, that the English Common law is the basis of citizenship law."

Thats not alltogether true andy. Slipping in tidbits like that is how the truth becomes perverted. English Common Laws basis of citizenship is totally different that the US. In English Common law, the monarch is the only sovereign. The citizenry were mere subjects of the monarch, and stipulation that the monarch was the head of the church included the catch that if you were not chrisitan, you were an enemy of the King. As such, only christians could be citizens. This is what English Common Law was during the Revolution.

The idea that you could actually believe what you said indicates that you really must be clueless about what the Constitution meant when it was written.

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

The affirmative language of the early naturalization statutes is plain and clear-“the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization” were also considered as “citizens of the United States.” We know from Minor v. Happersett (1875) that under the “common-law” with which the framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution, children born in the U.S. to “citizen” parents were not only “citizens,” but also “natural-born citizens.” The early naturalization acts acted upon those children who were born in the U.S. to alien parents. The statute’s language is all encompassing. That language covers the children of persons who naturalized in the United States and stated that when they naturalized, their children also naturalized. It follows a fortiori from the “common-law” and these statutes that if those parents did not naturalize, neither did their minor children and they remained like their parents aliens. This result followed the “common-law” rule that minor children followed the citizenship of their parents.

The acts also do not tell us about the price of bread on Tuesday. You are just making stuff up. You just want to create your own exceptions which are not stated in the statutes.

Carlyle said...

Robert said...

September 12, 2012 10:05 AM

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

Geez, Robert, why don't you pay attention.

(grin)

Easy Peasy

The citizenship of that person is whatever that person says it is until you can provide definitive proof that it isn't.

Andy said...

@Mario

Again, you make an ASSUMPTION. We have two choices with the language of the statute:

1. Either those minor children of aliens who never naturalized were citizens by the law of 1795, etc.

or

2. They were not made citizens by that law.

Since the law doesn't mention them, it cannot affirmatively act on them, either to include or to exclude.

Another example that is analogous - a law that says murderers are to be put to death doesn't impose a death sentence on someone who doesn't commit murder.

You are assuming the law does something when it does nothing. You are using it to exclude as citizens those born of aliens, when it makes no mention of them.

In fact, the law in question makes no mention of those born here, only those who are already children. (It doesn't distinguish between living and unborn children to come.)

Your assumption don't hold water. (Even your imaginary law has holes in it!)

cfkerchner said...

Barack Obama: National Security Disaster | by Trevor Loudon « CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/09/12/barack-obama-national-security-disaster-by-trevor-loudon/

Ray said...

re: September 12, 2012 1:06 PM

Andy,

Your post is truly laughable.

You inject into the plain text of naturalization acts words that are not there. viz "already children" Those words are projections of your infatuated deranged scheming mind.

Robert said...

Carlyle,
Oh, I think get it. Please tell me if I'm on the right track here.

Citizenship is like being a member of a family. All you have to do is find a family you like and go live with them. Unless they can prove/document that you were NOT born to them, you can stay, insert yourself into a dominant position pertaining to all decisions made by the family, and claim a full share of all of their assets and in any inheritance, without any reciprocal obligations or duties.

Robert said...

According to the logic of Andy, Linda, etc. the native American Indians, Torries, Hessians, British soldiers, slaves, unassociated wilderness folks, and everybody just passing through the country at the adoption of the constitution were all eligible to become President.

If not, please explain the exceptions.

MichaelN said...

Andy said...

@MichaelN

"You make the assumption that "born under the legiance of a subject or citizen" means born to a subject or citizen.

Why would the interpretation not be "born with the legiance of a subject of citizen?"

And it appears you are either misreading Coke, or misunderstanding it. Is it your interpretation that someone who is born outside of the United States, but loves it so much, is a citizen? That is, after all, what allegiance is. That's what Coke says in your interpretation, since we know, via the Supreme Court, that the English Common law is the basis of citizenship law."


Reply:

Andy.
Firstly, it doesn't need interpretation, it say what it says and Coke gives an example, where if the father was without ligeance (e.g. an alien enemy), then the child cannot be a subject, but where the father was a subject (e.g. a friendly alien), then the child was a subject............... BOTH CHILDREN BEING NATIVE-BORN!

So what made the difference between the two children?

Answer: THE SUBJECT OR NON-SUBJECT STATUS OF THE FATHER!

I.e. the ligeance OF the FATHER.

Ergo: a child, native-born, and born under the ligeance of an alien father is an alien-born.

Here it is again....

Coke, via Calvin's case.

"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"

Translated:

"[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.]"

Like I said Andy, you are in la-la land.

Now YOU show where in 17th century English common law, where it was held that native-birth alone was sufficient to make an English "natural born subject".

Waiting.

Andy said...

@JS

So clueless, eh? And yet I accurately predicted a month ago that this would be denied cert. I predicted even before the case was heard that it Mario would lose.

I think you may be casting your vote with the wrong side.

Andy said...

@Ray

Please, do tell, since Mario can't, where in the act those children of alien parents are affected if there parents don't naturalize. Please do tell. He says it's in the "plain language" of the statute that they aren't citizens, but I don't see them mentioned.

Since I'm just a dumb little "obot" why don't you show me your smarts and give me that text.

Andy said...

@MIchael N

Being an alien does not make one a subject. You do see that difference, right?

The examples are as follows, in the English common law:

1. Someone born there to a member of an invading force: not a subject

2. Someone born there to an alien that is not an invading foce: subject

In BOTH cases, the parents are not subjects. They are aliens. This is exactly what WKA says:

Those born here are citizens except in two cases: diplomats, and invading forces.

WKA is exactly in line with Coke. You are trying to make a subject out of an alien. Coke didn't.

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

Your logic is horrendously fallacious. Following that dreadful logic, under the early naturalization acts, those born out of the U.S. to alien parents were not aliens because the statutes did not say they were aliens.

Here is another example which clearly shows the error of your logic. The Twenty-Sixth Amendment, Section 1, states: “The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of age.” You will note that the amendment only tells us who can vote. It does not tell us who cannot vote. Specifically, it does not say that those less than eighteen years of age cannot vote. But surely you would not argue that because the amendment does not address those who are less than eighteen years of age, those persons can vote. Rather, it follows a fortiori from the plain and clear text of the amendment that someone who is seventeen years old or less can be prevented from voting by state law. What this shows is that a rule of law does not have to state all the cases in which conduct is prohibited. Those cases that are prohibited follow automatically from the plain language used even though the rule does not expressly make mention of them.

So, Andy, I am sorry to have to report to you, but your interpretation and construction of the early naturalization acts is incorrect. On the contrary, those acts are ironclad evidence that the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” as a child born in the United States to parents who were “citizens” when the child was born.

By the way, you and your Obama supporter group also make the same logical error when it comes to understanding Minor v. Happersett. You argue that Minor did not say that a child born in the United States to alien parents is not a “natural born Citizen.” You then add that therefore, that child can also be a “natural born Citizen.” This reasoning is worst then sophistry. The Court’s affirmative definition rules out such a scenario so therefore the Court did not need to state the obvious case.


js said...

@andy...

"And yet I accurately predicted a month ago.."

a pet monkey could have clearly understood that you had a 50/50 shot no matter which one you picked...but face it...all the lip service in the world and you still can not show us the binding precident that the decision was based on...error upon error isnt law...it tyrany...

thats all ya got andy..ya...clueless...still holding onto the dead monkey...

MichaelN said...

Andy said...

"@MIchael N

Being an alien does not make one a subject. You do see that difference, right?

The examples are as follows, in the English common law:

1. Someone born there to a member of an invading force: not a subject

2. Someone born there to an alien that is not an invading foce: subject

In BOTH cases, the parents are not subjects. They are aliens. This is exactly what WKA says:

Those born here are citizens except in two cases: diplomats, and invading forces.

WKA is exactly in line with Coke. You are trying to make a subject out of an alien. Coke didn't."

WRONG!

