Barack Obama: The De Facto President of the United States-Maybe a Born Citizen But Not A "Natural Born Citizen"

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Barack Obama: The De Facto President of the United States-Maybe a Born Citizen But Not A "Natural Born Citizen"

           Barack Obama: The De Facto President of the United States-
              Maybe a Born Citizen But Not A “Natural Born Citizen”

                                         By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                               January 21, 2013

The U.S. Constitution

Barack Obama eligibility supporters maintain that he is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible to be President. But to do so, they have blended together, through ignorance or intent, “citizen,” “born citizen,” and “natural born Citizen,” and denied that there is a critical constitutional distinction between these phrases. These supporters and enablers, who I call the citizen/born citizen/natural born citizen conflationists, in constitutionally supporting Barack Obama to be president, have allowed our Constitution, the rule of law, and our nation to be violated. Allow me to explain.

In order to understand the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” we have to understand the constitutional distinction between a “citizen,” “born citizen,” and “natural born Citizen.” The first constitutional distinction is between “citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” In Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 the Framers provided in pertinent part: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Here, we see the Framers distinguished between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.” There is no other type of “citizen” mentioned. So, our Constitution, Acts of Congress, and treaties, call “citizens,” or members of the United States, either “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States.” As we shall see, the former are defined by American common law (the definition being based on natural law and the law of nations) and the latter by the Fourteenth Amendment (the definition being in part based on colonial English common law), Congressional Acts, or treaties. From this we can see that a “citizen” is either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States.” Because of the requirement of having to be born in the country to citizen parents, a “natural born Citizen” will necessarily also qualify under these sources as a “citizen of the United States.”

Article II refers to a “natural born Citizen,” but does not define it. In fact, the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is not found anywhere in the original or amended Constitution or any Act of Congress. Rather, it is found in the common law upon which the Founders and Framers relied at the time of the adoption and ratification of the Constitution. Under this common law, the three constituent elements of being a “natural-born citizen” are time (at the moment of birth), birth place (in the country), and birth parents (U.S. citizen parents), what I will call birth time, birth country, and birth parents. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court explained that the definition of a “natural-born citizen” is not found in the Constitution and confirmed that “[a]t common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners”); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898) (the majority and dissent agreed on the Minor definition of a “natural-born citizen,” but they disagreed as to the definition of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth). Given this settled common law definition of a “natural born Citizen,” these elements are both necessary and sufficient to make a “natural born Citizen.” In the definition, the parents have to have as a minimum the status of a “citizen” (“born citizen” or “natural born Citizen” is not necessary) in order to produce a “natural born Citizen.” Note that Minor said that at common law, if one was not a “natural-born citizen,” one was an alien or foreigner. This means that if these persons qualified, the Fourteenth Amendment, Act of Congress, or treaty could make them a “citizen of the United States.”

These historical and legal developments inform that at common law there is a critical distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen.” In fact, natural law and the law of nations have always recognized this distinction. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (“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.” http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm ). At common law, if one was a “citizen” but not a “natural born citizen,” then, except for the original “citizens” who became such by the Declaration of Independence and by adhering to the American Revolution, one had to have been alien born and become a “citizen” by naturalization statute. Natural law and the law of nations, along with both English and American common law, have also always recognized that a child gains allegiance and citizenship by either being born on the soil of a country (jus soli) or by being born to parents of that country (jus sanguinis). The Founders and Framers accepted the distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen” and understood that birth country and birth parents produce in the child allegiance from the moment of birth. Because they expected the President and Commander in Chief of the Military to have absolute allegiance from birth only to the United States, they applied the distinction to the Office of President. In fact, they used it when they made the “natural born Citizen” clause a requirement of eligibility for the Office of President (the XII Amendment extends it to the Office of Vice-President) and for no other office, requiring, for those to born after the adoption of the Constitution and who would aspire to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military, that they be not only a “citizen,” but a “natural born Citizen.” (The grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 allowed “Citizens of the United States” to be eligible to be President, provided they had that status “at the time of Adoption of this Constitution.”) The English did not nor did they have to demand such allegiance from their would-be Kings, for their Kings did not have to qualify from among the people. Rather, they lay their claim to the throne by royal blood. Rejecting as a requisite to be President royal blood, the Founders and Framers instead settled with the natural elements of birth time, birth country, and birth parents, and made their distinction between a “citizen” who was also a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen” who was not. And it was the combination of these three elements at the time of birth which assured them that all means of inheriting allegiance and citizenship (birth country and birth parents) were united at the moment of birth to produce in the child absolute allegiance only to the United States.

The next constitutional distinction is between “born citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” These same Obama eligibility supporters add the word “born” to the word “citizen” and want us to accept that combination as the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” But those who assert that a “natural born Citizen” is just any “born citizen” commit two errors: a textual error of missing the point (or by refusing to see the point) that the clause is “natural born Citizen,” not “born citizen” and a definitional error of not understanding (or refusing to accept) that “born citizen” is neither a definition nor a description of the clause “natural born Citizen.”

First, regarding the textual error, as I have already explained in other articles such as Logic and Defining the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause, at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/11/logic-and-defining-natural-born-citizen.html , we cannot define a clause by merely repeating parts of the clause itself. For example, if we wanted to know what the definition of a “natural born German Shepherd” is, we would not accept as a correct definition the answer that it is a “born German Shepherd.” To argue that a “natural born German Shepherd” is a “born German Shepherd” is tautological, for it only repeats part of the form of the clause and does not define the clause. Such an argument does nothing more than to state the obvious that a “natural born German Shepherd” is a “born German Shepherd.” Likewise, a “natural born Citizen,” is, of course, a “born citizen,” but saying so does not define the clause.

Second, in this “born German Shepherd” definition example, a rational person should also want to know what happened to the qualifier “natural” and its meaning. Does not that word tell us something about under what conditions the “born German shepherd” must come into existence? Likewise, those rational persons who want to know the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” should want to know what happened to the qualifier “natural,” and whether that qualifier also requires that certain conditions be met in order to have a “natural born Citizen.” Actually, these persons would be correct in raising such questions. Given the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” with its three constituent elements of birth time, birth country, and birth parents, we know that the word “natural” when combined with “born citizen” demands that all three elements be satisfied in order to have a “natural born Citizen.” We might be willing to include others as “born citizens” and Congress has the naturalization powers to do so and has done so throughout our history. But that we are willing to tolerate by the application of some law certain persons as “born citizens” does not, given the applicable common law definition of the clause and its requirements, make them “natural born Citizens”

Regarding the definitional error, the clauses “natural born Citizen” and “born Citizen” are conclusions, birth statuses that do not provide sufficient factual information as to how one arrives at the conclusions or statuses themselves. Rather, to know if one satisfies the status of being a “natural born Citizen,” one must start with the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” identifying its constituent elements. If one satisfies those elements, then one is a “natural born Citizen.” And to know if one satisfies the status of being a “born citizen,” one must also start with the available definitions, however many there are and whether provided by the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Acts, of a “born citizen,” identifying their constituent elements. If one satisfies those elements, then one is a “born citizen.” But obviously, we are defining two different clauses which necessarily contain different definitions and requirements. The clause does not tell us how one arrives at being a “born citizen,” which process must be equivalent to the process by which one arrives at being a “natural born Citizen” if the two clauses are to mean the same thing. Hence, to simply use other legal mechanisms of citizenship which produce a “born citizen” and proclaim that they too produce a “natural born Citizen,” simply because they, like “natural born Citizens,” are “born citizens,” is to err. It is to err because being a “born citizen” is only a necessary consequent (a conclusion or status) of being a “natural born Citizen” and by itself, because it is based on a different definition, represents a different class of citizen, one produced by the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act and not by American common law.

There is only one process or means by which one can be a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., by satisfying the necessary and sufficient conditions of birth time (at the moment of birth), birth country (born in the United States), and birth parents (born to U.S. citizen parents). Simply stated, any “born citizen” who does not satisfy these three conditions, while still being a “born citizen” under some legal mechanism (e.g., under the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act), is not a “natural born Citizen” under American common law which is the natural law/law of nations-based law that provides the constitutional definition of the clause.

Minor v. Happersett confirms all this and United States v. Wong Kim Ark changes none of it.

Barack Obama maintains that he was born in Hawaii. With a dispute involving whether his birth certificate, social security number, and military draft registration are authentic still continuing and not having been definitively resolved through any legal process, we have yet to see conclusive legal proof of his place of birth. But even assuming for sake of argument that he was born in Hawaii, he is still not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” We have seen that the three elements of being a “natural born Citizen” are birth time, birth country, and birth parents. Minor; Wong Kim Ark. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he satisfies the birth country requirement. But while Obama was born to a U.S. “citizen” mother, his father never became nor did he strive to become a U.S. “citizen.” Rather, his father was born in the English colony of Kenya, was born a British citizen, and remained such until his death. Hence, Obama was not born to a U.S. “citizen” father. He therefore fails to satisfy the elements of being born to citizen parents at the moment of birth. This means that he can be a “born citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act, which provide a more relaxed allegiance standard , but he cannot be a “natural born Citizen” under Article II, which provides a more exacting allegiance standard for would-be Presidents and Commanders of the Military. This also means that because he is neither “a natural born Citizen” nor “a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” he is not eligible to be President.

On January 20, 2013, Barack Obama was again sworn in as the President of the United States. But because he is not an Article II “natural born Citizen,” he is at best a de facto President of the United States, not a constitutionally legitimate one.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 21, 2013
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Copyright © 2013
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

450 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 450 Newer› Newest»

Unknown said...: actually michael, whoever the commmunist-demshevik party bosses nominates is automatically eligible whether he actually is or not. I think they said that in florida ballot challenge. Barry was not elected but selected, esp in 2008 dem caucuses.; February 2, 2013 at 1:58 AM
Unknown said...: "Wong Kim Ark was found to be a citizen of the United States under the 14th Amendment, the court could not use the common law nomenclature of a natural born citizen or else they would have, just as in Minor."

What you imagine they would have done is evidence of nothing.

"You are aware of the protocol of how a SCOTUS decision is published? Before the ruling is published all dissenting opinions are submitted. Therefore Justice Gray knew about the Justices Fuller's and Harlan's opinion on not making WKA a NBC."

I thought the majority opinion and any dissents were published simultaneously. Is that not right?

My impression is that they deliberate enough to avoid surprising each other. Grey opened, "I cannot concur in the opinion and judgment of the court in this case."

Dissents are not precedent, but what we do see is that Grey clearly took the majority opinion to mean that the native born are natural born and potentially eligible to be president. Was anyone arguing otherwise before late in 2008?; February 2, 2013 at 5:57 AM
Anonymous said...: I spent all Feb. 1st penning my final, final exposition about citizenship and B. Obama, and have posted it on my blog @ http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/02/01/official-state-error/

It's titled: Official State Error & a non-citizen President versus TRUTH, History & U.S. LAW

It's six pages in length. Its also online in two-column PDF format here: http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/official-state-error1.pdf

It expounds on many unfamiliar aspects of citizenship and the origins of erroneous concepts surrounding it.
It begins thusly: The sixth edition of Black's Law Dictionary states: "Natural born citizen: Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad."
People make mistakes. Experts make mistakes. Lawyers and judges make mistakes. Presidents make mistakes. Doctors make mistakes. Surgeons remove the wrong kidney, or operate on the wrong side of the brain because they, like their understanding, are fallible. The Black's Law Dictionary "expert" was fallible and he, like Congress, like the Supreme Court, like Columbus, like Einstein, like theorists in every branch of science, were capable of error and being intellectually imprecise.
The description of "a natural born citizen" in the Law Dictionary was the result of only one thing; the incorrect conflation of those words with the words "a natural born subject". It was made in error because the author failed to grasp the distinguishing principle of natural citizenship and subjecthood, -the one needed for an understanding that would produce a precise and accurate meaning.

It's all too easy and natural for humans to unknowingly use ambiguous or imprecise language in everyday speech, and that tendency carries over into how one might write, -especially when writing in great volume. I once read that Greek has about a half dozen words for "love". while two-fingered English only has one. That is an example of lack of precision of meaning. That deficiency results in ambiguity. Ambiguity results in one mentally picking a meaning in a process akin to that of the toss of a coin, -or in the case of the word "love", several coins.

If a word or phrase has two meanings, then odds may be 50-50 that the listener or reader will make an incorrect presumption as to what was meant. It would be a great travesty if a battle field message was sent to headquarters but it was ambiguous and the response was the incorrect one because its interpretation was the incorrect one. Battles, wars, and kingdoms could be lost due to simple everyday ambiguity.
continued...; February 2, 2013 at 6:15 AM
Anonymous said...: PAGE 3 segments:
The correct language to use to avoid the ambiguity is "subject to the jurisdiction", not "within the jurisdiction". Figure this out: "It is within the authority of authorities to make subjects of all born within the jurisdiction of the authority if their fathers are subject to the jurisdiction in authority within the area of jurisdiction."
Yeah, you might say that the term "jurisdiction" is rife with possibilities for confusion and error of interpretation. And error prevailed when it came to defining it as used in the 14th Amendment, which uses both meanings within the same paragraph. It first refers to authority, mentioning those born "subject to the jurisdiction" but later refers to area, mentioning being within state jurisdiction (state borders).
The erroneous conflation occurred in the minds of those who failed to distinguish the difference between area and authority. Hence the assumption that those "born within the jurisdiction" is equivalent to those "born subject to the jurisdiction", when in fact they are very much unrelated.
Native Americans were born within the jurisdiction but not subject to the jurisdiction, (as were Gypsies and slaves, and probably the French) but such persons had no connection to the duties and responsibilities of citizens, -the first and foremost of which is the requirement to help defend the nation. They had no stake in the American society that comprised the nation, and thus were not viewed as fellows in the responsible to be a part of national defense in time of emergency, -the most fundamental duty of citizens.
They were not "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States even though born "within the jurisdiction", except as is expected of all "subjects" living under the rule of moral and civil law.
....
What is the unimpeachable authority behind the Black's Dictionary author-definer's claim that those "persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government" are natural born citizens? There is none whatsoever.

He made an unfounded presumption based on the dishonest language adopted in Britain regarding its alien-born subjects. His mistake of adopting the English bastardization of language was compounded by the baseless presumption that it could be transmuted to directly apply to the American federal government and it's view regarding citizenship and its origin.
Just because Americans avoided calling children of immigrants "alien-born citizens" does not mean that they therefore are not precisely that. Just because we choose to call them "native-born citizens" as is still the practice of the CIS (formerly INS) today does not in any way make them indistinguishable from natural citizens.
continued...; February 2, 2013 at 6:23 AM
Unknown said...: Looking at the early naturalization acts, they simply say nothing about those born in the United States. The earliest, the 1790 act, seemed to equate citizenship upon birth with natural-born.