The alien visiting as a friend IS A SUBJECT by local ligeance/obedience.

I will show you AGAIN!

Coke (Calvin's case)

"There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by nature and birthright, and is called alta ligeantia42a and he that oweth this is called subditus natus.43

The second is called ligeantia acquisita,44 not by nature but by acquisition or denization, being called a denizen, or rather donaizon, because he is subditus datus.45

The third is ligeantia localis46 wrought by the law, and that is when an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is there, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other.

The fourth is a legal obedience, or ligeance which is called legal, because the municipal laws of this realm have prescribed the order and form of it; and this to be done upon oath at the Torn or Leet."


So, there you are Andy, a friendly alien has local obedience/ligeance ..... right?

Coke continues ....

"Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is a local ligeance of the subject’s part.
And this appeareth in 4 Mar. Br. 32. and 3 and 4 Ph. and Mar. Dyer 144. Sherley a Frenchman, being in amity with the King, came into England, and joyned with divers subjects of this realm in treason against the Kingand Queen, and the indictment concluded contra ligeant’ suae debitum;51 for he owed to the King a local obedience, that is, so long as he was within the King’s protection: which local obedience, being but momentary and incertain, is STRONG ENOUGH TO MAKE A NATURAL SUBJECT; for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural born subject:"


Andy, in 17th century England, a friendly alien, due to local ligeance/obedience, was a SUBJECT.

That's why the indictment of the Frenchman was for treason.

ONLY when an alien is a SUBJECT, can his native-born child be an English "natural born subject" or "subject born".

If the father is not a subject, and his child is native-born, then the child cannot be a subject of any kind.

So, it is NOT NATIVE-BIRTH that makes a NBS, but the STATUS of THE FATHER as a SUBJECT.

The child MUST BE BORN "UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT

That's why Coke said (in Latin), that one is alien-born by alien allegiance, meaning that a child may be native-born, yet be an alien, due to the NON-SUBJECT STATUS of the FATHER.

Now, given that the US founding fathers, framers, judiciary. legislators were VERY FAMILIAR with the 17th century English common law, it follows that a US native-born child, who is not born "under the ligeance of a" US citizen, cannot be a US "natural born Citizen" because of "alien allegiance".

Now YOU show where the 17th century English common law held that native-birth sufficed to make an English NBS.

Cite the text and the plain language.

Waiting!

Raisondete said...

For those of you who claim to know, but haven't bothered to check:

"DUAL NATIONALITY

Dual nationality can occur as the result of a variety of circumstances. The automatic acquisition or retention of a foreign nationality, acquired, for example, by birth in a foreign country or through an alien parent, does not affect U.S. citizenship."
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html


"F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN

Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship."
http://www.travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

Andy said...

@Mario

Of course I wouldn't argue that those under 18 can vote. But it is not because the 26th Amendment says they can't. It's because they haven't been granted that right by ANYTHING.

You specifically stated that the Naturalization Acts "acted" on those born here to aliens. They did not. Just as the 26th Amendment does not act on those under the age of 18.

Laws are positive statements. They cause something to be done or not done by their words. But not by their lack of words. Any law school grad knows this.

My logic is clear an simple - laws don't act in the negative when they make a positive statement.

Under your logic, as flawed as it is, a law making it a capital offense to commit murder would mean that no other law-breaking could be a capital offense.

In your example of Minor, you are misstating the "Obot" side, and you know it.

Minor says this (summarized): "Those who are born here of citizen parents are clearly natives or natural born citizens."

Your logic tells you that since "those born here of citizen parents are natural born citizens" that no one else can be. That isn't how law works. The courts have shown that, outside of those born here with citizen parents, the common law provides for others to be natural born citizens.

The court only decides on what it needs to decided. It's a concept called Judicial Restraint.

Take the Affordable Health Care act - the mandate was ruled constitutional. But clearly, not all mandates are constitutional. The court rules on the specific scenarios, but with very limited wording so as not to affect those in situations different from the controversy at hand.

I'm really shocked, Mario, that you either don't understand this or are simply obfuscating. These are basic concepts for a lawyer, and you seem to show either a heavy burden of incompetence or a very low ethical threshold by obfuscating.

It's a shame, really.

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

If as you imply you are so smart, please share with us what the rationale of the court is that makes you right and makes us wrong. Please be sure to cite the authorites (only U.S. Supreme Court cases) that support that rationale. This request should be quite easy for you to honor since there have been over 140 cases in the country so far that have gone in favor of Obama.

Puzo1 said...

Rasiondete,

You have presented red herrings with both your dual nationality and renunciation citations and quotes.

(1) You said:

"DUAL NATIONALITY

Dual nationality can occur as the result of a variety of circumstances. The automatic acquisition or retention of a foreign nationality, acquired, for example, by birth in a foreign country or through an alien parent, does not affect U.S. citizenship."
http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_778.html

But what does "does not affect U.S. citizenship mean?" Does it have anything to do with defining an Article II "natural born Citizen?" The anwer is “no.” Rather, this statement by the State Department is only informing that one can be a "citizen of the United States" and have dual and conflicting allegiance at birth. Ironically, this is the very reason that a "citizen of the United States" is not and cannot be a "natural born Citizen."

(2) You said:

"F. RENUNCIATION FOR MINOR CHILDREN

Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship."
http://www.travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_776.html

Renunciation is neither controlling nor relevant for someone who was never a "natural born Citizen" to begin with. If one was never a "natural born Citizen" from birth, to talk about renunciation of U.S. citizenship is irrelevant to a “natural born Citizen” analysis.

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

I let you get away with your B.S. to see just how far you would go. You offer nothing but illogical and unfounded statements here. To tell you bluntly, you make no sense and need to retire to where ever you came from. All your spin and confusion will not convince me nor anyone else with any intellectual integrity which you lack.

Raisondete said...

@Mr. Apuzzo,

Ok, I get it. It is opposite day in school. The Naturalization Acts DON'T say children born in the US, but that is what they mean.

The state department says dual citizenship does NOT affect US citizenship, but it does.

Clear as mud.

Andy said...

@Mario:

Wong Kim Ark. Done, and done.

(You should have known that, since it's cited is those cases that got anywhere near the merits, which were few and far between.)

Now, you say I'm illogical, but you, as a lawyer, just argued that a law that doesn't mention a group of people somehow acts upon them.

That's either idiocy or dishonesty. Which is it, Mario? Which is it?

Puzo1 said...

Raisondete,

We are dealing with the Constitution, not with some general street talk.

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

So your are an Arker. Too bad for you that Wong Kim Ark did not change the American "common-law" definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen."

Also, your repetitive bunk about whether the early naturalization acts acted or did not act on children born in the U.S. is just that.

Raisondete said...

@Mr. Apuzzo,

That is not street talk, that is from the State Dept., the govt says, "The automatic acquisition or retention of a foreign nationality, acquired, for example, by birth in a foreign country or through an alien parent, does not affect U.S. citizenship."

Puzo1 said...

Raisondete,

So what!

Puzo1 said...

Raisondete,

You insist with:

"'The automatic acquisition or retention of a foreign nationality, acquired, for example, by birth in a foreign country or through an alien parent, does not affect U.S. citizenship.'"

I do not know why you believe that what the State Department says trumps what the Constitution demands.

Furthermore, even if the State Department had such power, its statement about what affects a "citizen of the United States" does not extend to what affects a "natural born Citizen."

MichaelN said...

Waiting Andy.

thalightguy said...

Wong Kim Ark proves prior to the 14th Amendment citizenship was not granted by just being born in the U.S., if so the U.S. Government would not have challenged his citizenship knowing he was born in the U.S.

Raisondete said...

@Mr. Apuzzo,

I do not think the State Dept. trumps the Constitution, it is only stating, clearly, what is existing law.

And no, it did not pick and choose, it says acquisition or retention of foreign citizenship NOT affect US citizenship.

You want to believe that the Naturalization Acts, which do not specify children born in the US, somehow do. But when the State Dept. says dual citizenship does not effect US citizenship, they don't mean it. You assume something that is not there in one, and ignore what is there in the other. Convenient.