"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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:"

The most similar sentence in the 1795 act reads:

"And be it further enacted, 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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States:"

When they were talking about children receiving citizenship upon birth, they used the phrase "natural-born citizen". When talking about a set including both born citizens and those naturalized later, they used "citizen".; February 2, 2013 at 6:38 AM
Anonymous said...: ~final page excerpts:

Just imagine the magnitude of fear across the land in the early 19th century regarding the untrustworthy tendency of those with ultimate power using it illegitimately. That fear inspired the powerful impetus behind the authoring and ratification of the 9th and 10th Amendments.
That fear was regarding the very kind of over-reaching, all-powerful central government that Obama and his ilk are determined to force on all of the states if possible, and all of the citizens of a once free, lawful, and courageous land. That land now exists as only a shadow of its former self, having become the nightmare reality of one of the founder's worst fears.

How dare I risk "exposing" such things? -because I live far from any population center, and the federal government is merely an abstraction to me. Similarly, Obama's citizenship is also an abstraction based on nothing but entrenched institutionalized error. The only thing semi-solid about it is the fact that it depends entirely on his own presidential authority and nothing else. But Hell would freeze over before he would use his authority to declare the fact that national policy and citizens' assumptions are based on error, and that he, in fact, is not an American citizen due to the devil in the details of American law and jurisprudence.

by a.r. nash February 2013 obama--nation.com

corrected url for pdf version (replaced after running spell-checker)

http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2013/02/official-state-error2.pdf; February 2, 2013 at 6:47 AM
Teo Bear said...: Dear UNK,

FYI Grey (Gray) was the majority opinion!

FYI SCOTUS opinions are distributed internally before they are published to allow Justices to finalize their position. Therefore Justice Gray knew of the other justices opinion concerning a NBC and carefully stated that the majority opinion was concerned with a single question, that is can the child of aliens residing and domiciled in the US be a citizen of the United States.

You still have not explained if WKA was a NBC then why did the court need to use the 14th Amendment and not common law?

Very shortly you are going to frustrated and tell us that Obama won and it is all Bush's fault. And you know what that would be the only truthful thing you have said on this thread.; February 2, 2013 at 1:02 PM
Unknown said...: Oops, posted too late at night.

First, I omitted to cite "Teo Bear" as the writer of what I had quoted from above. Then I wrote "Grey", the author of the majority opinion in WKA, when of course I meant Fuller, author of the dissent.; February 2, 2013 at 2:30 PM
Unknown said...: D Head wrote,
"Law of nations, minor, the venus etc all say 'born in a country to parents who are its citizens, these are the natives or NBCs'"

Not really. Minor reads, "These were natives, or natural-born citizens".

Note the difference between:

"These were natives", and:
"These are the natives"

The Minor opinion is considering the situation before adoption of the 14'th Amendment, and making an inclusive statement. You may want to interpret it as an exclusive statement of current law, but changing and inserting words is clearly out of bounds.

Vattel did not use the terms at issue; he wrote The Law of Nations in French. The The Venus opinion quotes Vattel in translation, and does not use the Article II language at issue here, "The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens."; February 2, 2013 at 3:31 PM
Unknown said...: Teo Bear wrote:
FYI SCOTUS opinions are distributed internally before they are published to allow Justices to finalize their position. Therefore Justice Gray knew of the other justices opinion concerning a NBC and carefully stated that the majority opinion was concerned with a single question, that is can the child of aliens residing and domiciled in the US be a citizen of the United States."

What baffles me is that you only have it working in one direction. Gray knew what Fuller was writing and Fuller knew what Gray was writing. (And I'm now clear on which is which.)

Fuller knew that the majority opinion would be so focused, yet among the reasons he could not concur was his objection based on presidential eligibility. Gray and the rest of the majority knew that they had not satisfied the minority's eligibility objection.

Why was Fuller still concerned with Article II eligibility? My theory: He was, in the language of our host, a citizen/born citizen/natural born citizen conflationist. He disagreed with the majority on who should be born a citizen, and did not think people in Wong's position should be eligible to be President, but the only plausible explanation for that portion of his dissent was an understanding that citizens from birth are natural-born citizens.; February 2, 2013 at 4:45 PM
Unknown said...: The natives or natural born citizens are the same. The indigenes are those born in a country to parents who are its citizens just like nbc's. It doesn't matter if vattel wrote in french or martian. Nothing will be done about illegal president so why continue stalin like disinfo campaign; February 2, 2013 at 5:01 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Unknown @ February 1, 2013 at 10:01 AM,

You try to distinguish the issue of defining a “natural born Citizen” from the issue of “presidential eligibility,” saying that Minor was not about “presidential eligibility.” You add that you are not aware of any court before 2008 ever dealing with the issue of “presidential eligibility.” You really are desperately grasping at straws.

First, you argument has an unstated premise which is that “natural born Citizen” means one thing in the pure citizenship context however you may define that, but means another thing when applied to the Presidential eligibility context. This is absurd as there is only one “natural born Citizen” clause and that is the one found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Additionally, our U.S. Supreme Court or any other court has never informed us that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” depends upon the context in which the question arises. In fact, both Minor and Wong Kim Ark provided only one definition of that clause, which is a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. They also did not say that the clause could take on a different meaning depending on the context in which the clause is used.

Second, presidential eligibility has only three components, “natural born Citizen,” at least 35 years old, and at least 14 years a resident of the U.S. With Barack Obama, the issue is what is a “natural born Citizen.” When we answer that question, we answer one of the questions regarding presidential eligibility. So it is plain common sense that if the unanimous United States Supreme Court such as in Minor defined a “natural born Citizen,” and there are no other “natural born Citizens” to be defined, it is deciding upon one of the three components of presidential eligibility. If it is deciding one of those components, then by extension, it is deciding the issue of presidential eligibility. So your statement that you are not aware of any court before 2008 ever dealing with the issue of presidential eligibility is plain bunk.

Third, compare U.S. Wong Kim Ark which focused neither on the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” except for confirming Minor’s national common law definition of the clause, nor presidential eligibility. Hence, we can safely say that Wong Kim Ark was not at all about presidential eligibility. You even maintain that you are not aware of any court before 2008 ever dealing with the issue of “presidential eligibility.” Yet, you and other Obama eligibility supporters cite Wong Kim Ark as the case that demonstrates that Barack Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” You say that the case is about presidential eligibility, not finding any evidence of that from the majority decision, but rather from the “government’s brief” and the “Chief Justice dissent.” So you deny Minor being about presidential eligibility, even though it defined a “natural-born citizen,” but maintain that Wong Kim Ark, which majority opinion did not define a “natural-born citizen” any differently than did Minor and did not even mention presidential eligibility, is about presidential eligibility.

Like I have said here, Obama eligibility supporters, which includes you, live in a world of contradiction, conflation, distortion, manipulation, denial, deceit, and wishful thinking.; February 2, 2013 at 5:28 PM
Teo Bear said...: UNK,

You claim that Wong's dissent is " but the only plausible explanation for that portion of his dissent was an understanding that citizens from birth are natural-born citizens."

You assume this is what Fuller and Harlan are thinking. That is not what is reflected in their words. I would suggest you read the dissent carefully and what you will come to understand is that the objected to Gray's use of ECL, something that was new to federal jurist prudence.

The fact that the justices refer to George Bancroft's work on the development of the Constitution is interesting. If you search Bancroft's work you find an interesting quotation on English being the language of Common Law and Justice Matthews quote Gray used. Here is Bancroft's full observation.

" The English language maintained itself without a rival not merely because those speaking it as their mother tongue very greatly outnumbered all others and because all acknowledged English supremacy but for the simplicity of its structure its logical order in the presentment of thought its suitableness for the purposes of every day life for the discussion of abstract truths and the apprehension of Anglo Saxon political ideas for the instrument of the common law for science and observation for the debates of public life for every kind of poetry from humor to pathos from descriptions of nature to the action of the heart and mind."

Justice Matthew's wrote in Smith v Alabama - "The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history."

Matthews made a big leap from the framers intended use of English. In fact when you search the book for the term "common law" it only appears 4 times.

It is interesting UNK that the more we research history, the more history supports our arguments. I would also suggest you read the discourse on state's equity in the republic which really highlights why ECL was not chosen.; February 2, 2013 at 10:18 PM
Teo Bear said...: UNK,

You wrote "Fuller knew that the majority opinion would be so focused, yet among the reasons he could not concur was his objection based on presidential eligibility. Gray and the rest of the majority knew that they had not satisfied the minority's eligibility objection."

Perhaps if Gray tried to make WKA a NBC he would not have had a majority. Perhaps by keeping eligibility out of the majority opinion and sticking to the more generic "citizen of the United States" Gray was able to form a majority. However it is moot. WKA was not found to be a NBC only a citizen of the United States. This little distinction made him ineligible.

It appears to be Justice Fuller is highlighting the fact that if ECL as introduced by Gray using residency and domicile as satisfying "subject to the jurisdiction, was to replace the existing national common law, children born overseas would have to be naturalized.; February 2, 2013 at 10:27 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: H2ooflife or A.R. Nash @February 1, 2013 at 5:49 AM,

Your argument that the only controlling factor in defining a “natural born citizen” is that there be a “citizen” father suffers from contradiction.

First, you want to base birth status only upon nature and nothing else, similar to what occurs in the animal kingdom. You argue that the creation of a "natural born Citizen" depends upon the “citizen” father and that the mother or place of birth plays no role in that regard. But not even in the animal kingdom is the breed of an animal established solely from the male parent. The mother’s breed has just as much control as the father’s breed. For example, to produce a “natural born German Shepherd,” we need a male and female German Shepherd to give birth to another German Shepherd which is as much a German Shepherd as them.

Second, in your explanation you talk of “society,” “society’s boundaries,” and “citizens.” But you fail to recognize that these are concepts that have come into being by positive law, and not by nature. These realities do not exist in a state of nature. Rather, it is positive law or rules, whether written or unwritten, and man-made institutions which gives them their life. The concept of being a “citizen,” which is nothing more than membership in civil society with rights and obligations, is produced by political systems and positive law. Hence, we do not have membership in a society which republics call “citizens” solely by the law of nature, divorced from all human legal institutions. And as Vattel explains in Section 215 of The Law of Nations, while the “place of birth” cannot “of itself” take away from a child what nature has ordained (inheriting allegiance and citizenship from one’s “father” which Vattel also explains means “parents”), a nation may also through its “civil and political laws” determine how one’s national birth character is to be defined. Hence, to take into account any such possible positive laws, which since the beginning of time have granted allegiance and citizenship based on both jus sanguinis (the right to citizenship inherited from one’s parents) and jus soli (the right to citizenship acquired from the nation on whose soil one is born which Vattel in Section 214 explains England granted by “naturalisation” at birth to children born in England of alien parents), to avoid conflicting allegiances and citizenships within children themselves and between them and their parents, and to create a uniform rule of citizenship throughout nations, he defines the “natural-born citizens” as “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Id. at Section 212. This shows that a “natural-born citizen” is defined not only by the law of nature, but also by positive law. So, the law of nature requires birth to two “citizen” parents (jus sanguinis), and positive law requires birth in the country (jus soli). The unity of jus sanguinis (natural law) and jus soli (positive law) in the child at the moment of birth, which produces in the child unity of allegiance and citizenship from the moment of birth, produces an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Third, you say that to produce different citizenships based on place of birth (different bedrooms of the same house) is absurd. But there are at least two problems with your argument. First, the jus soli rule is no more absurd than the rule that a child is a “natural born citizen” if, as you define the term, he was born on June 2 to a “citizen” father, but not a “natural born Citizen” if born on June 1, when his father had yet to naturalize as a “citizen of the United States.” Second, we have been defining citizenship based in part on boundaries for millennia. So, one either satisfies the rule of place of birth or one does not, just like one either satisfies the rule of being born to a “citizen” father or one does not. From a justice or equity viewpoint, there is no difference between the two rules.; February 2, 2013 at 11:04 PM
Unknown said...: Congress is given powers of naturalization under US Constitution, not the Supreme Court, and in 1895 chinese were not allowed by Congress to be "citizens of the United States" yet so declaring wka a citizen was wrong decision. As Article 2 clearly says, a citizen of the US is not eligible unless they were alive at time of adoption and wka was born 83 years after ratification which made him ineligible even if Congress had allowed Chinese citizenship in 1890s. My asian wifes certificate of naturalization says she is a "citizen of the United States" and ineligible to be CiC. Btw, she had to show her original, physical 1970 BC and a certified abstract to US embassy in Manila to have any chance of getting a visa and yet mr pay your fair share puts up a fudged electronic BC image on govt website and everything is hunky dory.Congress loves to pass laws but they do not enforce them for the elite. He should be in jail for selective service card forgery and ineligible for any federal job with a fake ss # and draft card. If average citizen had pulled stunts like this we would be in trouble.; February 3, 2013 at 3:10 AM
Unknown said...: Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"You try to distinguish the issue of defining a 'natural born Citizen' from the issue of 'presidential eligibility,' saying that Minor was not about 'presidential eligibility.'"

My position is that Minor was not defining who was a natural-born citizen. An inclusive statement is not a definition.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"You add that you are not aware of any court before 2008 ever dealing with the issue of 'presidential eligibility.' You really are desperately grasping at straws."

What I wrote, with emphasis added here, was: "I don't know of any cases prior to 2008 where presidential eligibility was THE CONTROVERSY BEFORE A US COURT, with such arguable exceptions as suits to kick 33-year-old Eldridge Cleaver off the ballot."

That doesn't mean that no one could figure out which precedents control. Now that we have eligibility cases, you look pretty silly ridiculing Obama supporters for holding legal theories that have won every time.; February 3, 2013 at 5:00 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Unknown,

I enjoy watching you backpedal and squirm in deceit.

As to your “legal theories” that you say have so far won, those legal theories have been exposed here as full of historical and legal errors, misstatements, confusion, and manipulations, despite your vain effort to rescue them from the heap of historical trash in which they belong.; February 3, 2013 at 8:51 AM
Philip N. said...: At ratification a "natural born citizen" would have been a person born within the borders of the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents who had sole allegiance to the U.S., they did not owe allegiance to any foreign sovereignty. We know this because the Founders despised dual citizenship and would not of allowed for such.

You cannot breed a natural born female American Collie with a male who is 50% American Collie and 50% Lycaon pictus and expect for the offspring to be natural born American Collies.

Not only is Obama, not a "natural born citizen", neither are his offspring.; February 3, 2013 at 12:33 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Unknown @ February 3, 2013 t 5:00 AM,

I of II

A. You continue with your nonsense: You say: “My position [meaning yours] is that Minor was not defining who was a natural-born citizen. An inclusive statement is not a definition.”

(1) I take great pleasure in informing you that how Minor described a “natural-born citizen” is, indeed, a definition handed down from Greek and Roman ancient history, and confirmed by writers on natural law and the law of nations, Founders and Framers, early Congress, our U.S. Supreme Court and some lower courts, and early members of Congress. That definition is what was taught in Virginia at the College of William and Mary in 1779. There never has existed any other definition. Therefore my friend, what Minor said about a “natural-born citizen” is more than just an inclusive statement. The test of time has made that statement a well-settled definition. And let us not forget that there never has been any constitutional amendment, including the Fourteenth Amendment, or U.S. Supreme Court case, including Wong Kim Ark, that has changed that definition. So, that definition, which is a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth, has been and continues to be today the settled definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

(2) Minor explicitly excluded others from being “natural-born citizens.” Here is what it said: “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its ‘citizens,’ became themselves, upon their birth, ‘citizens’ also. These were ‘natives or natural-born citizens,’ as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Id. at 166-68. The Court said that at common law, individuals were either “citizens” and “natural born citizens” through birth in the country to citizen parents, or they were “aliens or foreigners.” So, the Court excluded under the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution all those who were not born in the country to “citizen” parents from being both a “citizen” and a “natural-born citizen.” Rather, the Court said that those persons were “aliens or foreigners,” who would have needed formal naturalization to become “citizens.”

B. You produced no evidence that the Framers defined a "natural born Citizen" the same as the English common law defined a "natural born subject." But because (1) the English common law prevailed in the colonies before the American Revolution (conveniently acting like we never even had a Revolution), (2) the Fourteenth Amendment was passed in 1866, (3) Wong Kim Ark ruled in 1898 that Wong, born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents, was a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth, and (4) a handful of lower courts have ruled, albeit without historical or legal support, in their favor, we are just supposed to roll over and die.

Continued . . .; February 3, 2013 at 12:59 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

(1) You make your English common law argument notwithstanding all the historical evidence which shows that, with the exception of the limited incorporation of the English common law through the Bill of Rights ratified in 1791 which amendments do not touch upon national citizenship and were adopted for political compromise purposes after the “natural born Citizen” clause was adopted in 1787 through the unamended Constitution, the Founders and Framers rejected the English common law as applicable on the national level. Indeed, as Justice Story in 1829 explained: “The common law of England is not to be taken, in all respects, to be that of America. Our ancestors brought with them its general principles, and claimed it as their birthright; but they brought with them and adopted, only that portion which was applicable to their situation. Van Ness v. Pacard, 27 U.S. [2 Peters] 137, 143-144 (1829). Moreover, the language of the English common law did not include let alone define a “citizen” or a “natural born Citizen.”

(2) You make your argument despite all the historical and case law evidence which I have presented here which shows that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the moment of the child’s birth.

(3) You rely upon the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark, a Fourteenth Amendment case and not an Article II case. But neither the text nor the legislative history of the amendment reveals that the Fourteenth Amendment repealed or amended Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause. Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark sufficiently explained that his holding, which he based on the Fourteenth Amendment and not on Article II, answered only the “single question” of whether Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” and did not declare Wong to be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Yet you want to manipulate his words into meaning that he did rule that Wong was a “natural born Citizen.” Hence, your reliance upon the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark is misplaced.

4. A handful of lower courts have ruled that Wong Kim Ark can be interpreted to mean that a child born in the United States to alien parents is included as a “natural born Citizen.” Their rulings have no historical or legal support and are fully contradicted not only by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875), but also by the Wong Kim Ark decision itself. You have no convincing argument that you can make, so just point to these ruling to do the talking for you. But might does not make right. Rather, it is reason and logic which does. And these are lacking in these lower court decisions and in your arguments.

Obama was not born in the country to parents who were “citizens” at the time of his birth. His father was a British/Kenyan citizen who never naturalized to become a U.S. “citizen.” Under the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, he was alien born and not even a “citizen” let alone a “natural-born citizen.” He only becomes a “citizen of the United States” in 1961 by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark. But he does not by those sources become an Article II “natural born Citizen.” It is this reality which demonstrates that Barack Obama is not eligible to be President. Currently, that makes Barack Obama a de facto sitting president, not a constitutionally legitimate one.; February 3, 2013 at 1:00 PM
Unknown said...: "I enjoy watching you backpedal and squirm in deceit."

I enjoy watching you change my claims into something you think you can argue against. So easy to dismiss. As if you, of all people, don't understand what the controversy before the court means.

"As to your 'legal theories' that you say have so far won, those legal theories have been exposed here as full of historical and legal errors, misstatements, confusion, and manipulations, despite your vain effort to rescue them from the heap of historical trash in which they belong."

The net is replete with bloggers proving wrong ideas to their own satisfaction. They regularly announce how they've demolished the other side. This blog is somewhat special in that you are a real attorney who actually put your arguments to the test. I am trying to explain the theories that won.; February 3, 2013 at 2:13 PM
Unknown said...: No court I am aware of in us history has ever questioned the citizenship status of children of 2 proven american citizens. In the eyes of our Founders it would be our God given birthright and beyond the power of govt to take away at birth unless we eventually choose to do so. Natural occurences are something humans do not control and natural is a key word in NBC; February 3, 2013 at 4:35 PM
Unknown said...: How come the courts do not go by the US CONSTITUTION, prior SC cases like m v happersett and 14th in these eligibility cases? These judges sound like unprofessional,dishonest buffoons in their opinions. This reminds me of all the cops and judges on al capones payroll. We have not had a impartial redress of grievances on this matter.; February 3, 2013 at 4:48 PM
Unknown said...: Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"I take great pleasure in informing you that how Minor described a “natural-born citizen” is, indeed, a definition handed down from Greek and Roman ancient history, and confirmed by writers on natural law and the law of nations, Founders and Framers, early Congress, our U.S. Supreme Court and some lower courts, and early members of Congress. That definition is what was taught in Virginia at the College of William and Mary in 1779. There never has existed any other definition."

Never existed another? That's nuts. You'll find a counter-example in Black's Law Dictionary. Why do you write these things?

Mario Apuzzo wrote:
'''Minor explicitly excluded others from being “natural-born citizens.” Here is what it said: “At common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country, of parents who were its ‘citizens,’ became themselves, upon their birth, ‘citizens’ also. These were ‘natives or natural-born citizens,’ as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Id. at 166-68. The Court said that at common law, individuals were either “citizens” and “natural born citizens” through birth in the country to citizen parents, or they were “aliens or foreigners.” So, the Court excluded under the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution all those who were not born in the country to “citizen” parents from being both a “citizen” and a “natural-born citizen.” Rather, the Court said that those persons were “aliens or foreigners,” who would have needed formal naturalization to become “citizens.” '''

You forgot to quote the part where, '''the Court excluded under the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution all those who were not born in the country to “citizen” parents from being both a “citizen” and a “natural-born citizen.”'''

Maybe some simple examples would help. Consider the claims:

Five and seven are primes.
Five and seven are primes, as distinguished from composites and units.
Five and seven are the primes.

The last suggests that five and seven are the *only* primes; the first two do not.

Mario Apuzzo wrote:
'''You produced no evidence that the Framers defined a "natural born Citizen" the same as the English common law defined a "natural born subject."'''

I've no evidence that the Framers defined "natural born Citizen", and I rather doubt they did.; February 4, 2013 at 5:24 AM
Carlyle said...: I cannot imagine that The Founders intended to create such a guessing game and such a hide and seek by the NBC clause.

Instead, one is driven to believe that they meant something straightforward, common, and obvious. Further one MUST believe the the provision was meant to be exclusionary as far as possible.

Therefore if there was any doubt or confusion at the time, surely one must adopt the most exclusionary of possible choices.; February 4, 2013 at 11:25 AM
MichaelN said...: Unkown said ....

"I've no evidence that the Framers defined "natural born Citizen", and I rather doubt they did."

Evidence:

1)The first naturalization act 1790, where citizen parentage was the criteria and also where children of aliens were naturalized when their parents did, which means these children were considered as alien-born.
(some of the Framers were party to the naturalization act of 1790)

2) The Framers were very conversant with 17th century English common, where it was held that native-birth did not produce a natural born subject and that thre allegiance of a subject was absolutely necessary to make a natural born subject.

3)The popularity and influence of Vattel's Law of Nations, where to be a natural born citizen, one had to be born to citizen parents and in the place of the parents' citizenship.; February 4, 2013 at 4:39 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Unknown @February 4, 2013 at 5:24 AM,

I of II

You say that you doubt that the Framers defined a “natural born Citizen.” That is an absurd statement which shows your total lack of understanding of how our courts interpret the Constitution.

That the Constitution itself does not define the “natural born Citizen” clause does not mean that the Framers did not have a definition for the clause. Again, the Constitution is not a dictionary. Hence, when interpreting a word or clause of the Constitution, the courts first look to the natural meaning of the text as the public would have understood it at the time the Constitution was ratified. District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2788 (2008). If that text is ambiguous or does not provide an answer as to its meaning, the courts look next to the structure of the Constitution. When that structure also does not provide the answer, the courts then look outside the constitution, where they search to find what the public understanding for the clause was at the time it was used. To find that original public understanding, they look to the time period immediately before and at the time the Constitution was ratified. They also look to the time period immediately following the Constitution’s ratification. This look at this early period is a “critical tool of constitutional interpretation” because it reflects the “public understanding” of the text “in the period after its . . . ratification.” Heller, 128 S.
Ct. at 2804-2805. Sources to which our courts have looked in this early period include but are not limited to discussions in ratifying conventions, case law, The Federalist Papers, applicable laws, Congressional Acts, newspaper articles, treatises, and state constitutions.

So, in finding the meaning of constitutional terms or clauses, our U.S. Supreme Court has instructed that we are to look for the public understanding the words had at the time the Constitution was adopted or soon thereafter. One way to find that meaning is to identifying the law upon which the Frames would have relied to define the “natural born Citizen” clause at the time they used it and which continued to be applied to define the clause soon thereafter. Lynch told us that the Framers had a specific standard for the clause which they got from the “common law,” stating:

“The term citizen, was used in the constitution as a word, the meaning of which was already established and well understood. And the constitution itself contains a direct recognition of the subsisting common law principle, in the section which defines the qualification of the President… The only standard which then existed, of a natural born citizen, was the rule of the common law, and no different standard has been adopted since.”

Continued . . .; February 4, 2013 at 5:26 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf.Ch. 583, 3 NY Leg. Obs. 236 (1844). While Lynch is correct in stating that common law provided the only definition of a “natural born Citizen,” as Minor v. Happersett (1875) informed, it applied the incorrect common law. Lynch incorrectly relied upon the English common law rather than American national common law. The Founders and Framers did not incorporate the English common law into the Constitution. Rather, through state constitutions and reception statutes, that law had effect only in states until abrogated by state legislatures. On the other hand, the Framers did incorporate the law of nations into the Constitution which became American national common law (see, for example, Article I, Section 8, Clause 10) and given the definition of the clause that Minor (and confirmed by Wong Kim Ark which also used the English colonial common law as an aid in defining a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” at birth) provided, it was only this American national common law that provided the definition of a “natural-born citizen.” Additionally, as Justice Swayne explained in Rhodes: “The constitution uses the words 'citizen' and 'natural born citizens;' but neither that instrument nor any act of congress has attempted to define their meaning. British jurisprudence, whence so much of our own is drawn, throws little light upon the subject . . . . Blackstone and Tomlin contain nothing upon the subject.” Id. at 788. So the Founders and Framers got their definition of the clause from American national common law which said that a “natural born Citizen” was a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. This exact definition was also contained in Vattel’s Section 212 of The Law of Nations (1758). See also The Venus, Inglis, Shanks, Dred Scott, In re Ex parte Reynolds, and Ward (all cite and quote Vattel on the definition of a “natural-born citizen” or partus sequitur patrem (children follow the citizenship of the parents)). The historical record is full of evidence showing the influence that Vattel had over the Founders and Framers. Also, the content of the early naturalization acts passed by Congress (treated children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born) supports this conclusion, which alone is virtually dispositive.

The U.S. Supreme Court also instructs that the purpose for which a word or clause was used in the Constitution is also highly relevant in the search for its meaning. The Framers inserted the clause into presidential eligibility along with 35 years of age and 14 years a U.S. resident. Given the enormous importance of who was going to defend and preserve the nation in the future through the enormous and singular civil and military powers of the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, the Framers surely had a specific standard in mind for this national security clause. We have seen that the standard was found in national American common law. And it only makes sense that they would have used that standard because, unlike broad allegiance provided by the English common law (making children of aliens “natural born subjects” and therefore born with perpetual conflicted allegiances and citizenships), our national American common law provided for the maximum allegiance to the nation possible.

Thus, even though the Constitution does not itself define the “natural born Citizen” clause, there is sufficient historical evidence that we can examine which informs on what meaning the Founders and Framers gave to the clause when they used it. And that meaning is a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” when the child was born.; February 4, 2013 at 5:27 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Unknown @February 4, 2013 at 5:24 AM,

I said that historically there was no other definition of a “natural born Citizen” other than the one at American national common law which was a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. To prove me wrong you cite and quote a modern edition Black’s Law Dictionary.

Your reliance on Black’s Law Dictionary as a source for defining a “natural-born citizen” is misplaced. First, we do not amend the Constitution by publishing the meaning of clauses contained in the Constitution in some legal dictionary.

Second, Black’s finally got around to attempting to define a “natural born citizen” in the Sixth edition. Our courts do not use modern dictionaries to search for original meaning of the Constitution. If you produced an era dictionary, that would be a different story. Why do you not provide for us a dictionary that existed at the time of the adoption of the Constitution which provides the same definition as Black’s now puts forward? Do you not think that a dictionary from that time period would be more convincing than Black’s (first published in 1891) whose Fifth edition of 1979 did not even mention let alone define the clause “natural born citizen?”

Third, Black’s provides no primary sources that support its definition. What Black’s believes to be a “natural-born citizen” is really only a born citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, which is a different class of citizen from a “natural-born citizen.”

So, you have provided no relevant, authoritative, and convincing historical sources, case law, reason, and logic which support your position that a “natural-born citizen” includes a U.S.-born child of a foreigner. On the contrary, I have provided such sources which demonstrate that a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth and that historically this has always been the only definition of the clause.; February 4, 2013 at 6:03 PM
Teo Bear said...: A natural born citizen is a citizen by right and privilege.

Any citizen of the United States is sovereign and as a sovereign it is his natural right to pass on to his children his citizenship. This is not and never has been disputed.

As a sovereign in his own lands in the place he is domiciled has the sovereign's privilege to be immune from the positive citizenship laws he imposes on others.

A new born's original domicile has always been that of his father, except in the cases of illegitimacy or death of the father, then it follows the mother. The only time domicile somewhat follows the place of birth is when a child is abandoned then it becomes the place in which the child was discovered.