MichaelN said...

Raisondete said...

"@Mr. Apuzzo,

That is not street talk, that is from the State Dept., the govt says, "The automatic acquisition or retention of a foreign nationality, acquired, for example, by birth in a foreign country or through an alien parent, does not affect U.S. citizenship." "

Reply:

This is not street talk, this is from the US Citizenship and Immigration Service, TWO TYPES OF BORN US CITIZENS.

"The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a NATIVE- and NATURAL-BORN citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien racially ineligible to citizenship, a category of expatriate not covered by the earlier 1936 legislation. "

and

"The words "shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922", as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born OR natural-born citizen (WHICHEVER existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired."

http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html

MichaelN said...

Andy said ....

"Now, you say I'm illogical, but you, as a lawyer, just argued that a law that doesn't mention a group of people somehow acts upon them."

Reply:

Oh, so what do you say about the Wong Kim Ark case, where the decision "doesn't mention a group of people (i.e.NBC) but somehow acts upon them"?

Wake up from your hopey-changey trance Andy.

BTW, Andy, still waiting for you to show where in the 17th century English common law it was held that native-birth alone sufficed to make an English "natural born subject" or a subject of any kind.


Andy said...

@Mario:

Of course I'm an "Arker." So is the Supreme Court, since they are the ones who established definitively that English Common law is where we got our notions of citizenship.

It's your "American" common law, which you somehow separate from English common law that is bunk.

You still haven't provided me any language in the act that excludes those born here with alien parentage from citizenship.

I'll be waiting for that...

Puzo1 said...

Raisondete,

That dual citizenship does not affect U.S. citizenship has nothing to do with "natural born Citizens."

You keep arguing a red herring.

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

The act of March 26, 1790, 1 Stat. 103, c. 3, provided for the naturalization of aliens and then provided that "the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens.”

So, after Congress said all that you believe that a child with an alien father could be a "citizen of the United States?" Well, you can believe whatever you want Andy, but we will believe what the plain statutory words tell us and what decisions of our U.S. Supreme Court instruct.

Raisondete said...

@Mr. Apuzzo,

Please note the Naturalization Act you quote above says children "dwelling" within the US, not born.

Also, it says "the" children, not all children, because then that would include those born in the US.

Puzo1 said...

As MichaelN explains, the English common law did require the father to be a “subject” in order for the child born in England to be born a “natural born subject.”

Puzo1 said...

Raisondete,

Your comments about the 1790 Act mean add nothing to our discussion. You are just saying anything just to make it look like you know what you are talking about when you really don't.

Puzo1 said...

Raisondete,

The early naturalization acts (1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855) used the phrase “dwelling within the United States.” “Dwelling within the United States” related to both children born to alien parents either in the United States or out of it. Regarding children born in the United States to alien parents, it happened that parents came to America from foreign countries and while still not naturalizing and thereby becoming “citizens of the United States,” gave birth to children in the U.S. Then they would go back to their native countries with their U.S.-born children. Those parents could then decide to come back to the U.S. without their children which would result in the children not dwelling in the U.S. While in the U.S., those parents would then naturalize and become “citizens of the United States.” But under the statutes, only if the children were both minors and dwelling in the U.S. when the father naturalized could the children also be naturalized. When the father naturalized, if the child was both a minor and dwelling in the United States, that child also naturalized as a “citizen of the United States.” So, if those children wanted to become “citizen of the United States,” the parents would have to call for the children to come to the U.S. and then naturalize while the children were still minors and dwelling in the U.S. Or the parents could naturalize in the U.S. first and then call for the children in which case the children would then become “citizens of the United States” upon entering and dwelling in the U.S. If neither of these scenarios occurred while the children were minors, the children would have to make their own naturalization petition as adults.

Regarding children born out of the United States to alien parents, the same dwelling rule applied as to those born in the U.S. Those children could become “citizens of the United States” upon their coming to the U.S. and dwelling there at the time that their parents naturalized in the U.S. If their alien parents left their native lands without their children and naturalized in the U.S., the children left behind in their native countries would not become “citizens of the United States” until they came to the U.S. and dwelled there while they were still minors. If not done while they were minors, they would have to make their own naturalization petition as adults.

I hope that this helps you understand what the phrase “dwelling within the United States” meant as written by Congress in the naturalization acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855. Again, these early Congressional Acts are solid evidence that the Founders and Framers defined a “natural born Citizen” as a child born in the United States to parents who were “citizens” of the United States at the time of the child’s birth. These acts prove that there was no jus soli English common law rule prevailing in the United States after the adoption of the Constitution which was used on the national level to define either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States.”


cfkerchner said...

Letter from Mr. Tom Ballantyne, former LTC Terry Lakin, COL Lawrence Sellin (Ret), CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret), and Mr. Gary Wilmott sent to Every State Attorney General in U.S. Putting Them on Notice About Obama’s ID Fraud and Lack of Constitutional Eligibility – 05 Sep 2012.

Read the letters here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/105861753/Letter-Sent-to-Every-State-Attorney-General-in-U-S-05-Sep-2012

Also, read more about Obama’s ID crimes and his constitutional ineligibility here: http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty/collections/

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

Andy said...

Mario says:

"As MichaelN explains, the English common law did require the father to be a “subject” in order for the child born in England to be born a “natural born subject.”"

Except the English Common law doesn't say that. It says one must be born "under the ligeance of a subject."

Those two phrases are not synonymous.

In fact, Coke said that being in the country is enough for an alien to strong enough to make the child of an alen "a natural subject, for if he hath issue here, that issue is a natural-born subject."

Raisondete said...

@Mr. Apuzzo,

If the rule of law in the US is jus sanguinis as you say, why did the first Naturalization Act say that children born abroad to US parents were NBC. Wouldn't that be understood?

bdwilcox said...

scAmdy said: "Wong Kim Ark. Done, and done.(You should have known that, since it's cited is those cases that got anywhere near the merits, which were few and far between.)"

And those cases sited Ankeny as the basis of their ruling. And what does Ankeny say in footnote 14? Simple: "We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution’s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation’s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478."

Mario, you're having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. As far showing what a clueless hack scAmdy is, well, done, and done.

Puzo1 said...

bdwilcox,

Yes, poor Andy just continues to be wrong which is a simple product of one stating falsehoods. Lord Coke considered any alien in amity who was present in England as having a duty under the law to give to the King local and temporary allegiance. This local and temporary allegiance imposed upon the alien by the law was enough to have Lord Coke consider that alien a “subject.” As MichaelN has pointed out, Lord Coke explained in Calvin’s Case: "Concerning the local obedience, it is observable, that as there is a local protection on the King’s part, so there is a local ligeance of the subject’s part.” Notice that Lord Coke call the alien a “subject.”

Andy said...

@bdwilcox

Of course, you'll note that WKA had nothing to do with Presidential eligibility, so understanding judicial restraint, the court isn't going to delcare something it need not.

The Ankeny court was smart enough to admit that, but you're too stupid to understand why.

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

Again, here is what Ankeny said in Footnote 14: "We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution’s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation’s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478."

(1) The Court admitted that Wong Kim Ark did not hold in words that Wong was a “natural born Citizen.” But then it still forged ahead and used the decision as precedent for the notion that it changed Minor’s American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen.” This really is a fantastic feat, even just considering that Wong did not address whether Minor’s American “common-law” definition was right or wrong or if right why it needed to be expanded to include children born in the United States to alien parents.

(2) Moreover, the Ankeny court is mistaken in concluding that simply because Wong analyzed under the Fourteenth Amendment the question of whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States,” the Court gave us a new definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

First, the court begged the question. The Court relied upon Wong Kim Ark to come to its decision. Wong Kim Ark is a Fourteenth Amendment case. Ankeny assumed without analyzing the question whether the Fourteenth Amendment includes a definition of a “natural born Citizen.” This is amazing since the plain text of the Amendment speaks of a “citizen of the United States,” and not a “natural born Citizen,” the former being a class of “citizen” which Article II, Section, 1, Clause 5 expressly states was no longer eligible to be President in the future. Also, there is no evidence in the amendment’s debates which suggest that the amendment repealed or amended Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause.