Obama was not born in illegitimacy nor was his father dead at the time of his birth. Obama's father was domiciled in Kenya, and by international law this means BHO Jr.'s original domicile was in the British colony of Kenya, not Hawaii. Therefore Obama was not born to sovereign parents, but to a citizen mother and an alien father. He needed the 14th Amendment to make him a citizen of the United States. Since the 14th Amendment post dates a natural born citizen, then by logic and reason he is not a natural born citizen.; February 4, 2013 at 9:02 PM
Unknown said...: I hope the SC doesnt even decide on NBC cases, we all know what they would do. Founders intent, John Jays letter, law of nations,Article 2, the 14th amd, the venus and minor cases would all be irrelevant. By swearing in a son of a foreign citizen, roberts has already violated his oath to US Constitution. There are plenty of NBCs in US who would be willing to sell out this country and the demsheviks at least couldve found one who was eligible instead of this charade. The Framers put in the 2nd amendment so the citizens could protect themselves from a "unjust and oppressive Govt". The fed govt is a corrupt joke, i hope the states start ignoring them. I can easily see US going bankrupt and states going their separate ways.; February 5, 2013 at 12:36 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Unknown @ February 4, 2013 at 5:24AM,

You said: “Maybe some simple examples would help. Consider the claims:

Five and seven are primes.
Five and seven are primes, as distinguished from composites and units.
Five and seven are the primes.

The last suggests that five and seven are the *only* primes; the first two do not.”

If it is “the,” meaning “only,” that you are looking for to establish a definition of a “natural born Citizen,” here it is for you:

“The natives, or natural –born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Vattel, Section 212, The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758). Do you see the “The?” We can reword this statement to say: “Those born in the country, of parents who are citizens, are THE natives, or natural-born citizens.” Or stated as: “Those born in the country, of parents who are citizens, are THE ONLY ones who are natives, or natural-born citizens.”

“The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring). Do you see the “The?” We can reword this statement to say: “Those born in the country, of parents who are citizens, are THE natives, or natural-born citizens.” Or stated as: “Those born in the country, of parents who are citizens, are THE ONLY ones who are natives, or natural-born citizens.”

“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Daniels, J., concurring). Do you see the “The?” We can reword this statement to say: “Those born in the country, of parents who are citizens, are THE natives, or natural-born citizens.” Or stated as: “Those born in the country, of parents who are citizens, are THE ONLY ones who are natives, or natural-born citizens.”

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-168 (1875), did nothing but take this same definition of a “natural-born citizen,” and repeat it by simply paraphrasing thus: “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.” There is no doubt that in this quote the Court set out the same description of a “natural-born citizen” as these previous sources. There is no difference between what the Court said and this statement: “Those born in the country [“all children born in a country”], of parents who are citizens [“of parents who were its citizens”], are THE natives, or natural-born citizens” [“were natives, or natural-born citizens”]. There is absolutely no indication from what the Court said that it did not mean to adopt the same rule as expressed by Vattel and these other U.S. Supreme Court cases, i.e.: “Those born in the country, of parents who are citizens, are THE ONLY ones who are natives, or natural-born citizens.” That Minor left the definite article, “the” out when referring to “natives, or natural-born citizen” means nothing in light of the fact that the Court paraphrased the only existing definition of the clause which clearly uses “the” when referring to “natives, or natural-born citizens,” indicating that it intended to convey the same meaning as one would get if the Court did actually use “the” before writing “natives, or natural-born citizens.” There was no other “natural-born citizen” definition and so “the” before “natives, or natural-born citizens,” was not necessary. Hence, Minor in clear terms confirmed the long-standing definition of the clause which is: “Those born in the country, of parents who are citizens, are THE ONLY ones who are natives, or natural-born citizens.”; February 5, 2013 at 1:00 AM
Teo Bear said...: These definitions are from a dictionary from the time of the constitutional convention. Samuel Johnson, London, 1755

Natural - Bestowed by nature. If there be any difference in natural parts, it should seem that the advantage lies on the side of children born of noble and wealth parents.

Born - To come into life, it is usually spoken with regard to circumstances; as he was born a prince; he was born to empire; he was born for greatness; that is, formed at the birth.

Citizen - A freeman of a city; All inhabitants within these walls are not properly citizens but only such as are called freemen.

Subject - One who lives under the dominion of another.

Using these definitions it can be said that a natural born citizen is one who because of the [political/social] condition of his parents came into life to be a freeman, while a natural born subject is one who because of the [political/social] condition of his parents came into life to live under the dominion of another.; February 5, 2013 at 8:33 AM
Unknown said...: Mario, someone mentioned your site at ulsterman report and obama being ineligible. Ulsterman seems to know real "insiders" from what i have read from him the last few years. Ulsterman is a anti obama site and he is under the impression merely being born here makes you a NBC and eligible for CiC. I hope you are able to leave a comment that is relayed to his sources, i have been unable to. It was a travesty that Linda Jordan was fined 13k by washington supreme court for a "frivolous" lawsuit about obamas forgerys and ss# that failed e verify. She said she never even recd a evidentiary hearing or a reason why her lawsuit was frivolous. I have about had it with these politicians and the judges they appoint.; February 6, 2013 at 1:00 AM
Unknown said...: Mario Apuzzo wrote:
'''You say that you doubt that the Framers defined a “natural born Citizen.” That is an absurd statement which shows your total lack of understanding of how our courts interpret the Constitution.'''

Yet each and every challenge on this issue in our courts, including yours, came out as predicted by the obots, including me. You previously lambasted me saying I, "give importance to what some modern attorneys believed or did not believe [...]". My response on that point was, "true enough". On the issue you now state of, "how our courts interpret the Constitution", don't my modern sources get any credit for being right? Think how silly I'd feel had I believed you instead.

Among my modern sources, the stand-out is Charles Gordon's paper, cited above. Writing 40 years before our courts spoke, Gordon not only called the conclusion, he nailed standing, timing, burden, pretty much everything.

Mario Apuzzo wrote:
'''That the Constitution itself does not define the “natural born Citizen” clause does not mean that the Framers did not have a definition for the clause.'''

My previous "simple examples" may have been condescending but there was a point. So here's a modest variation; consider the following three assertions:

Madison and Franklin were Framers of the Constitution.
Madison and Franklin were Framers of the Constitution, as distinguished from later interpreters.
Madison and Franklin were the Framers of the Constitution.

The first two are true. The third is false.

If you can cite a voting member or two of the Constitutional Convention asserting your definition of NBS, I'll grant a point on your side. But one or two Framers are not *the* Framers, and I can cite James Madison on the primacy of jus soli in the United States.

The Framers disagreed, and argued, and compromised, and thereby drafted the Constitution. For that I stand in admiration of the Framers, and in disgust of pretenders to patriotism who invoke the name of "The Framers" when really their issue is: WAHHH! I didn't get my way!; February 6, 2013 at 1:21 AM
Unknown said...: Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"So, in finding the meaning of constitutional terms or clauses, our U.S. Supreme Court has instructed that we are to look for the public understanding the words had at the time the Constitution was adopted or soon thereafter."

What's baffling is that you present it as a point on your side. Was the public composed mostly of English-speakers, or of scholars devoted to the French writings of Prussian-Swiss jurist Vatell?; February 6, 2013 at 1:38 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Unknown,

(1) You said: “If you can cite a voting member or two of the Constitutional Convention asserting your definition of NBS [you meant NBC], I’ll grant a point on your side.” There are at least two problems with your statement. First, you want me to adhere to your standard, but you fail to adhere to that same standard. I have not seen you “cite a voting member or two of the Constitutional Convention asserting your English common law definition of a natural born citizen.”

Second, you do not get to set the standard by which the U.S. Supreme Court is guided in interpreting the Constitution and in our case the Article II “natural born Citizen.” Neither you on this blog, nor the lower courts which you cite, nor your “modern lawyers” have followed that standard. On the contrary, and not just relying on “one or two Framers,” I have. Under that standard, my position wins and your position looses.

(2) You cite Charles Gordon and his paper as support of your position. Your reliance upon Mr. Gordon and his papers is misplaced. Mr. Gordon clearly stated in his paper that Wong Kim Ark had nothing to do with defining a “natural born Citizen.”

(3) Your little Madison and Franklin examples fail totally for a very simple point which escapes your logic. First, do not think that I believe you that your are graciously giving us another example of your logic because you want to excuse yourself for being “condescending” in your first attempt. Rather, you are just attempting to improve upon your first example. Second, even with your second attempt, your logic still fails. Madison and Franklin were not the “only” Framers of the Constitution. On the other hand, a “natural born Citizen” has “only” one definition.

(4) You also said that you “can cite James Madison on the primacy of jus soli in the United States.” I have been over the Obot abused and manipulated Madison quote many times. He was addressing what someone born before July 4, 1776 (Representative William Smith) had to demonstrate in order to be an Article I, Section 2 “Citizen of the United States” for seven years, needed to be a member of the House of Representatives. He was not defining what such person or even one born after July 4, 1776 had to demonstrate in order to be an Article II “natural born Citizen” and thereby eligible to be President. What he said in reference to an Article I “Citizen of the United States” does not control the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen,” which applied to and had to be satisfied by children born after July 4, 1776 in order to be eligible to be President. Why do you not put the Madison quote here again so that I can destroy your position again?

(5) Your reference to “pretenders of patriotism” is nothing but a fallacious argument. Rather than attack someone’s motives, why do you not stick to addressing the reason and logic of their arguments. By so doing, you might better undertand their postion and also give yourself more credibility.; February 6, 2013 at 1:16 PM
MichaelN said...: Mario Apuzzo Esq said, to "Unknown" who is a coward, hiding behind a psuedonym, afraid to use his/her real name....

"I have not seen you “cite a voting member or two of the Constitutional Convention" asserting your English common law definition of a natural born citizen."

The 17th century English common law never defined a natural born citizen.

I am sure you meant to say "subject".

"Unknown" can't even show, to back-up his/her claims, where in the 17th century ECL it was held that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject.

When asked to back-up his/her (absurd and false)assertions, he/she goes all quiet, pretending the question put to him/her didn't exist.

The reason he/she does this, is because NOWHERE in the 17th century English common law was it held that native birth sufficed to make a natural born subject.

Obviously the Framers (highly educated as they were) knew this, so it is therefore IMPOSSIBLE for the Framers to have found that ECL held that native birth sufficed to make a natural born subject, becuase IT'S NOT THERE.; February 6, 2013 at 4:44 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: MichaelN,

We know that the English common law defined a "natural born subject." The issue is whether it also defined an Article II "natural born Citizen." My position is that it did not. Rather, American national common law, which provided a different standard from the English common law, provided that definition.

Unknown’s position is contrary to mine in that he maintains that the English common law defined an Article II "natural born Citizen."

I've asked him, like he asks me to do to prove my position, to “cite a voting member or two of the Constitutional Convention asserting [Unknown’s ] English common law definition of a natural born citizen.”; February 6, 2013 at 5:04 PM
Teo Bear said...: UNK,

Again you you change the subject dishonestly. You go from Framers to public. The framers were educated men, who were well educated in the lingua franca. These men could easily read Vattel in the original, including any references in latin. If they were unsure of the translation of the 1760 English edition translated from form the 1758 french edition.

THE two Framers of the Constitution, the men who held the most influence over the other delegates, Madison and Washington knew ECL was not a included in the Constitution, and a third Franklin told the convention to pray because trying to include ECL was destroying the chances of getting a Constitution.

In the end your ignorance to our history is going to force you to say, Yeah, so what Obama won. And I will say to you, yes he did and it'a all Bush's fault.; February 6, 2013 at 8:04 PM
Philip N. said...: Mario,

May I suggest the next topic for your blog to be, "Dual Citizenship and why the Founders left no room for it."?; February 6, 2013 at 9:40 PM
Unknown said...: Mario Apuzzo wrote:
'''You said: “If you can cite a voting member or two of the Constitutional Convention asserting your definition of NBS [you meant NBC], I’ll grant a point on your side.” There are at least two problems with your statement. First, you want me to adhere to your standard, but you fail to adhere to that same standard.'''

I said that I do *not* think the Framers defined 'natural born Citizen'. You called that an absurd statement. Now it turns out that neither of us can cite the Framers defining 'natural born Citizen'. That's not me holding you to a different standard. That's me being right, you wrong.

I did propose a bit of a standard in my very first comment. Quoting myself: To distinguish "natural-born citizen" from "born citizen" you need a case where someone was declared *not* to be one while being the other. You need an exclusive, not an inclusive statement as in Minor. In over 200 years of American jurisprudence, I don't know of any such case. Do you?

Do I adhere to my own standard? The case I'd need to prove my position and disprove yours would be a U.S. court saying that someone *is* a natural-born citizen, while one or both parents were *not* U.S. citizens. I expect you are aware that we obots have those citations: real judges, real U.S. courts, declaring native-born children of aliens to be natural-born citizens.

Mario Apuzzo wrote:
'''Second, you do not get to set the standard by which the U.S. Supreme Court is guided in interpreting the Constitution and in our case the Article II “natural born Citizen.” Neither you on this blog, nor the lower courts which you cite, nor your “modern lawyers” have followed that standard. On the contrary, and not just relying on “one or two Framers,” I have. Under that standard, my position wins and your position looses.'''

See my previous comment on how, "The net is replete with bloggers proving [...]"; February 7, 2013 at 4:53 AM
js said...: @Smrstrauss

The King was considered the Head of the Church of England. It is in that respect that, the subject, born under the jurisdiction of the Crown/Church monarch, was necessarily Christian. The fact that Muslim parents having a child under the crowns jurisdiction is completely ignored in your post.

The English common law was Christian, and their entire system of Government was based upon their unique view of natural law being issued directly from Jesus Christ as enforced by the English monarch.

Our Constitution forbids the establishment of religion, while respecting the rights of all persons to worship God or nature as they like. The English common law is in direct polar opposition to our Constitution, in that infidels were considered enemies of the state. In Calvin’s Case, which is universally recognized as having established the English common law with regard to the jus soli rule, the decision makes it perfectly clear that the English common law presumed infidels would never be converted to Christianity, and it specifically states that they are subjects of devils. (re; Leo Donofrio "The English Common Law Definition of Natural Law Is Not Part Of The Law Of Nations.")

When one digs into the WHOLE truth, one must address the WHOLE block of information that comes with it, not just an omission, because then, it becomes a lie.; February 7, 2013 at 8:07 AM
Unknown said...: Mario Apuzzo wrote:
'''“The natives, or natural –born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Vattel, Section 212, The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758). Do you see the “The?”'''

Yes, we know what the weak translation of Vattel says. Your next quote was closer to what he wrote:

'''“The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.” The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring). Do you see the “The?”'''

Yes, I see the the "The". Where's "natural-born citizen"?

'''“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (Daniels, J., concurring).'''

So why were you citing the inclusive statement from Minor when your real source is a single justice concurring in Dred Scott?

Trying to stake an anti-eligibility case on Vattel's 'Law of Nations' is just weird. Deriving our "natural-born citizen" from England's "natural born subject" is straightforward. Going from "Naturels ou indigènes" to our Article II language requires vastly more imagination.; February 7, 2013 at 12:19 PM
Unknown said...: Teo Bear wrote:
"Again you you change the subject dishonestly. You go from Framers to public."

Check who brought up the "public" understanding. Can I expect the appropriate retraction and apology?; February 7, 2013 at 12:25 PM
MichaelN said...: @ smrstrauss, Linda and Unknown....

Still waiting for a citation from the 17th century English common law, where it was held that native-birth was all that was required to make a natural born subject.

Seems like you all have come to realize that such a holding DOES OT EXIST.; February 8, 2013 at 12:43 AM
Unknown said...: when did the US supreme court rule that a child of a foreign citizen was a (haha) natural born citizen? They can only be a citizen of the United states like wka. These state judges are supposed to look to the US constitution first and then supreme court for guidance which they certainly have not done. The game is rigged and the rule of law is dead for the powerful. As we all know the obots follow 2 rules, #1- lie. #2- when in doubt see rule 1; February 8, 2013 at 12:44 AM
MichaelN said...: @ smrstrauss, Linda and Unknown....

Still waiting for a citation from the 17th century English common law, where it was held that native-birth was all that was required to make a natural born subject.

Seems like you all have come to realize that such a holding DOES NOT EXIST.

(correcting typos)

@ Unknown, who said...

"Trying to stake an anti-eligibility case on Vattel's 'Law of Nations' is just weird."

There is nothing "weird" about the definition of Art II NBC being derived from Vattel's 'Law of Nations'.

It was recognized and embraced as one of THE MOST popular and influential literary works for the Framers and judiciary in and around the Framing period.

The REALITY is that it is a certainty that the Framers found Vattel's definition appropriate, as it addressed the very serious concerns the Framers had in their imperative to secure and protect the office of POTUS from the LEAST POSSIBLE foreign influence, persuasion, allegiance and claim.

Unknown said...

"Deriving our "natural-born citizen" from England's "natural born subject" is straightforward."

How so?

Given that the Framers were influenced by the English common law, there is NOTHING in 17th century English common law which holds that a "natural born subject" was such by way of native-birth.

Rather, the ECL held that it was the allegiance of the father of a native-born child, which gave the child "natural born subject" status.

The ECL held that if the child was not born "under the ligeance of a subject", then the child although native-born could not be a "subject" at all and was in fact an alien-born.

Unknown said...

"Going from "Naturels ou indigènes" to our Article II language requires vastly more imagination."

No it doesn't, you are talking nonsense (as usual); it makes perfect sense, we all know what Vattel was saying, regardless of language, he said that NATURAL BORN CITIZENS were those of NATIVE-BIRTH + CITIZEN PARENTS.

Do you also think that going from "citizen of the United States" in the WKA case, to "natural born Citizen" requires vast imagination?

The Framers could NOT POSSIBLY have found in ECL that native-birth sufficed to make a "natural born subject", because IT'S NOT THERE to be found.

Principally, BOTH Vattel AND 17th century English common law, REQUIRED that a father of a native-born child, must be a subject/citizen in/of the realm of the child's birth, for his child to be "natural born #######"

So whichever way you twist and turn and squirm ...... you will find that your argument has no foundation and is absurd at it's core.
The absurdity is in that there's NO WAY the Framers would have been so slack, given their imperative to protect the office of POTUS from the least possible foreign influence.

Can't you find just ONE citation reference to 17th C. ECL where it was held that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject???

I'll understand if I don't here back from you.; February 9, 2013 at 12:54 AM
Unknown said...: Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"You cite Charles Gordon and his paper as support of your position. Your reliance upon Mr. Gordon and his papers is misplaced. Mr. Gordon clearly stated in his paper that Wong Kim Ark had nothing to do with defining a 'natural born Citizen.'"

Charles Gordon's paper is about the doubted case: "those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents." That's not the situation the Court examined in Wong. I think today those doubts are reasonably well settled and the expert consensus is that any citizen from birth is natural-born.

Obama does not fall into the doubted case. The eligibility of the native-born was clear and settled long ago, and Wong Kim Ark is the Supreme Court opinion that experts and Courts cite to show that the native-born are natural-born.; February 9, 2013 at 2:35 PM
Unknown said...: Philip N.wrote:

"May I suggest the next topic for your blog to be, 'Dual Citizenship and why the Founders left no room for it.'?"

The eligibility challenges have to tip-toe around that one. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), leaves no doubt that a dual citizen can be a natural-born citizen.; February 9, 2013 at 3:09 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Unknown,

You said: “Among my modern sources, the stand-out is Charles Gordon's paper, cited above. Writing 40 years before our courts spoke, Gordon not only called the conclusion, he nailed standing, timing, burden, pretty much everything.”

I responded: “You cite Charles Gordon and his paper as support of your position. Your reliance upon Mr. Gordon and his papers is misplaced. Mr. Gordon clearly stated in his paper that Wong Kim Ark had nothing to do with defining a “natural born Citizen.”

Now you say: “Charles Gordon's paper is about the doubted case: "those who have acquired United States citizenship through birth abroad to American parents." That's not the situation the Court examined in Wong. I think today those doubts are reasonably well settled and the expert consensus is that any citizen from birth is natural-born.

Obama does not fall into the doubted case. The eligibility of the native-born was clear and settled long ago, and Wong Kim Ark is the Supreme Court opinion that experts and Courts cite to show that the native-born are natural-born.”

First, you have not contested that Charles Gordon said that Wong Kim Ark did not define a “natural born Citizen.” Second, even though he said that and you do not dispute what he said, you press forward and tell us that Wong Kim Ark defined a “natural born Citizen.” Third, if Charles Gordon is about the “doubted case,” i.e., those born out of the United States which as you say is not Obama’s situation, then why did you cite him as the “stand-out” modern source and his paper as support for Obama’s case?

So what we have here is a situation in which you cite an authority, I show you the authority actual said something which contradicts your position, you do not dispute the contradiction, but then say that the authority is not relevant to your case which again contradicts you using the source in the first place. As I have so many times said, Obots like you are full of contradictions. They get lost in their own misrepresentations and do not know it.

Nice going Unknown. You really are better off staying unknown. Just think if the people who know you could see you in action here.; February 9, 2013 at 3:14 PM
Unknown said...: Founder and historian Dr David Ramsey wrote a essay about citizenship and here is one quote. "Citizenship, as a natural right, belongs only to the children of citizens since July 4, 1776". The minor and venus courts did not make up their own definition of the "natives or NBCs" but instead resorted to the "common law" of the Framers and it would be nice if judges now would do same thing. Most spineless, corrupt hacks in congress and current judges, secretarys of state wouldve joined King George and there wouldve been no american revolution. The Founders and patriots were a far higher caliber of men than what we see today; February 9, 2013 at 4:24 PM
Teo Bear said...: UNK,

U said "The eligibility challenges have to tip-toe around that one. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), leaves no doubt that a dual citizen can be a natural-born citizen."

Your mismanagement of case law astounds me, Elg was a NBC, prior to her birth her parents renounced their former allegiances upon being naturalized in the US. She was not born a dual national as she was born with single unified allegiance.

They then returned to their native country and resumed their former allegiances. Upon reaching the age of MAJORITY Elg returned to the US in order to resume a permanent domicile.; February 9, 2013 at 7:43 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Unknown @February 9, 2013 at 3:09 PM,

You said: “The eligibility challenges have to tip-toe around that one [dual citizenship]. Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), leaves no doubt that a dual citizen can be a natural-born citizen.”

The U.S. Supreme Court in Perkins v. Elg confirmed that a child born in the United States to parents who at the time of her birth were “citizens” and who acquired their citizenship through naturalization after their birth is a “natural born Citizen.” Under U.S. law, including the Constitution, Congressional Acts, and American national common law, Elg was not born with any other allegiance or citizenship. That she acquired another allegiance and citizenship after her birth under Swedish law by her parents resuming their Swedish citizenship after she was born did not under American national common law and when no treaty or Congressional act provided otherwise, cause her to lose her “natural born Citizen” birth status.

On the other hand, if Elg had been born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents, the Fourteenth Amendment (not American national common law) would at best have treated her as a “citizen of the United States” at birth, but not as an Article II “natural born Citizen.” That is because the U.S. Supreme Court’s settled American national common law definition of a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. Being born to one or two alien parents, American common law would have recognized that she would have through jus sanguinis inherited the allegiance and citizenship of one or both of her alien parents at the time of her birth. The Fourteenth Amendment could not have helped her to inherit the status of “natural born Citizen,” for the amendment neither repealed nor amended the “natural born Citizen” clause and only defines a “citizen of the United States,” in any event. So the type of dual and conflicting allegiance Elg would have inherited at birth by being born to one or two alien parents and so recognized by American national common law and national practice would have ruled her out as being born a “natural born Citizen.”

As I have explained, there are three constituent elements to being a “natural born Citizen,” birth time, birth country (U.S.A), and birth parents (U.S. "citizens"). With Elg, at birth time, her birth country was the U.S.A, and her birth parents were U.S. “citizens” (by naturalization after their birth). The unity at birth time of U.S. birth place and U.S. birth parents made her a “natural born Citizen.” It matters not that due to her parents’ actions after she was born and during the time that she was a minor, under Swedish law she acquired allegiance and citizenship to Sweden.; February 9, 2013 at 11:48 PM
Unknown said...: '''if Charles Gordon is about the “doubted case,” i.e., those born out of the United States which as you say is not Obama’s situation, then why did you cite him as the “stand-out” modern source and his paper as support for Obama’s case?'''

Because not only did Gordon know that the native-born qualify as natural-born, he correctly called issues of timing, burden, and jurisdiction. Within the matter of jurisdiction he included both the political question doctrine and the hurdle of standing. Mr. Apuzzo, as you are well aware, the District Court dismissed your case, Kerchner v. Obama, on two grounds: standing and, in a footnote, political question. On appeal the Circuit Court affirmed on standing alone.

"In the first place, a person seeking to launch such a contest would have to overcome the seemingly insuperable hurdle of legal standing to sue." [Gordon 1968]

Why am I so impressed with Gordon? A better question would be why you are not. He called your own case 40 years in advance.

Gordon is no fan of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. If your game, Attorney Apuzzo, is to set me against my own citations, first I'll point back several comments to where I wrote of WKA, "The majority opinion is long, difficult, and discursive. Determining precisely which bits are dicta is for debate among scholars far above me." We obots proved correct that WKA controls, but I never said it was simple. Upon reading Gordon's paper, "discursive" became my new favorite word.

Second, Mr. Apuzzo, how, at this point, could you possibly think that rate of consistency with one's own citations would be a point on your side? In Kerchner you cited as an authority, "America's Constitution, A Biography" by Akhil Reed Amar. Did you not read as far as page 164? Or maybe the the first four words of your current blog article were just a typo; you meant to write "Eminent Constitutional scholars" but your fingers slipped so it came out "Barack Obama eligibility supporters".; February 10, 2013 at 2:08 PM
Ray said...: 1 of 5

It has for several years on this forum been repeatedly pointed out the conflicts of law created by:

º Claims that Naturalization Acts do not apply to alien parents' US born children

º Claims that the 14th Amendment "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause applies to those alien children, that they are "subject to the jurisdiction" and therefore are citizens

º Claims that the Civil Rights Act of 1866 "not subject to any foreign power" clause somehow means other than what is plainly stated.

International conflicts of law may be settled by a commission.

In accord with Art. XXI of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, to settle differences "by the arbitration of commissioners appointed on each side"[1], the United States and Mexican Claims Commission was established July 4, 1868.

Members of the Commission hearing the cases cited below were:

The commissioner for the United States was William Henry Wadsworth, with counsel Joseph Ashton, former Assistant Attorney-General of the United States.

The commissioner for Mexico was Francisco Palacio, also with counsel.

The umpire was Sir Edward Thornton, British minister to the United States. [2]

continued...; February 10, 2013 at 3:11 PM
Ray said...: 2 of 5

The commissioners were to decide "according to public law, justice, and equity" all claims laid before them.

Thornton, umpire, April 22, 1876, Beniguo Santos Suarez v. Mexico, No. 716, convention of July 4, 1868

"The umpire is of the opinion that it is not proved that the claimant was a citizen of the United States. The ground that he is so, is his own statement that he was born at New York, together with a certificate of baptism of a child who was born at New York, Beniguo being one of the names which were given to him; but it is not proved that the child then born and baptised was one and the same person with the claimant. Nor would the mere fact of his having been born at New York be sufficient evidence of citizenship. It is clear that his parents were both aliens at the time of his birth, and it is not shown that they were naturalized or that they or the child remained in the United States. The inference is to the contrary, and the umpire believes that the child in question, even if that child was really the claimant, though born in the United States, was subject to a foreign power and cannot without further proof be considered to be a citizen of the United States" (emphasis added) [3]

continued...; February 10, 2013 at 3:12 PM
Ray said...: 3 of 5

Bernard J. Gautier v. Mexico, No. 958, United States and Mexican claims commission, convention of July 4, 1868

"Claimant was born in Texas of French parents, and at the age of 19 years removed to Matamoras, Mexico, with his mother, a widow, where they established a commercial house.

The commissioners, Mr. Palacio delivering the opinion, held that, as it did not appear that the parents of the claimant were naturalized during their residence in Texas, it was to be presumed that they retained their original French nationality; that the claimant, who left the United States before arriving at the age of 21 years, was entitled, according the the French code, to retain the nationality transmitted by his parents; that the laws of Mexico did not forbid such election; but that he was not entitled to renounce his French nationality and elect that of the United States, after he had abandoned that latter country to establish himself in another, and after he had made a valid act of adoption of French nationality." (excerpted, emphasis added) [4]

Had the claimant remained in the United States he would have retained the right of election - his right to renounce his French nationality or elect that of the United States.

continued...; February 10, 2013 at 3:13 PM
Ray said...: 4 of 5

These cases illustrate:

º Naturalization Acts do apply to alien parents' US born children

º The 14th Amendment "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause does not make citizens of alien parents' US born children, the children are themselves alien.

º The Civil Rights Act of 1866 "not subject to any foreign power" clause means what is plainly stated.

continued...; February 10, 2013 at 3:13 PM
Ray said...: 5 of 5

Finally, it is my great pleasure to point out the case of Christian Gatter [5].

"The claimant was brought to the United States while a minor by his father from Germany. He claimed citizenship though the naturalization of his father, but did not prove the naturalization.

The umpire, observing that there was no proof of the naturalization of the father, said: 'The fact that he (the father) voted or even held office in the State of Illinois is no proof that he was a citizen of the United States. And if he was not, neither was his son, who does not pretend to have been naturalized." (excerpted, emphasis added)

Note well judge Carroll (Voeltz v. Obama): contrary to your "miracle", holding office is not proof of citizenship.