Second, if the Wong Kim Ark was giving us a new definition of a “natural born Citizen,” it would have referred to Minor’s definition and told us it was expanding that definition to include children born in the United States to alien parents. The Court would then not have just held Wong to be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States,” but also a “natural born Citizen.”

Third , under the American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen,” mere birth in the country had never been sufficient to make one a “natural born Citizen.” Citizen parents had always been required as an additional factor. After all, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 says “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen.” Even Wong Kim Ark recognized the difference between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States” at birth when it said twice in its decision: “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle [born in the country].'" Wong Kim Ark, at 665-66 and 694 (citing and quoting Horace Binney, The Alienigenae of the United States Under the Present Naturalization Laws (1853).

So what Ankeny did is amend the Constitution without a constitutional amendment. Needless to say, the Ankeny decision is unconstitutional and very bad law.

MichaelN said...

Andy, It is the alien that is the "natural subject" & his child who is "natural born subject".

Andy said...

@Mario

It is you who is begging the question. You ASSUME that natural born citizenship was different before WKA, and that the court changed it.

The court found the opposite.

In fact, even the Minor decision doesn't preclude anyone from natural born citizenship. They specifically didn't discuss it.

Again, a law prescribing a death sentence for murder doesn't preclude a death sentence in other crimes.

You are logically flawed, and I would guess that's why your cases are legally flawed.

What area of law did you practice before moving to Birtherstan?

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

I see that you have hit the bottom of the barrel. You are not making any other useful comments here. Maybe you are done.

Andy said...

@Mario

I'm asking questions. Being the Constitutional Scholar you purport to be, please, explain to me how you think the Supreme Court of the United States got it wrong, and you, Mario Apuzzo, Lawyer Extraordinaire got it right?

How am I to trust your opinions unless you explain your history in law. What other "Constitutional Law" have you practiced?

You should be able to answer honestly, unless you're too ashamed to discuss your practice.

Puzo1 said...

Poor Andy, must really smart being smacked down so badly.

MichaelN said...


Andy said...."In fact, even the Minor decision doesn't preclude anyone from natural born citizenship. They specifically didn't discuss it."

So how do you account for the doubts introduced by and given merit by the Minor court, because the doubts were yet to be solved as to whether a native-born, to alien parents was a US citizen at all?

Especially in light of the court's being guided by the English common law, where native-birth alone was not sufficient to make a "subject born" and that one could be native-born and yet be alien born via "foreign allegiance"

Waiting Andy.

Andy said...

Mario says:

"Poor Andy, must really smart being smacked down so badly."

Says the guy who hasn't won a "Constitutional" case yet. In fact, the last one was labeled...um...meritless.

You are so pitiful.

(What was your practice before Constitutional law, again? Too ashamed to tell. Poor, Mario.)

MichaelN said...

Andy, It is the alien that is the "natural subject" & his child who is "natural born subject".

Waiting

MichaelN said...

Andy.
Who would fall into Lord Coke's category of "alien born", as one who was native-born via "foreign allegiance"?

Puzo1 said...

Andy,

We are not in court here. This is a blog where people can express their opinion freely. I have asked you to prove me wrong. You can't just point to the courts to do that, especially when the courts do not provide any raionale for thier opinions. You have to sink or swim on your own here. I see that you are wearing a lead bathing suit and have ended at the bottom of the ocean.

MichaelN said...

Andy.
Your smart-arse ad hominem doesn't even make first base whilst you hide like a coward behind a psuedonym

MichaelN said...

Andy.
You are not only wrong, but you are a coward to boot

MichaelN said...

Andy.
It is the alien father's allegiance that is "strong enough", not his child's

js said...

Hey Andy

How much does BHO pay you for stirring the blog up like this?

Certainly, you dont have a leg to stand on, thats why you run in circles (get it, on legged guy running in circles?).

Really, whats your support organization like? 20 or 30 half educated, braindead obots sitting on computers searching ways to confuse the issue? Or do you get this drivel directly from the kingpin himself?

js said...

If andy needed to made the case that judicial error was not error, he would be holding his butt in a basket.

Andy said...

You're right. It was a personal attack. Because Mario likes to name call.

So I take it upon myself to point out that he has no right adjudicating Constitutional cases if he can't even figure out what a citizen is given the precedents.

I'll leave you be Mario. It's just too sad to watch you flounder anymore.

Have a good life, and try to stay away from birtherism. It doesn't do you any good, and only makes you look crazier.

Puzo1 said...

Andy, Obots & Co.,

You said: "Mario likes to name call."

Here is another name for you: you are a despicable liar.

You and your Obot coterie have taken a perfectly legitimate constitutional issue regarding the meaning of an Article II "natural born Citizen" and turned it into some conspiracy theory and worst. You have branded we constitutionalists as racists, bigots, crazy, seditious, conspiracy mongers, mentally defective, and more.

You pursue your perverted an twisted plan of ridicule and intimidation all under the cover of anonymity, thereby escaping any accountability which comes to real people in their real lives.

You have gone as far as to even get Federal and state court judges to inject "Birther" ad hominem attacks in their legal opinions.

You have personally attacked me on various levels on a daily basis.

There is not one sincere bone in your body. So do not come on here acting like you are some pitiful victim, looking for forgiveness. Do not tell me that Mario likes to name call. You and your Obot friends deserve every bit that you get

jayjay said...

Puzo1:

When you observed earlier about Andy:

"I see that you are wearing a lead bathing suit and have ended at the bottom of the ocean."

That is, indeed a very valid likening to someone who is, like whale feces, the lowest thing in the world ... he's at the bottom of the ocean.

But then, many of the obotic horde are like that, too. One who comes to mind is Kevin Davidson the "pretend birth certificate expert" who spouts and encourages all sorts of trash talking on his "Dr. Conspiracy" blog. He's actually a guy who claims to have a masters in arithmetic from Auburn who seems unable to view the massive amount of evidence stacking up against his lord Obama showing him to be ineligible to hold the office he now occupies. Kevin can't even have the intellectual honesty to admit the errors of his ways but instead tries to intensify his mindless attacks abainst those who know how wrong both he and his boss really are.

Keep your day job, Kevin - and remember ... 2 + 2 = 4 (not 87). Whio knows, maybe "Andy" is merely another of the obots adopting a nom-de-guere.

cfkerchner said...

These Obots are all either communists party/cell members and front groups for communists or communist sympathizers. They are using the subversion "direct action" tactics of communist trained KGB agents. One of their tactics is to accuse others of doing what they are doing ... projection. Many of these tactics were taught by Saul Alinsky. As examples of the Obot groups communist sympathies (an some are likely covert members of the Communist Party of the USA) is the Foggy fellow wearing a red ball cap with the hammer and sickle on it. Another is the SCRIBD account which the Obots maintain to post all the so called birther court case filing. It is name "Jack Ryan". Jack Ryan was one of the founders and leaders in history of the Communist Party of America. All should read the book The Communist which is a bio of Franklin Marshall Davis, Obama's childhood communist mentor and groomer. In addition to it detailing the life of Davis, it also clearly details the deception and lies type projects the CPA and now the CPUSA engage in to push forward their goal to subvert and bring down the USA from within. Their lies and deceptions and special projects and teams is another classic example of communists in action. Here is a link to the book: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1451698097/genealogicalrese

cfkerchner said...

A Freudian slip by another covert communist ... http://www.theblaze.com/stories/president-obama-regrets-inviting-paul-jack-ryan-to-budget-speech/

The SCRIBD account maintained by an Obot named for one of their historical world leaders of the Communist Party: http://www.scribd.com/Jack%20Ryan

In 1927 CPA leader Jack Ryan was sent as a delegate from the recently established Australian Council of Trade Unions to the Pan Pacific Trade Union Secretariat conference in Hankow, and was elected to the Communist-dominated executive. http://rsp.org.au/content/towards-history-communist-party-australia-john-percy

CPUSA and/or DSA members out to subvert America with deceptions and lies is what these Obots are all about.

cfkerchner said...

PJ Foggy, aka Grumpy, proudly wearing his Stalinist show-of-support hammer & sickle red ball cap during a little strategy meeting of the Obot/commie/DSAer's cell's inner circle:
http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2011/01/exposed-meet-two-vile-obots-bill-bryan.html

cfkerchner said...

To learn more about the Communist subversive political activities in the USA and the world read the writings of Trevor Loudon of New Zealand: http://www.trevorloudon.com/

Also read and search these sites:
http://www.keywiki.org/index.php/Main_Page

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/

Subversion, lies, deception, disinformation, misinformation, and direct action projects to undermine our constitutional republic and spread Marxism/Communism worldwide ... with the USA and our military power the number 1 target.

Carlyle said...

Oh YEAH, THAT will happen!

Check out this utube.

v=FVvn5QNnAEE

In it he says he traveled all over during college. Official records seem to indicate that he only traveled ONCE, to Pakistan. Also, the details have been hidden because it is suspected he traveled with a foreign passport.

He also said, recently, at a campaign rally that he was born to a single mother. Michelle has also said that before during formal interviews. His official narrative (putatively written by himself) says his mother was married to BHO Sr. (And, if not before, it certainly did not happen later). This again casts doubt as to his actual father.

Can we trust ANYTHING this fraud says???????

Regardless of all the "conspiracy theories", "birthers", etc. etc.
It is becoming more and more apparent that:

Barrack Hussein Obama does not exist.
That Cartoon Character is totally manufactured.
And some flash-talkin' street hustler is acting that part.


Are we OK with that??????????????????

Puzo1 said...

Here is some prime writing from America’s finest intelligentsia regarding the Kansas Obma presidential election ballot inquiry. Please read this: Lawrence Downes, in “Kansas Birthers, “ at http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/14/kansas-birthers/ Now let us consider what Downes has written which I quote below and follow with my comment.

(1) “Birther alert: Kansas is considering tossing President Obama from the November ballot because it’s not sure that he’s a citizen.”

Notice Downes sets the stage by branding his article as a commentary on the “birthers.” Downes either displays his ignorance by saying that the objectors are not sure Obama is a “citizen” when the question is whether he is a “natural born Citizen” or he intentionally uses the word “citizen” rather than “natural born Citizen” to set up a straw man argument.

(2) “[S]o the State Objections Board, controlled by Republicans, is duly looking into it.”

Of course, Downes has to make sure that the reader realizes that the board is contolled by Republicans. Therefore anything that the Board does or says against Obama is not legitimate. Too bad that Downes has not reported on the political makeup of boards, agencies, and courts who have so far decided in favor of Obama.

(3) “Mr. Kobach is the man who wrote several states’ show-me-your-papers immigration laws. Now he wants to see the president’s papers.”

Downes clearly displays his contempt for our immigration laws. Really, is there anything wrong with a nation asking aliens who want to enter or stay in it to show his or her papers when necessary for immigration and national security purposes?

(4) “The board has asked the authorities in Honolulu, Arizona and Mississippi for documentation to help settle the question of whether Mr. Obama is a “natural born” citizen, since his father was Kenyan and, in the view of some conspiracy theorists, the Constitution’s definition of “natural born” means having two citizen parents.”

Notice how Downes converts the matter of the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” into one involving a conspiracy theory. According to Downes, maintaining that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to parents who were “citizen” of the country is a conspiracy theory. Now, that is some amazing statement from a member of the intelligentsia given that our own unanimous U.S. Supreme Court said exactly that in Minor v. Happersett (1875). I would really love Downes to show us how a constitutional question regarding the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a conspiracy theory.

So, there you have it, an editorial appearing in what is touted as one of our nations top “smart” newspapers. If that is intelligent, I hate to see what is stupid.

MichaelN said...

Waiting Andy.

MichaelN said...

Looks like Andy has done a runner too, just like his fellow traitors.
As soon as one presents the truth to them, and they are put on the spot to defend their flawed arguments, they scurry away like cockroaches from light.

MichaelN said...

Maybe John Woodman, Ballantine, NBC, RealityCheck, Linda, Andy, et al, would explain where in 17th century English common law it was held that native-birth alone was sufficient to make an English NBS?

Given that English common law held that a native-born could be "alien born" via "foreign allegiance".

Waiting ........crickets chirping.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

At the hearing in Kansas:

Montgomery argued Thursday that to be eligible for president, both of Obama's parents had to be U.S. citizens when he was born, another long-circulating claim that includes citations of U.S. Supreme Court decisions, some more than a century old.

Schmidt and Kobach disagreed. Kobach said Montgomery was "trying to read too much in these very old decisions.

http://www.themercury.com/News/article.aspx?articleId=76a0973a91374c64952f64353eef8275

SoS Kris Kobach a conservative Republican is also a law professor.

Puzo1 said...

4zoltan,

"Schmidt and Kobach disagreed. Kobach said Montgomery was 'trying to read too much in these very old decisions.'"

First, so I guess that these board members are saying that Montgomery's position is wrong because the cases that he relies upon are "very old decisions." This really is a joke of a statement. It becomes even more of a joke of a statement given that Obama's supporters contend that the cases of Calvin's Case decided in 1608 and Wong Kim Ark decided in 1898 proves that he is a "natural born Citizen" and therefore eligible to be President. I guess if it 1875 its too old, but if it is 1608 and 1898 it is fine.

Second, we constitutionalists are just as capable as Schmidt and Kobach to read these "very old decisions." We do not agree with them.

MichaelN said...

"Schmidt and Kobach disagreed. Kobach said Montgomery was "trying to read too much in these very old decisions."

4zoltan.

So you would therefore agree that the US Constitution revisionists (by stealth) are"trying to read too much into" the "very old decsion" of the WKA case?

Carlyle said...

'Old decisions' or no - do they have at-hand what New Decisions have overturned the old ones?

You can't just declare the Old Decisions invalid because they are too old, and then just leave the issue hanging and the terms undefined.

You can't have the terms mean what you want, willy nilly, just because the requirement is too old.

Is this what passes as serious jurisprudence these days?

Puzo1 said...

nbc has a new article at his blog entitled, Mario v. Fuller. Here are two comments that I left for him there:

(1) There is no indication either in the text or legislative history of the Fourteenth Amendment that it repealed or amended the “natural born Citizen” clause which Minor v. Happersett (1875) informed was defined under “common-law” and not the Fourteenth Amendment. I have shown that this “common-law” could not have been based on the English common law, but rather was based on the law of nations. Congress when drafting the Fourteenth Amendment was well aware of the distinction between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States,” yet chose to call children born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” “citizens of the United States” and not “natural born Citizens.” Surely, if Congress meant through the Fourteenth Amendment to bestow “natural born Citizen” status upon those born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” it would have known how to do so like our First Congress did in the Naturalization Act of 1790. Congress could have with affirmative language easily separated out persons who become “citizens of the United States” after birth from persons who become “citizens of the United States” at birth, calling the latter “natural born Citizens” and the former “citizens of the United States.” It is telling that it did not make that dichotomy in the amendment. Hence, Congress did not intend nor did it grant the status of “natural born Citizen” to children who were born in the United States to parents who were not “citizens of the United States,” but who were nevertheless born “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Rather, like the Third Congress, it only sought to grant the status of “citizen of the United States” which was the same status that person who naturalized after birth had.

So, the Fourteenth Amendment only addresses the class of “citizens” called “citizens of the United States.” The amendment treats “citizens” who become so under the amendment by either birth or naturalization in the United States as “citizens of the United States.” There is no mention in the amendment of a “natural born Citizen.” Since there is no mention of a “natural born Citizen” in the amendment like there is mention in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, we simply cannot say that the amendment defines a “natural born Citizen,” which Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 confirms is a separate and distinct class.