[1] Treaty of Peace, Friendship, Limits, and Settlement with The Republic of Mexico, 9 Stat. 922, 939 (1848) available at memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwsllink.html

[2] John Bassett Moore, 2 History And Digest Of The International Arbitrations To Which The United States Has Been A Party, 1287 (1898) available at books.google.com

[3] Id. at 2449

[4] Id. at 2450

[5] Id. at 2547

Guided by Providence, with prayer for protection; February 10, 2013 at 3:13 PM
Unknown said...: JS wrote:
"Our Constitution forbids the establishment of religion, while respecting the rights of all persons to worship God or nature as they like. The English common law is in direct polar opposition to our Constitution, in that infidels were considered enemies of the state."

For that I stand in awe of the Framers and Founders. The original Constitution forbade religious tests for public offices, a novel idea at the time, then the First Amendment doubled down on individual freedom and state limitation. Not only did the Founders reject prescriptions of English common law, they went against most all of the respected authorities of the time.

Consider the assertion:
"The establishment of religion by law, and its public exercise, are matters of state, and are necessarily under the jurisdiction of the political authority."

Our Constitution is, to use JS's phrase, "in direct polar opposition" to that assertion. Readers might suspect that I looked up the First Amendment, for purpose of contriving its opposite, and that assertion is what I manufactured. It's so specifically in direct polar opposition to our First Amendment.

Nope. Didn't make it up. It's a quote. I Googled it, and you can too. It's a translation from French of an 18'th century Prussian-Swiss political philosopher. Backward as it sounds now, there was quite some depth and intelligence behind the work at the time. There are even people today -- I kid not -- who claim that the Framers incorporated that work into the U.S. Constitution.; February 10, 2013 at 3:20 PM
MichaelN said...: Unknown said ....

"Because not only did Gordon know that the native-born qualify as natural-born,....."

How, do you suppose Gordon would know that?, (assuming of course that you mean native-born, without citizen parents, qualify as natural born Citizens)?

NOWHERE in the 17th century English common law, was it held that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born, in fact according to 17th century ECL, if a child was native-born to a NON-subject father, then the child was alien-born.

Perhaps you can show where in 17th century ECL Gordon or anyone might find that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject.

Linda got the flue when confronted with this task, smrstrauss went all quiet, and you keep pretending the question has not been put to you.

The Framers could not possibly have meant for native-born to suffice as all that was necessary for a USC Art II "natural born Citizen", and have based it on the 17th century ECL, because IT'S NOWHERE TO BE FOUND in the 17th century ECL.

Nowhere!

17th century English common law, required a native-born child to be born under the allegiance of a subject and expressly excluded native-born as sufficient to make a natural born subject.

Coke - Calvin's case...

"And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born"; February 10, 2013 at 7:03 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Unknown @February 10, 2013 at 2:08PM,

I of II

(1) Your attempt to get around your misplaced reliance on Charles Gordon is feeble.
You cited Gordon as support for the merits of your argument that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” We were not discussing any issue of judicial justiciabiilty. On this blog, we are not in a court of law. This is an open forum for public debate and discussion on the Obama eligibility issue. The issue here on this blog thread is not nor would it be about justiciability, e.g. standing, political question, etc. Those issues have been addressed by me in other contexts and threads. So do not try to tell me that Gordon supports you on how you cited him. You cited him for the merits of the “natural born Citizen” argument, not your feigned justiciability issues. You have demonstated yourself to be, indeed, among those who earn their keep within the Ninth Circle.

(2) You elude yourself into thinking that the Obots proved that “Wong Kim Ark controls.” Neither the Obots nor any court has yet done so. Just saying that it controls is one thing. Demonstrating how it controls is completely different. Anyone with fleeting power can accomplish the first. Only those who can demonstrate the truth can accomplish the second.

(3) You attempt to show some contradiction on my part with your reference to Akhil Reed Amar. In citing Akhil Reed Amar, America’s Constitution: A Biography, p. 27 (Random House 2005), I said that he recognized that Emer de Vattel’s, The Law of Nations, was widely read and cited in revolutionary America. I never cited Professor Amar as support for my position on what is the correct definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Additionally, I did not nor would I argue against Professor Amar for having said that a “natural born Citizen” is a “born citizen,” for being a “born citizen” is a necessary consequent of being a “natural born Citizen.” What I said is that he does not provide a real definition of a "natural born Citizen," but only a repetition of the same words to define the clause which I consider to be a tautology, i.e., his statement is true only by virtue of its form and nothing else. With being born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” being the necessary and sufficient conditions for being a “natural born Citizen,” simply saying that a "natural born Citizen" is a "born citizen" does not provide any definition of the clause, but rather only a repetition of part of the words of the clause ("born citizen") which in and of itself is a necessary consequent of being a "natural born Citizen," but not a sufficient condition. For these reasons, Professor Amar also commits the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent.

So, I cited and quoted Amar because he recognizes the importance of Vattel to the Founders and Framers, not because I agree with his definition of a "natural born Citizen." There is nothing wrong with my reliance upon him for that limited purpose. I am sure that you would agree with that one does not have to agree with everything an authority may say on any given subject.

Continued . . .; February 10, 2013 at 11:42 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

(4) I do not know to whom you are referring when you speak of “Eminent Constitutional scholars.” Maybe you can cite and quote some here for all of us to consider. I do have one that you can include in your list. Professor of law at the University of Illinois, Lawrence Solum, in his 2008 Michigan Law Review Originalism and the Natural Born Citizen Clause, http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/originalism-and-the-natural-born-citizen-clause , in which he was addressing the presidential eligibility of John McCain, said:

“What was the original public meaning of the phrase that establishes the eligibility for the office of President of the United States? There is general agreement on the core of its meaning. Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a ‘natural born citizen.’"

Now that is a huge statement by the professor, given that he said that the “original public meaning” of the “natural born Citizen” clause was anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States. When he made his spontaneous statement, he did not realize that his words could be applied to Barack Obama’s birth circumstances and actually show that Obama is not a “natural born citizen.” When questioned about his words, he back pedaled, but failed miserably, contending in an amended article: "As a matter of inclusion, anyone born on American soil with an American parent is clearly a ‘natural born citizen.'" So, when you give us your list of eminent constitutional scholars, please start with Professor Solum and do explain for us how he came to make his first honest statement, followed by his second false and contrived one.; February 10, 2013 at 11:43 PM
Unknown said...: I am reading pam barnetts book about the illegal president and as a ex intelligence officer she was showing where the illegal president and other criminals in congress do not even have to pass a background check and have a security clearance to hear classified information which makes it much easier for traitors to betray US. Speaking of traitors, she also wrote about Jack Maskells CRS report talking about the son of a german immigrant (steinkuhler?) being a NBC in 1855 but conveniently leaving out that steinkuhler had naturalized a year before his son was born. Leftist fact checks like annenberg and snopes are a joke when it comes to obama.; February 11, 2013 at 1:33 AM
Unknown said...: Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"This is an open forum for public debate and discussion on the Obama eligibility issue."

No, it is not. This is where you refuse to let through comments that you feel personally insult you, but attack my "scorpion nature" and say I earn my keep within the Ninth Circle.

Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"So do not try to tell me that Gordon supports you on how you cited him. You cited him for the merits of the 'natural born Citizen' argument, not your feigned justiciability issues"

Not so. I cited Gordon (and Pryor) in my very first comment, to support my claim, "The eligibility of foreign-born citizens from birth has been a more difficult case. There is now a wide consensus in the U.S. legal community that they qualify, but historically there have been doubts. For example: ..."

My statement about Gordon that set you off this time was: "Among my modern sources, the stand-out is Charles Gordon's paper, cited above. Writing 40 years before our courts spoke, Gordon not only called the conclusion, he nailed standing, timing, burden, pretty much everything."

Here is Gordon's consideration of the eligibility of the native-born: "It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible". Here's Pryor's: "It is well settled that 'native-born' citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born." Their articles were about the eligibility of person born abroad of American parents. That the native-born qualify was simply clear and settled.

You may think Gordon and Pryor were wrong, but you can not cite anyone disagreeing, not even yourself, until you needed reasons why Barack Obama cannot be President.

Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"You elude yourself into thinking that the Obots proved that 'Wong Kim Ark controls.' Neither the Obots nor any court has yet done so."

What I said was "obots proved correct that WKA controls". "Proved correct" means that history has born out the position.

Mario Apuzzo wrote:
'''Additionally, I did not nor would I argue against Professor Amar for having said that a “natural born Citizen” is a “born citizen,” for being a “born citizen” is a necessary consequent of being a “natural born Citizen.” What I said is that he does not provide a real definition of a "natural born Citizen," but only a repetition of the same words to define the clause which I consider to be a tautology, i.e., his statement is true only by virtue of its form and nothing else.'''

You think Amar cites Pryor for a tautology? That's a nonsensical reading. Amar is a born citizen/natural born citizen conflationist.

Mario Apuzzo wrote:
'''When questioned about his words, he back pedaled, but failed miserably, contending in an amended article: "As a matter of inclusion, anyone born on American soil with an American parent is clearly a ‘natural born citizen.'" So, when you give us your list of eminent constitutional scholars, please start with Professor Solum and do explain for us how he came to make his first honest statement, followed by his second false and contrived one.'''

The dishonesty is all you. The rest of the article contradicts the notion Solum had meant it as an exclusive statement.; February 11, 2013 at 4:32 AM
Unknown said...: MichaelN wrote:
"@ smrstrauss, Linda and Unknown.... Still waiting for a citation from the 17th century English common law, where it was held that native-birth was all that was required to make a natural born subject."

You should probably add JS to the list you address. JS knew that Calvin’s Case, "is universally recognized as having established the English common law with regard to the jus soli rule", and there's no indication that JS shares your delusion on what that rule is.; February 11, 2013 at 4:46 AM
MichaelN said...: @ Unknown....

Still waiting for you to show where in 17th century English common law, it was held that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject.

Can't find it?

I wonder where the Framers found it?; February 11, 2013 at 3:34 PM
Unknown said...: MichaelN said:
"Still waiting for you to show where in 17th century English common law, it was held that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject."

That's like me waiting for you to show a picture of a chap with sunglasses.; February 11, 2013 at 9:38 PM
Unknown said...: did any of these experts write supreme court case law in 1800s? I am sure all the leftist traitors would be the first to complain if they were thrown in prison w/o due process afforded to them by US Constitution but when it comes to NBC clause they lie about its true meaning instead of trying to amend Article 2 to make a "citizen of the US" eligible now.; February 12, 2013 at 12:41 AM
MichaelN said...: Unknown said...

MichaelN said:
"Still waiting for you to show where in 17th century English common law, it was held that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject."

That's like me waiting for you to show a picture of a chap with sunglasses.
---------------------------

Reply:

You wish that silly comment had some logic associated with my pointing out your dismal failure.

You see, I can show you any number of of pictures of "a chap with sunglasses", and I can do this with minimum wait time for you.

You haven't asked yet.

But YOU cannot produce one single holding or ruling from 17th century English common law, which recognizes native-birth as sufficient to make a natural born subject.

But I am not really waiting, rather by mocking you and your epic failure, I am keeping alive, on this blog, the fact that you have NOTHING from ECL which supports your absurd notion.

Like I said Linda faked a flu attack to dodge the truth, smrstrauss did his usual run and hide, and you try your hand at comedy.

Even Dr. Conspiracy freaks-out at the truth being exposed on his pathetic, pack-attack, lie-fest blog.

"Dr. Conspiracy February 11, 2013 at 5:19 pm
"I thought I banned you. Well, no harm done–I have now.
The answer is Calvin’s Case, and you were given free reign to argue this before, and all you proved was that you can’t read and you don’t listen.
Go away."

So, according to the censor in chief (aka Dr Conspiracy) Calvin's case is where to find, that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject.

But NO ONE seems to be up to the task of showing precisely where in Calvin's case it is ruled or held, that native-birth suffices to make a natural born subject.

I wonder why?

Do YOU suppose it's because IT'S NOT THERE TO BE FOUND?; February 12, 2013 at 1:11 AM
Anonymous said...: "Do YOU suppose it's because IT'S NOT THERE TO BE FOUND?"

They found it somewhere. Howelse do you explain Zephaniah Swift's statement about the laws of Connecticut?

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

That sure sounds like Connecticut used jus soli as the basis for citizenship. And Swift wrote that in 1795.; February 12, 2013 at 3:36 PM
MichaelN said...: 4zoltan said ...

MichaelN said.. "Do YOU suppose it's because IT'S NOT THERE TO BE FOUND?"

They found it somewhere. Howelse do you explain Zephaniah Swift's statement about the laws of Connecticut?

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

That sure sounds like Connecticut used jus soli as the basis for citizenship. And Swift wrote that in 1795.
--------------

Reply:
If they found it somewhere, then where is it to be found?

I'll answer that myself ..... NO WHERE.

What has Zephaniah Swift's statement about the laws of Connecticut to do with the Framers (allegedly) finding in 17th century ECL that native birth sufficed to make a natural born subject?

What's more Zephaniah Swift said "the children of aliens, born in THIS STATE" were "considered as natural born subjects", NOT that all children born in the US and NOT that they ARE US or State NBC, merely "considered as", IN Connecticut state.

Just because some dude reckons children born in a state to alien parents are "considered as" STATE nbc, does not equate to the Framers "must have" found in 17th century ECL that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject.

You need to do something about your application of logic.

YOU read it for yourself here....

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

.... and show WHERE it was ruled or held that native birth sufficed to make a natural born subject.

This nonsense you come up with that because some insignificant commentator reckons something about the citizenry of his beloved state, therefore the Framers "must have" found something in 17th century ECL is just plain garbage.

Surely, if all these so-called legal experts and commentators say that the 17th century ECL held or it was ruled that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject, then it should be easy to show where.

But NONE of them have EVER CITED to where in the ECL it actually says this is so, and a reading of the benchmark case i.e. Calvin's case shows that in fact it is expressly made clear that native-birth does NOT suffice to make a natural born subject.

Lord Coke in Calvin's case actually reeiterates, emphasizing that native-birth DID NOT SUFFICE to make a NBS on numerous occasions throughout his report of Calvin's case.

It is NOT POSSIBLE for the Framers or anyone else to have found or find a holding or ruling that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject, in 17th century English common law.

It is SIMPLY NOT THERE!

But the ruling and/or holding that native-birth DOES NOT SUFFICE, IS THERE!

Learn to live with it, you have been lead astray to believe the lies that have been put-out on this particular matter.

What is it that you don't get about....

" it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born"

and ....

".... 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..."

and ....

"There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.
2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion.
And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered..."

Wake up and face the truth!; February 12, 2013 at 8:18 PM
Teo Bear said...: Bottom line is this. If it was the common law of the United States at the time preceding Wong Kim Ark to included these children born within the United States of aliens as natural born citizens, as UNK, Linda, SMRStrauss and others have tried to infer, then the Justices hearing Wong Kim Ark would have declared them to be natural born citizens and not a citizens of the United States. They would not have needed to invoke the 14th Amendment to find them to be natural born citizens, as the unanimous ruling by the Justices in the Minor case did. In Minor they also had the 14th Amendment to determine if she was a citizen before seeing if the privileges and immunities clause had any effect. The fact is the Justices in the Minor case had to determine if she was a citizen before they could apply the privileges and immunities clause to her claim.

The question is why would the Justices in the Wong Kim Ark case apply the Article II restrictive for of citizenship to a man the Obots say was a natural born citizen. Until these Obots can explain this, they are just piling horseshit on bullshit and trying to tell us the smell is Chanel #5.; February 12, 2013 at 9:54 PM
Unknown said...: MichaelN wrote:
"You see, I can show you any number of of pictures of 'a chap with sunglasses', and I can do this with minimum wait time for you."

*Negative* wait time, in fact.; February 12, 2013 at 10:57 PM
MichaelN said...: Unknown said...

MichaelN wrote:
"You see, I can show you any number of of pictures of 'a chap with sunglasses', and I can do this with minimum wait time for you."

*Negative* wait time, in fact.
February 12, 2013 at 10:57 PM
-----------------------------------

meaning?; February 13, 2013 at 3:15 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Unknown @February 2, 2013 at 6:38 AM,

You said that the early naturalization acts "simply say nothing about those born in the United States." You are wrong again.

The operative language of the acts is:

The Act of 1790:

"And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.”

The Act of 1795:

“[T]hat 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, . . . shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”

Act of 1802:

"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, of dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States."

Congress used universal language in these statutes. "The children" means all the children whose parents naturalized after the children were born. The definite article “the” does not qualify “children” other than how the sentence itself qualifies those children. In the same sentence Congress did not qualify “the children” other than to limit the class to those born to parents who should naturalize after their birth. There in not one word that the class of children was limited by place of birth. In other words, no matter where the children were born, if they was born to alien parents, the children were alien born and needed naturalization, which they could obtain derivatively upon the naturalization of their parents if done during their years of minority and if dwelling in the United States. And upon such naturalization, those children became "citizens of the United States," not a "natural born Citizens."

These acts are quite easy to read and interpret and I have done so here. You refuse to admit their plain language and rather, want to raise questions about them which simply do not exist. I can understand why you refuse to admit the plain language of these acts. You know that these acts are virtually dispositive on the question of what is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” You simply do not want to pay that heavy price.; February 14, 2013 at 4:07 PM
Anonymous said...: "some insignificant commentator"

Let's compare.

Zephaniah Swift:
Graduate of Yale - 1778
Member Connecticut House of Representatives - 1787 to 1793
Member US Congress - 1793 to 1797
Author of first legal treatise in the United States - 1795
Justice of Connecticut Supreme Court - 1801 to 1819 (Chief Justice from 1806 to 1819)

MichaelN - posts comments to the internet.

It appears you are the insignificant commentator.

BTW, "are considered as" does not have the meaning you think it does.

So now that we know, for a fact, that in Connecticut the "children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects", how did the Framers explain to them that they had changed the definition?; February 14, 2013 at 8:44 PM
MichaelN said...: It must be an ego problem for these people like "Unknown".

Well, it could be a money thing too.

What is interesting, seeing as we know that native US birth does not suffice to make an Article II "natural born Citizen", is that, IF it were true that Blackstone, the compilers and editors of Black's Legal Dictionary, etc, etc, really believed that native-birth sufficed to make an English natural born subject,....

....then where precisely is it said in English common law?

I can't find it anywhere, and no one has been able to point to it.

IN fact the English common law, according to Lord Coke - Calvin's case, expressly EXCLUDES native-birth alone as sufficient to make a NBS.

So it appears that the likes of Blackstone, etc, had an agenda, and didn't really find a ruling or holding in the ECL that native-birth was sufficient to make a NBS.

The deliberate suppression of this MOST IMPORTANT English common law, rule and holding, smacks of an ongoing attack on the US Constitution, and it appears to have been going on from way back in the Independence period.

It has got to the critical stage where we have the likes of the traitorous Jack Maskell, "whispering lies in the ears" of the ENTIRE congress, without challenge, debate, any checks or balances, and Maskell acts under the color of highest authority.

He is virtually dictating the thinking and subsequent inaction as regards the Obama fraud.

It is Maskell who MUST be exposed for his CRIME, say via congressional inquiry, criminal prosecution, and then an open judicial inquiry and a published definition of NBC; this should commence ASAP, then publicize and broadcast to the entire nation, via media campaign, the correct meaning of "natural born Citizen" within the context of the USC.

Congress will have to dump Maskell and his lies, before they will do anything about Obama, they have the "expert opinion" to hide behind, which says native-birth will do.

As long as they have Maskell's definition as their mantra, Obama will not be challenged by representatives in the US houses of parliaments.; February 14, 2013 at 10:02 PM
Unknown said...: Patriot ann barnhardt calls every member of congress a moral degenerate. You can see her on youtube talking about "all the rat bastards in DC know he is not eligible". " and how do i know this (that they are degenerates)? because not one of them is on the top of the capitol steps screaming that hey, that sob over there, he is not eligible". She also calls barry a slack jawed, drug addled imbecile, lying sodomite, non uniformed enemy of the state. Our country is very much in decline and it is discouraging to me most americans are indifferent and/ or ignorant to barrys forgerys, crimes and being a blatantly illegal president. I admired reagan but if his father had been a foreign citizen then i wouldve spoken out about it. No president or shady politician is above the US Constitution, at least they are not supposed to be. As a natural born citizen, the Declaration, our Founders, our flag and the US C all mean something to me. From what i have learned about obama he does not even like this country.; February 15, 2013 at 2:01 AM
MichaelN said...: 4zoltan said...

"some insignificant commentator"

Let's compare.

Zephaniah Swift:
Graduate of Yale - 1778
Member Connecticut House of Representatives - 1787 to 1793
Member US Congress - 1793 to 1797
Author of first legal treatise in the United States - 1795
Justice of Connecticut Supreme Court - 1801 to 1819 (Chief Justice from 1806 to 1819)

MichaelN - posts comments to the internet.

It appears you are the insignificant commentator.

BTW, "are considered as" does not have the meaning you think it does.

So now that we know, for a fact, that in Connecticut the "children of aliens, born in this state, are considered as natural born subjects", how did the Framers explain to them that they had changed the definition?"
-------------------------

Reply:

Swift as a commentator with his opinion/commentary, is NOT significant (aka insignificant) to the quaestion of where the Framers' derived their definition of NBC from.

Swift was an insignificant commentator and his opinion was insignificant to the question.

It is not the qualifications, education, experience of a person that determines whether what they say is true or false.

If Albert Einstein said that black is white, he would be WRONG and his education, genius, standing in the community or with his peers, etc would not make his statement or opinion correct.

I didn't know the Framers explained anything to "them" or that they changed any definition; you are inventing history as you go along.

How ever a state determines it's state citizens, or how ever some commentator, insignificant (aka insignificant commentator) to the Article II eligibility clause, opines, commenting on a state matter and not the eligibility clause of Article II, has nothing to do with where the Framers might have found in 17thC ECL that native-birth is sufficient to make a NBS.

Swift apparently never said where he got his notion from, nor did the Framers, but it is for sure that native-birth as sufficient to make a natural born subject is NOWHERE in the 17thc. ECL.

Like I said before, you need to brush-up on your application of logic.

There is NOWHERE in the 17th century English common law, where the Framers of the USC could possibly have found a ruling or holding that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject......... NOWHERE!

There are NUMEROUS rulings/holdings/opinions in 17th ECL which REJECT native-birth as sufficient to make a natural born subject.

Swift could not have got his idea from the Framers nor the ECL.

You asked me to explain Swift's opinion, well, what Swift opined has nothing to do with where in 17thC ECL it was ruled or held native-birth sufficed to make a NBS.

If it is there, as you prefer to believe, then YOU find it and show where it is.

Face it, you have been conned, native-birth NEVER sufficed to make an English natural born subject, nor did it suffice to make an Article II natural born Citizen.; February 15, 2013 at 3:52 AM
MichaelN said...: Out of interest .....

Seems like Swift and his Connecticut were not really main-stream or in-step with the rest of the union.

No wonder Swift called citizens of Connecticut as "subjects" and had warped notions of no known origin as to what made a natural born subject.

"So when Connecticut declared independence in 1776, it had no need to tar and feather the Governor and his advisors and run them out of the state. Connecticut's Governor Trumbull helped to instigate the Revolution, and indeed he was the only colonial governor to support the Revolution. Thus the Charter of 1662 was generally perceived as a document of freedom rather than oppression. Since the colony had gotten along perfectly well under it for 114 years, why change anything in 1776? As the General Assembly declared in 1776:

Be it enacted...That the ancient form of civil government contained in the Charter from Charles the II, King of England, and adopted by the people of this state, shall be and remain the civil constitution of this state, under the sole authority of the people hereof, independent of any king or prince whatever.

So using the word "revolution" to characterize the events of 1776 in Connecticut is in one sense an overstatement, for the Charter of Charles II may well be thought of as Connecticut's Constitution until 1818."

http://www.cslib.org/cts4ch.htm; February 15, 2013 at 5:03 AM
MichaelN said...: Re: Swift and Connecticut

"Swift represented Connecticut in the U.S. House as a Pro-Administration candidate to the Third Congress and as a Federalist candidate to the Fourth Congress."

In Connecticut ....

"By 1816, the Federalist laws had become a scandal."; February 15, 2013 at 5:14 AM
MichaelN said...: Re: Swift and his departure FROM the English common law.

Swift didn't find in English common law, his notion that native-birth in the state of Connecticut made one "considered as" a natural born subject of the state of Connecticut; he made it up as a part of his campaign to establish a Connecticut common law.

"Tapping Reeve founded the first law school in the United States in 1774, the Litchfield Law School, and was its principal instructor for many years. He wrote important treatises on family and probate law. He was also a rabid Federalist and was the target of an unsuccessful criminal prosecution for seditious libel by the Jefferson administration (U.S. v. Reeve) for his attacks on the national government. Reeve made these political attacks while he was a Superior Court judge. Judges act a bit differently today!

Zephaniah Swift was the pioneer in the development of an American common law distinct from England. When there were no statutes in point, it was in the colonial era common to follow whatever the English courts were doing. In 1795, Swift wrote the first text on American law, called "A System of Laws," which stated what in his opinion the common law of Connecticut was, based on what Connecticut judges were actually doing. It was a radical departure from English precedents, and was an appropriate departure too if the "Revolution" was to have practical legal meaning. Swift also was a Federalist, but less fanatic than Reeve and after 1800 one of the supporters of disestablishment of the Congregational Church. He was also a delegate to the infamous Hartford Convention in 1814, where New England legislatures considered seceding from the Union because of the unpopular War of 1812. "
http://www.cslib.org/cts4ch.htm; February 15, 2013 at 5:24 AM
Unknown said...: Mario Apuzzo, Esq wrote:
"There in not one word that the class of children was limited by place of birth. In other words, no matter where the children were born, if they was born to alien parents, the children were alien born and needed naturalization, which they could obtain derivatively upon the naturalization of their parents if done during their years of minority and if dwelling in the United States."

That's obviously a nonsensical reading. Contrary to your theory, some of the under-21 children of aliens were already citizens. You may cling to your desperate notions about the native-born offspring of aliens, but what about the young adults that were already citizens because they had naturalized, before the parent did?

When I note that the naturalization acts of the first Congresses said nothing about the citizenship of children born in the US, one might argue that I'm conceding at least half a point. Had the acts asserted jus soli, I'd be hammering it. They did not. On the status of children born in the United States, the early naturalization acts said nothing either way.

There is a simple reason for the silence of the first Congresses on the citizenship of children born in the United States. It's basically the same reason for which our courts dismissed Kerchner v. Obama: Lack of jurisdiction. At the time of the first few naturalization acts, Congress did not yet have the power. We're talking 1790 to 1802.

Today we talk about what the United States is. Before the Civil War, the phrasing was different. They talked of what United States are.

The 14'th Amendment begins, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." It ends, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

You are correct, Attorney Apuzzo, when you say, over and over with no one disagreeing, that the 14'th Amendment did not repeal the NBC clause. The mystery is why you have not yet grasped the actual questions, hard as the clue-stick has beaten you.; February 15, 2013 at 1:52 PM
MichaelN said...: 4zoltan said ....

"BTW, "are considered as" does not have the meaning you think it does."

Response:
"(1) "Considered" is one of three things:
a) the past simple of the verb 'to consider', i.e. to think about something, to give a subject some thought.
"Every day I consider..." - present simple
"Yesterday I considered..." - past simple

b) the past participle (used to form the perfect tenses) of the verb 'to consider',
"I have just considered the question." - present perfect

c) An adjective, that's to say a word which describes something else. For example, "a considered opinion" means an opinion which has been arrived at after some thought, and not quickly or impulsively.

(2) "Considered as" means 'thought to be' - for example "The man who lives down the road is being considered as one of the suspects".
Slightly differently, it can also mean 'being thought of for possible selection (for a job, etc.)". For example, see the following news story:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/…

Hope this helps,
Mark.
Source(s):
Native English speaker

English language teacher"

http://www.ollla.com/what-does-considere…; February 15, 2013 at 3:19 PM
MichaelN said...: In the case of an alien-born father, the 17th century English common law formula for his native-born child to be a natural born subject, was that the father was a subject and the child was born in the realm at a time when the king had actual possession.

It was never the case that native-birth sufficed to make a NBS.

A native-born child of an alien father must be "born under the ligeance of a subject" or else the child was alien born, even though native-born.

Lord Coke - Calvin's case.

"There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.
2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion.
And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered"

"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"; February 15, 2013 at 5:10 PM
Robert said...: It's quite notable that Obama apologist and avowed communist Van Jones has declared Marco Rubio to be the most dangerous man in America. The inference is supposed to be that the danger lies in Rubio's policies and in his ability to gain a following. But, the real reason is that Jones knows the Communist, Democrat and other anti Constitutional parties will not be able to keep quiet on the eligibility issue. He knows that the useful idiots in this group will go into a shark-like campaign feeding frenzy and start blabbing the truth (short attention span problem). This will force the exposure and recognition of the total Obama fraud and the nullification of the entire Obama fiasco (and possible repercussions all the way back to Chester Arthur).

So, it will be very interesting to see what happens if the Republicans nominate one of their own ineligible stars at the end of Obama's term in office.

I would not be the least bit surprised to read some of the dissenting contributors to your post (some of the aforementioned "useful idiots")suddenly declaring the case of Obama moot (It can't be binding precedent because then Rubio, Jindal, etc. must be allowed to circumvent the Constitution, too.) and start citing your authoritative dissertations. Of course, they will write under new names and use the caveat that, until then, you just weren't quite clear enough.