Wong Kim Ark, holding that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth is completely consistent with this reading of the Fourteenth Amendment.

(2) Too bad for you that your theory that the Founders and Framers defined an Article II “natural born Citizen” under the English common law rather than under the law of nations which became our national law and American “common-law” (Minor v. Happersett) does not square with the changes brought to America by the American Revolution, the text of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the purpose of the “natural born Citizen” clause, the American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen,” the early naturalization acts of Congress (1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855) and current Congressional Acts, the text and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, and a correct reading of Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

Puzo1 said...

“Arker” defined:

A person who maintains that U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) held that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth and an Article II “natural born Citizen” rather than that it only held him to be a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth and no more.

Puzo1 said...

Current Travel Warnings

Travel Warnings are issued when long-term, protracted conditions that make a country dangerous or unstable lead the State Department to recommend that Americans avoid or consider the risk of travel to that country. A Travel Warning is also issued when the U.S. Government's ability to assist American citizens is constrained due to the closure of an embassy or consulate or because of a drawdown of its staff. The countries listed below meet those criteria.

Sudan 09/15/2012
Tunisia 09/15/2012
Algeria 09/13/2012
Libya 09/12/2012
Korea, Democratic People's Republic of 09/11/2012
Republic of South Sudan 09/10/2012
Guinea 09/07/2012
Mali 08/29/2012
Syria 08/28/2012
Pakistan 08/27/2012
Israel, the West Bank and Gaza 08/10/2012
Iraq 08/09/2012
Congo, Democratic Republic of the 08/02/2012
Central African Republic 07/11/2012
Kenya 07/05/2012
Afghanistan 06/27/2012
Nigeria 06/21/2012
Haiti 06/18/2012
Somalia 06/15/2012
Philippines 06/14/2012
Mauritania 05/24/2012
Saudi Arabia 05/18/2012
Lebanon 05/08/2012
Iran 04/27/2012
Cote d'Ivoire 04/23/2012
Burundi 04/18/2012
Eritrea 04/18/2012
Mali 04/09/2012
Niger 04/06/2012
Chad 03/29/2012
Yemen 03/27/2012
Colombia 02/21/2012
Mexico 02/08/2012


http://travel.state.gov/travel/cis_pa_tw/tw/tw_1764.html

Puzo1 said...

nbc continues at Mario v. Fuller: “Citizen of the US includes ones born on soil (aka natural-born) and naturalized on soil.”

Poor nbc, he limits the definition of a “natural born Citizen” to being “born on soil.” He does not know that our early Congresses in the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens themselves. Our early Congresses contained many Founders and Framers and they would have known how a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States” were defined. Of the seventy-nine members of the First Congress, twenty had been delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Jill A. Pryor, Note, The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty, 97 Yale L.J. 881, 894, n.75 (1988). So, it looks like nbc is simply wrong to say that those children were “natural born Citizens.” Children who were not even “citizens of the United States” surely could not be “natural born Citizens.”

thalightguy said...

Mario said, "...So, it looks like nbc is simply wrong to say that those children were “natural born Citizens.” Children who were not even “citizens of the United States” surely could not be “natural born Citizens.” "

If only the Arkers undestood logic and the principles of deductive reasoning.

James said...

Mario,

Orly Taitz is apparently going to Kansas tomorrow to intercept the hearing. I suppose you could go too even on a short notice. Larry Klayman should also go too and between the 3 of you convince that board that Obama is NOT an NBC.

js said...

poor orly...undercut again...

plaintiff withdrew because of death threats...

cfkerchner said...

Update 18 Sep 2012 3:45 p.m. ET: A KS official replied to one of my emails to the election board members (one of whom is the state AG) and said they decided that they lacked jurisdiction to continue the investigation into Obama’s true legal ID and ID fraud and candidate Obama’s eligibility. The Kansas officials like many others before them hid their heads in the sand of various legal technicalities and then acted against their prime directive of government and the rule of law, their solemn sworn oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution, on the very birth day of the Constitution – 17 September.

Constitution Day – 17 Sep 2012: A Lesson from History. Is Being a Born Citizen of the United States of Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of Our Military? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided … It Was Not!
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/constitution-day-2012-a-lesson-from-history-is-being-a-born-citizen-of-the-united-states-sufficient-citizenship-status-to-be-president-the-founders-and-framers-emphatically-decided-it-was-not-by/

These officials put party political power, and likely back channel directives and instructions from national party Repub Party officials and senior members of the cowardly U.S. Congress, ahead of their sworn and solemn oath and duty to the U.S. Constitution. Their oath to the Constitution and its legal primacy and duty to it, and Obama using fraudulent ID docs in the state of KS to raise money for his campaign, gave them (especially the AG) all the “legal nexus” between Obama and KS and the jurisdiction they needed, if they wished to exercise it. If they looked at the evidence they would find numerous ID fraud laws in KS that Obama is violating. They choose not to look at the evidence in any serious way. They looked for an escape hatch and excuse to bail out on the challenges to Obama’s true legal ID. They chose not to act to protect the citizens of KS and to keep their blinders to the truth on, and give Obama another pass in their state and to allow Obama to continue to destroy our Constitutional Republic and the rule of law. CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)

MichaelN said...

Hey NBC.

Can you show where it was held in 17th century English common law, that native-birth alone sufficed to make an English "natural born subject"?

Oh, and what do you make of this, where the 17th century English common law held that a child could be native-born, yet an "alien-born", due to being born under "foreign allegiance", and "not born under the ligeance of a subject"?

Do you suppose the founding fathers and framers were familiar with these English common law principles?

MichaelN said...

Love this post of Mario's.

Smacking down nbc and Ballantine at their hide-behind-a-nick, pack-attack, self-aggrandizing, deceit pit.

http://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/the-apuzzo-files/mario-v-fuller/
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. says : September 18, 2012 at 00:42

"nbc,

In answering my question as to why the Third Congress removed “natural born citizen” and replaced it with “citizen of the United States,” you said: “Because the naturalization statute can only make a citizen of the US not a natural born citizen.”

So, when Congress realized it needed to convey that the person was naturalized and not “natural born,” it removed the status of “natural born citizen” and replaced it with “citizen of the United States.”

And since it was only a naturalization statute, a “citizen of the United States” surely could not include a “natural born Citizen,” for if that were the case it would have served no purpose for Congress to change the language from “natural born citizen” to “citizen of the United States.”

So, when Congress wanted to show that a child born out of the United States was not a “natural born Citizen,” it called the child a “citizen of the United States.”

Now let’s fast forward to the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment which apply to children born in the United States.

Even though these children were born in the United States, Congress also used the clause “citizen of the United States” in these laws.

It did not use “natural born Citizen.”

Let us remember that you say that the “natural born Citizens” are included within the “citizens of the United States.”

Why would Congress use just “citizen of the United States” in these laws when it could also have used “natural born Citizen” to distinguish between who of the “citizens of the United States” were “natural born Citizens” and who were “citizens of the United States?”

After all, as you concede, when the Third Congress wanted to convey that someone was naturalized, it called him or her a “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born Citizen.”

Without Congress telling us who are the “natural born Citizens” like it did in the 1790 law and who are just the “citizens of the United States” like it did in the 1795 Act, how are we to know when Congress said “citizen of the United States” in the Civil Rights Act and in the Fourteenth Amendment who among them is a “natural born Citizen” and who is just a “citizen of the United States?”

Did Congress actually expect us to use some other law to understand what it wrote in these laws?

Why would Congress write laws that are not self-defining and need some other law to be understand?

Why did Congress since the 1790 Naturalization Act never again use the clause “natural born Citizen” in any of its laws, including the Fourteenth Amendment?"

Anonymous said...

Mr Apuzzo,

Kansas Secretary of State Kobach said this,

“...that the birth certificate on record with the state of Hawaii matches the birth certificate that is on the White House website, so I have no doubt.”

http://www.ksnt.com/mediacenter/local.aspx?videoid=3759150

"That for me settles the issue,” he said. “It says that he meets the natural born citizen qualification.”

http://www.kansas.com/2012/09/17/2492998/kansas-expects-to-end-challenge.html#storylink=cpy

Do you ever feel like you are swimming upstream?

Puzo1 said...

4zoltan,

That A=B does not make B true.

Also, SOS Kobach is clueless on the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

So I am not swimming upstream. But I am swimming in the wrong pond.


Robert said...

Re:
{Kansas Secretary of State Kobach said this,

“...that the birth certificate on record with the state of Hawaii matches the birth certificate that is on the White House website, so I have no doubt.” }

Since the birth certificate on the White House website has been confirmed by numerous qualified and independent sources to be an amateur forgery, this must mean that the documents on file in Hawaii, if any really exist, are also forgeries. The document on the website is the only one that has ever been examined.

Neither Mr. Obama or Hawaii has ever presented any original documentation of Mr. Obama's birth. To date they have only offered unsubstantiated hearsay and, thanks to Miss Tickly I believe, a lot of information from the HDOH that confirms that what they have on file in Hawaii is not sufficient to establish Mr. Obama as a citizen of the United States.

In simple legal terms hasn't the rule always been if it wasn't documented and/or witnessed, it doesn't exist?

For those wishing to continue in the defense of Mr. Obama's obvious fraud, please let me know under what other legal circumstances is one allowed to merely claim the existence of a document without producing it or any witnesses?

You know, I'm sure I had the winning Power Ball lottery tickets in my pocket just a minute ago. No problem, I'll just tell them I'm Barack Obama and they'll take my word for it.

It's time to cut the nonsense and act like grown ups. If Hawaii and/or Obama can't or won't produce actual original documents of a Hawaiian birth to two citizen parents we must recognize the testimony of the only reliable witness to his birth, his Kenyan grandmother, who said she attended his birth in Kenya.

bdwilcox said...

"...that the birth certificate on record with the state of Hawaii matches the birth certificate that is on the White House website, so I have no doubt."

Kobach read a note from Hawaii that said Obama’s birth certificate is the real deal. And he explained that Montgomery had withdrawn and that the board didn’t have jurisdiction to rule on the issue.

"He said Kansas now has information from the Hawaii Department of Health certifying that Obama’s birth certificate posted on the White House website is the same as what’s logged in Hawaii."

Anyone have a copy of what Hawaii sent him? It obviously wasn't a copy of the BC; that would make too much sense. But I'd love to hear what garbage he received from Hawaii and its doctored wording.

And, yes, Mario, it feels like we're swimming upstream...just in a river of bulls***.

MichaelN said...

4zoltan.

Do you ever feel that you are sinking, when you fire a torpedo, it turns around and blows a hole in your already leaking hull?

MichaelIsGreat said...

Hello Mr. Apuzzo,

First, thank you for your commitment to defend the Constitution of the USA with all your heart and will.

Now, it is my hope that your case will see a decision before the Presidential election day?!!!

And keep fighting and never give up until the crook who is at the White House, the closet Muslim Barack Hussein Obama, this crook is booted out of the White House ASAP, as he has already bankrupted the USA at the rate of $5 TRILLION of deficit since he took office!!!

thalightguy said...

Mario said, "4zoltan,

That A=B does not make B true.

Also, SOS Kobach is clueless on the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

So I am not swimming upstream. But I am swimming in the wrong pond. "


Mario,

It is not we, who are swimming in the wrong pond; we are swimming in the correct pond, the Constitutional pond.

It is they, who are swimming in the wrong pond; the pond of tyranny, it is covered in scum and it’s full of deceit and half truths.

Puzo1 said...

thatlightguy,

Well said. I think you and I are saying the same thing.

Anonymous said...

Bdwilcox

"Anyone have a copy of what Hawaii sent him? It obviously wasn't a copy of the BC; that would make too much sense. But I'd love to hear what garbage he received from Hawaii and its doctored wording."

Whatever he received is in the record and should be available. Contact the Kansas SoS office and they can probably tell you how to get a transcript of the hearing and a copy of the record. Also what it will cost.

Hawaii Revised Statutes §338-14.3(b) a "verification shall be considered for all purposes certification that the vital event did occur and that the facts of the event are as stated by the applicant."

So Hawaii may have sent him another verfication. Per Hawaii law those verifications are certifications for all purposes that the vital event (birth in Hawaii) occurred and that the facts of the event (listed on the whitehouse lfbc) are as stated by the appilcants (Sos Bennett, MDEC, SoS Kobach).

From Secretary of States Kobach's point of view, he may be required to accept the verification. As the "full faith and credit" clause of the US Constitution would come into play.

Puzo1 said...

4zoltan,

Full Faith and Credit of Article IV, Section 1 sounds convincing. But we also have a national security policy expressed in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 that anyone wanting to be President must be a “natural born Citizen.” Hence, we do not just go about blindly accepting full faith and credit without analyzing the case to make sure it is properly being applied.

During litigation, full faith and credit is not given by a nation or even the public. Rather, it is given by the court in which the matter is pending. Hence, full faith and credit to Obama’s alleged birth certificate is not given through the internet or even in the media. Rather, his alleged birth certificate needs to be proved and admitted as evidence in a court of competent jurisdiction. Such having been done, the court, after being satisfied that the proper procedure has been followed to give a public act or record full faith and credit, would give the birth certificate full faith and credit and subsequent courts would also give that court’s judgment res judicata effect (already decided and not to be litigated again).

You will note that Obama has not presented any birth certificate to one court to any Secretary fo State concerning the eligibility dispute, to be proved and admitted into evidence under the full faith and credit clause and the applicable procedure. He has had every opportunity to do so, but has not taken it. Also, there is not one court that has heard and granted any argument that the matter of Obama’s birth certificate is res judicata.

So, while your full faith and credit argument sounds nice, I have not seen Obama use any of it in one court yet. What is suspect is that in order to invoke the full faith and credit clause, Obama would have to present a valid birth certificate to the court. He has chosen not to do that, but rather has allowed over 100 cases to be filed against him regarding, among various issues, that very birth certificate.

MichaelN said...

@ 4zoltan

You said (cut 'n' pasted?)...

"It was resolved back in 1787.

The term "natural born Citizen" was derived from the English legal term "natural born subject". In English law anyone born in the realm was a natural born subject. This is the law that the Founders and Framers grow up with. Many of the Founders and Framers were lawyers trained in English law. The State of Massachusetts used both terms NBC and NBS interchangeably from the 1780s to the 1790s. Nowhere do the Framers tell us that they were changing the meaning of the term 'natural born".

Wiliam Rawle a prominent Philadelphia lawyer (he founded Rawle and Henderson the oldest continous law firm in the US) describes the meaning of the term natural born:

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. “ 1826, A View of the Constitution of the United States

So both Senator Rubio and Governor Jindal are eligible to be President."

4zoltan.

On this blog and in this thread, you have been shown that an alien-born may be one born of foreign allegiance.

You have been shown that when an alien-born father is not a "subject" then his child, even though native-born in England, cannot be an English "subject", because the child was not born "under the ligeance of a subject".

Now, YOU show precisely where in 17th century English common law it was held that native-birth alone sufficed to make an English "natural born subject".

Anonymous said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

“By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.” Chief Justice Cockburn in Nationality, 1869

MichaelN said...

4zoltan relies on and quoted.....

"Wiliam Rawle a prominent Philadelphia lawyer (he founded Rawle and Henderson the oldest continous law firm in the US) describes the meaning of the term natural born:

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."

Reply:

4zoltan you have been mis-informed.

If you bothered to do your own research, rather than rely on erroneous opinion, you will find that NO WHERE in 17th century English common law is it held that native-birth alone sufficed to make an English "natural born subject".

That is, if the father was not a subject, then his child, although native-born, could not be a subject, because the child was alien-born of foreign allegiance and not born under the ligeance of a subject.

According to Lord Coke per Calvin's case, the English common law is quite clear on this.

Now if you believe otherwise, then kindly show precisely where in the 17th century English common law where you would base your belief.

Maybe you can get one of your "experts" to do this, like, John Woodman, Nbc, Ballantine, RealityCheck, etc, so far, they all run and hide when confronted with this "simple" task.

Just pointing to someone else who "said so" doesn't cut it, it's a cop-out, so from the horses mouth (ECL) show me!

Waiting!

Puzo1 said...

4zoltan,

You point out that:

“By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.” Chief Justice Cockburn in Nationality, 1869.

Since you seem to be knowledgeable on the English common law and its alleged application by the Founders and Framers to matters of United States national citizenship, maybe you can answer for me four questions:

1. Why the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875), when defining a "natural-born citizen" (i.e., a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth) did not cite or quote the English common law as you have presented.

2. If the English common law was as you have presented it and if as you also contend it was "settled" that we adopted that English common law to define our national citizenship, why the Minor unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in 1875, apart from providing a definition of a "natural born citizen" which was consistent with the law of nation's definition of that clause as found in Section 212 of Emer de Vattel’s The Law of Nations (1758) and not with the English common law's definition of a "natural born subject" as provided by William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:354, 357-58, 361-62 (1765), also said that, while "some authorities" maintained that a child "born within the jurisdiction" to alien parents was a "citizen," "there have been doubts" whether their position was correct.

3. Why did U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), when holding that a child born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents was a “citizen of the United States” at birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, cited and quoted Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” and did not disturb that definition in order to hold that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.

4. Why did U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1875), when holding that a child born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents was a “citizen of the United States” at birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, require that the child’s alien parents had to be domiciled and residing in the United States and by so holding rejected the English common law’s rule that it did not matter “whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning in the country.”

Your complete answers to these questions will go far in shedding light to the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” Hence, please do provide them and do not evade them.


MichaelN said...

4zoltan relies on and quoted ...

"By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality." Chief Justice Cockburn in Nationality, 1869

Partly true, but omits to mention that the "foreign parents", "whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning in the country" were "subjects" per "local ligeance", and only because they were subjects, their native-born child could be an English "natural born subject".

Without the father being a "subject", the child cannot be a "subject", even if native-born.

In such a case, the child, whilst native-born, was "alien-born" and no "subject", due to "foreign allegiance".

There was NOTHING in 17th century English common law, that held for native-birth alone to make an English "natural born subject".

Mick said...


Florida Ballot Challenge of Obama's name on the Florida General Election ballot filed yesterday. Spread it!!

http://www.scribd.com/doc/106514978/Voeltz-Appellate-Brief

Mick said...

It doesn't matter what the common law of England says. Perpetual allegiance and British Common Law citizenship ended in America on 7/4/1776, and at the Treaty of Peace in the eyes of England. At that point Right of Election, and law of nations was the law of the US.

See Inglis v. Trustees of Sailors Snug Harbor (1830), pg. 122

British doctrine therefore is that the American ante nati, by remaining in America after the treaty of peace, lost their character of British subjects. And our doctrine is that by withdrawing from this country and adhering to the British government, they lost, or, perhaps more properly speaking, never acquired the character of American citizens.

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. 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.

"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)

cfkerchner said...

It is good to review at times what we've learned over the last four+ years. Here is one example: BLOCKBUSTER REVELATION! (revisited) - MINI Documentary - Illegal Obama "Propped Up" By Congress! - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3aCfR8rmrw

and also read
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html


CDR Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org/

Puzo1 said...

What is amazing is that Barack Obama would deface the United States flag by removing the 50 states and replacing them with his own image.

MichaelN said...

Mick said...

"It doesn't matter what the common law of England says...."

Mick, the revisionists say that the 17th century English common law (ECL) did matter and that the founding fathers and framers were strongly influenced by the ECL when it came to the principles governing US citizenship.

But what the commentators an opinionated authorities, cited by the revisionists on the matter, have said is not an accurate account of the 17th century ECL rule.

Sure an alien-born visitor can produce a native-born in England, that may be an English NBS, but ONLY when the alien-born father is a "subject" by local allegiance.

Let's say that the framers were strongly influenced and guided by the 17th century ECL.

Then where in the 27th century ECL would the framers find that native-birth alone sufficed to make a NBS?

The answer is, nowhere.

The whining and moaning by the revisionists, that the framers relied on 17th century ECL as the source for native-birth alone, as sufficient to make a US NBC, turns around to bite them on the arse.

It didn't exist in 17th century ECL at all, it never did.

It was the allegiance of the father that was paramount as to who could be an English NBS.

Given the serious issues of allegiance surrounding the framing period, and given also that the framers were so familiar with the 17th century ECL, which held that to be an English NBS one had to be "born under the ligeance of a subject", then a US "natural born Citizen" would need to be one who was born "under the ligeance" of a US citizen.

MichaelN said...

Further to my previous post ....

Add to that, the profound influence of Vattel et al, on the founding Fathers and Framers, the 14th Amendment's absense of any mention of NBC, the Minor court's opinion and holding, and the WKA decision, then you have a recipe for USC Article II "natural born Citizen" that can ONLY have been intended to mean one born in US of US citizen parents.

I do think that it must be acknowledged that the ECL did have some influence on the Framers.

Texoma said...

I have a question for Mario or any of his regular contributors.

We know that aliens were foreign citizens who took up permanent residence in England, but owed a local allegiance to the English King. This allegiance was sufficient to make a natural born subject of the child born in England to these alien subjects.

But there were also foreign citizens in England who had no intention of integrating into or becoming part of English society. They were living in England, but did not wish to become part of England. These were foreigners, and they included members of foreign-controlled religious orders, ambassadors from foreign countries, members of foreign royalty, and foreign merchants briefly visiting England solely for trade or business. Foreigners did not owe allegiance to the English king, and a child born to a foreigner in England was an alien and not a natural born subject.

Now, to my question. First, let me set this up. In the 18th century, we have a person from France, who enrolls at Oxford University in England, without any intention of integrating into or becoming part of English society, and with the sole purpose of acquiring a college degree (his “business” in England) and then returning to France. Now, while in school at Oxford, he meets and marries an English girl, and she then has a child in England.

So, here is the question: Would this Frenchman be considered an alien subject or a foreigner? If he was considered to be a foreigner, then this child born to him in England would be an alien and not a natural born subject.

If we substitute the Frenchman above with Obama Senior, then an Obama Junior, born in England to a foreigner (married to an English woman), would not be a natural born subject, but an alien at birth.

So, if Obama Senior, as a foreign student in England, would have been considered to be a foreigner, then by English common law, his England-born child would be an alien and not a natural born subject. Hence, for those who equate natural born subject with natural born citizen, by English common law alone, a child born in the U.S. to a foreign student would be an alien and not a natural born citizen.

Now, due to the current interpretation of the 14th amendment, such a child would be a U.S. citizen at birth. But the point is that the child would not be a natural born citizen per English common law if the father was considered to be a foreigner.

Anyone want to opine on this?

Puzo1 said...

Texoma,

“By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled, or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject; save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.” Chief Justice Cockburn in Nationality, 1869. William Blackstone put forth basically the same English common law rule.

The Frenchman, an alien in amity, even if in England just to study, even if not settled there, and only there only on a temporary basis, under English common law was considered to have local and temporary allegiance to the King and therefore an English “subject” which made the child he and his English wife gave birth to in England a “natural born subject.”

Of course, we did not adopt the same rule in the United States regarding how we treated aliens here. Aliens in the United States were neither treated as nor did they become U.S. “citizens” until they naturalized under an Act of Congress to become a “citizen of the United States.”

Just for this reason alone, and there are many more, the Founders and Framers did not use the English common law and its “natural born subject” to define an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 602   Newer› Newest»