They will claim that you, Michael, Carlyle, Teo, et al should have avoided all of the complex legal history stuff and just said that a natural born citizen is one born in the country to two citizen parents. You know, like Obama said in SR511 and like it says in Minor v Happersett and in the Law of Nations and that Treatise that the Swiss guy wrote that the founders read so much.; February 16, 2013 at 8:19 PM
Unknown said...: Congress has never passed a law saying a child born to american citizens in USA is a natural born citizen or even a citizen of the US so maybe there are 300 million of us here illegally. the Founders were big believers in the natural law which is beyond the power of humans to make and combine that with John Jays letter to GW, MvH, and the simple fact they did not want a foreign citizen as CiC makes it plain to see the standard you have to meet is described in law of nations and the SC cases from the 1800s.; February 16, 2013 at 10:26 PM
Unknown said...: Mario, do you think the current SC will even look at the past SC cases in orlys appeal/suit that he is not a NBC and has provided no physical evidence he is even a "citizen of the US"? The SC takes a oath to support US Constitution and they of all people should not swear in someone who is not a NBC. Arent they betraying their oath?; February 16, 2013 at 10:39 PM
Let us move forward said...: Mario,

Your comments indicate that you think that the letter was written by someone presenting the idea that presidents had to be born by C-Section. To me it seemed that C-section babies would have been disqualified because they were not "natural born"

Julius ordered that "C-sections" be performed on all women dying in childbirth to attempt to save the life of the child. Rome at that time was not producing citizens because few Romans were becoming pregnant. Caesar wanted as many citizens as possible.

C-sections were performed for centuries to attempt to save the life of the child when the mother died in childbirth. The practice of abdominal surgery on live people began in 1800s.; February 17, 2013 at 12:04 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Here is part of a letter that an anonymous “Democrat” wrote on January 17, 2013 to the Carteret County News-Times:

“The Republicans are just trying to stand in the way, because the president is black. They even dared to question whether he was born in this country. I think all this demonstrates that the Constitution needs to be amended when it comes to the qualifications for being president. Right now, it says that a person has to be 35 years old and be a natural born citizen. Well, that is obviously unfair because there are a great many otherwise qualified people who cannot run for president because their mothers had to have a C-section. But because the Constitution was written a hundred years ago, nobody even thought of the discrimination that would result from a doctor having to deliver a baby in this unnatural way. Now that we Democrats are in control of the government, that’s just one more thing we should change in our drive to make life fair.”

http://www.carolinacoastonline.com/news_times/opinions/letters_to_editor/article_8065cdfa-6a1c-11e2-a753-001a4bcf887a.html

My suspicion is that this letter is from an Obot who is just trying to ridicule and confuse the issue of what is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Clearly, the writer cannot be that stupid to write such a thing. On the face of what he wrote, the writer is mistaken on several fronts.

First, the Framers would never have made C-section a disqualifying factor to be President. The process by which a baby is delivered from his or her mother’s womb has absolutely no connection to the baby’s eventual allegiance, loyalty, and attachment to the nation to which the baby is born.

Second, as anyone with some understanding of the issue knows, being a “natural born Citizen” has nothing to do with the method by which a baby is delivered from his or her mother’s womb. The Obots like nothing better than to ridicule and bring contempt to the Constitution and confuse the public, but only when it serves their political agenda. Note that we have not seen anyone writing such nonsense about what it meant to be a “natural born subject” under English common law.

So that I may set the record straight, an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). This definition, which is the only definition which our Founders and Framers, Congress, and our U.S. Supreme Court has ever recognized, disqualifies from being President, Barack Obama (allegedly born in Hawaii, but to a non-U.S. citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother), Marco Rubio (born in Florida, but to two non-U.S. citizen parents), Bobby Jindal (born in Louisiana, but to two non-U.S. citizen parents), Nikki Haley (born in South Carolina, but to two non-U.S. citizen parents), and Ted Cruz (born in Canada to a non-U.S. citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother).

P.S. Let us Move Forward pointed out to me that I had mixed in some errors in my previous comment. I have corrected myself by this revised comment.; February 17, 2013 at 12:41 AM
Unknown said...: Breitbart mentioned ted cruz was likely a NBC and cited a politico article. Ted had a foreign parent and was born in canada. Why doesnt bb do some research instead of regurgitating obot propaganda?; February 17, 2013 at 2:00 AM
Unknown said...: Robert imagined:
"I would not be the least bit surprised to read some of the dissenting contributors to your post (some of the aforementioned 'useful idiots')suddenly declaring the case of Obama moot (It can't be binding precedent because then Rubio, Jindal, etc. must be allowed to circumvent the Constitution, too.) and start citing your authoritative dissertations. Of course, they will write under new names and use the caveat that, until then, you just weren't quite clear enough."

Back here in reality, no mainstream Republican, nor mainstream Democrat, showed any interest in challenging the eligibility of either Barack Obama or John McCain. It was pure fringe. It's not going to change.

There are a few deniers of the eligibility of Rubio and Jindal. We know who they are and why they do it. They're a fringe of the fringe. They're Obama-deniers boxed into a stupid position against Rubio and Jindal because they so vehemently, albeit uselessly, asserted it against Obama.; February 17, 2013 at 8:58 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Unknown,

Your conclusory statements and personal opinion do not count for anything unless you can provide convincing sources which support them. So far, you have provided no such sources here.

Also, your attempt to suppress the truth regarding the true meaning of a "natural born Citizen," by calling those who pursue that truth a "fringe" group which is not in touch with “reality” gets you nowhere. Why do you not try to address the arguments and win some, rather than try to buffalo us with your "fringe" and “reality” nonsense?

So far, I do not see you as having won even one point in this debate. If I am mistaken, you can provide a short bullet-point list of the points you believe you have won.; February 17, 2013 at 10:41 PM
Robert said...: Unknown,
Every nation in the history of this planet has recognized that a child born within its borders to citizen parents is a natural born citizen.

Conversely, the citizenship of persons born to unknown, alien or mixed parentage has been widely debated with no uniform resolution: in some nations such children remain aliens and in others they are considered to be statutory citizens or capable of becoming statutory citizens. None have recognized such persons as "natural born citizens".

So, where did you come up with your argument? You haven't presented anything valid here, yet?

Did all colonial British subjects become citizens of the US after the revolution regardless of their allegiance? Some remained loyal to the King, you know.

What about the slaves, other foreigners passing through the country, or the native Indian tribes? Who was a citizen of the United States at the signing of the Constitution? Who were the first natural born citizens? And, for both of the previous questions, who wasn't?

It would seem to me that the relatively miniscule number of Obots trying to justify Obama, especially in light of:

*his personal admissions of birth under foreign jurisdiction,
* his publicized resume claiming his birth in Kenya,
*his missing and forged documentation,
* his complete failure to qualify for office as required by Amendment XX,
*etc.

are much more appropriately identified as "fringe" or "kooks".

You have absolutely zero foundation upon which to base an argument that Obama is even a citizen. Yet, you persist in such an amazingly obtuse path; and, for what?

You want to keep an ineligible, unqualified, unreliable, narcissistic sociopath in a position that can greatly affect your life and the lives of everyone you care for? And, you're ridiculing me? Now that's funny.; February 18, 2013 at 1:56 AM
MichaelN said...: @ Unknown (afraid to use real ID)

Just remember these facts....

It was never the case that native-birth sufficed to make a NBS.

A native-born child of an alien father must be "born under the ligeance of a subject" or else the child was alien born, even though native-born.

Lord Coke - Calvin's case.

"There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.
2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion.
And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered"

"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"

So IF the Framers had observed the English common law principles to determine a "natural born Citizen, then for a native-born child to be an Article II "natural born Citizen", the child would have to be born under the allegiance of a US citizen.

You are wrong and you lose.; February 18, 2013 at 4:23 AM
MichaelN said...: 4zoltan must have "the flu", probably caught it off Linda.; February 18, 2013 at 4:24 AM
js said...: re; Unknown @ February 10, 2013 at 3:20 PM

Pickles are not made in buttermilk. Try it, nobody ever tried to make that a quote...its just common sense (that is...if one has any concept of what a pickle is).

Yet you jump from the issue of English Common Law to a Quote from...who cares...to miss the point that...English Common Law...was not used as a basis of citizenship by the Founding Fathers. Same thing as the above quote.

It is a matter of fact that the Founding Fathers cited the Law of Nations, which stipulates that natural born citizenship comes to the children of its citizens (plural).

Citizenship at this point is neither given nor taken by any man made law. It is a natural right of decent, natural inheritance, which provided Natural Born Citizenship. The conditions needed to apply are indisputable in any court of law.

Citizenship of children of Parents who were citizens, that were born in foreign nations, naturally acquire the citizenship of their parents, not by man made law, but natural inheritance as well. Under dispute it is correct to identify them as citizens of their parents homeland. Certainly you would not suggest that if a US Citizen had a child in a foreign nation, that the foreign nations sovereign rights would allow them to remove the child from the custody of its parents due to citizenship rights of the child. It is generally recognized that the host nation does not have jurisdiction to do so, therefore, its jurisdiction is not complete, but only a physical element of the situation. Doesn't happen that way, every nation recognizes the parents citizenship inherent in their child. The 1795 naturalization law was corrected when it was repealed, as no man made law can award natural born citizenship to any child. That would be like passing a law requiring that one had to engrave "tree" into every tree that grows on our property so we can correctly identify it as a tree. It lacks common sense, just like man made laws are that pretend to exert authority over the laws of nature.

Yet that is exactly what happens when liberals exert the idea that Obama, born a subject of the British Crown, naturally a citizen of that nation at birth by right of his fathers citizenship, is a natural born citizen of the United States. The fact that Obama cannot be a natural born citizen of any nation evades you folks, no matter where he was born! You keep telling us that you can make pickles with buttermilk.; February 19, 2013 at 9:40 AM
js said...: Unknown said; "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." It ends, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

You are correct, Attorney Apuzzo, when you say, over and over with no one disagreeing, that the 14'th Amendment did not repeal the NBC clause. The mystery is why you have not yet grasped the actual questions, hard as the clue-stick has beaten you."
@February 15, 2013 at 1:52 PM

So tell us, if a foreign couple has a child in the US, does that give the US Jurisdiction over that child? Can we legally take the child from its parents as they leave to go home? Absolutely not. Congress, as the legislative body that enforces the 14th amendment, acknowledges the lack of jurisdiction over the child, born in the USA, of parents who are foreign citizens. This concludes the mystery that you so inevitably missed yourself. The issue of citizenship cannot be more clearly delineated, in that a child born inside of the borders of the USA, subject to the authority of any foreign nation, fails to meet the natural born citizenship requirements for POTUS. Such jurisdiction, as stated by the 14th amendment, is not a clear cut defining factor in natural born citizenship, as it is a logical configuration of law, man made law, awarding citizenship beyond the natural law (being, natural born citizens are not under dispute of any debate between any nations right of jurisdiction) The 14th amendment does not, and can not, award something that a child already has. In this case, the dual citizenship held at birth of Obama precludes any possibility that he could ever be a natural born citizen of any nation.; February 19, 2013 at 9:56 AM
Unknown said...: Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"Your conclusory statements and personal opinion do not count for anything unless you can provide convincing sources which support them. So far, you have provided no such sources here."

You write these things...
Who decides whether one's support rates as "convincing"? I was convinced by the support I cite; you were convinced by yours. It's not my job to convince you and it's not your job to convince me. And yet, it is not a draw.

I'll tell you who decides: judges. That's why they're called "judges".

It was your job, Counselor, to convince Jerome B. Simandle. It was your job was to convince Jeff S. Masin. If you want to brush them off as "lower courts", well, the appeals were your job too. Plus, we obots did not choose those forums. Your clients, with your advice, took your cases there.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
'''Also, your attempt to suppress the truth regarding the true meaning of a "natural born Citizen," by calling those who pursue that truth a "fringe" group which is not in touch with “reality” gets you nowhere. Why do you not try to address the arguments and win some, rather than try to buffalo us with your "fringe" and “reality” nonsense?'''

Yeah, well, at least I avoided the 'B' word. Not easy for me. If I inadvertently tipped my disgust and contempt for your side, I'll just have to live with that.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"So far, I do not see you as having won even one point in this debate."

You write these things...
Imagine my surprise at hearing you proclaim victory yet again.
My opening phrase last post, "Back here in reality", I'm all about that.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"If I am mistaken, you can provide a short bullet-point list of the points you believe you have won"

Short? No, 'twould not be short. Blogger.com imposes a length limit on comments, so how about you just take your pick?
...Oops no, that Fuller/Gray/Grey thing, yeah, I screwed that up. And you guys weren't all that hard on me for it. Mr. Soros was furious. Docked my pay. I was lucky keep job. Things get hot here in the Ninth Circle.; February 19, 2013 at 9:57 AM
Carlyle said...: Mario -

What is the definition and legal meaning of an oath of office? If it cannot be enforced, can it be said to have any meaning at all? If it can be enforced, how and where do we do it?; February 19, 2013 at 11:30 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Unknown,

I see you have run out of any legal arguments and now resort to telling little stories.

Oh, and how could I forget. Like I said before, when the Obots are not able to defend their position, they just tell us that their position won in a handful of lower courts. God forbid the Obots should even try to show us by what historical sources, U.S. Supreme Court cases, reason, and logic those courts have come to their conclusions.; February 19, 2013 at 11:06 PM
Unknown said...: It is insanity to think the Framers, after overthrowing the king of england, wanted to allow a british citizen like barry, or any foreign citizen, to be CiC. John Jays letter to GW suggesting NBC clause makes that clear. John Jay was not only first Chief Justice of US SC but also was involved in constitutional convention. It is pretty hard to trump that. There wouldve been no american revolution if all these cowards in congress had been politicians back in 1776.; February 20, 2013 at 12:19 AM
MichaelN said...: @ 4zoltan

As you can see, Swift rejected English common law.

You can also see that Swift's notion that native-birth sufficed to have one "considered as" a STATE citizen, was not to be found in ECL.

Swift could not possibly have got his definition of a "natural born citizen" from the English common law, because it was English common law's ruling that native-birth did NOT SUFFICE to make a natural born subject, and Swift was a radical activist for the cause of establishing American common law and REJECTION of English common law.

Your assertion that Swift found his construct of "natural born citizen" in ECL, has bitten you on the arse......... it's absurd where Swift doesnt agree with ECL.

It doesn't get any clearer than this ..............

Coke: "it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born"

US Translation: native-birth does NOT suffice to make a natural born Citizen.; February 20, 2013 at 7:54 AM
Unknown said...: Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"I see you have run out of any legal arguments and now resort to telling little stories."

The courts ruled against you. Is that not a good legal argument?

I do tell my little stories, and what I love most about them: they're true. Note the vast difference between truth-telling and your work in the Kerchner v. Obama complaints.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"Oh, and how could I forget. Like I said before, when the Obots are not able to defend their position, they just tell us that their position won in a handful of lower courts."

No, it's special. In this case we point out that our position beat *you* in the courts where *you* chose to argue *your* position. Your courts too low for you? Did you go there because obots held a gun to your head? Why didn't you appeal to the... or petition the...

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"God forbid the Obots should even try to show us by what historical sources, U.S. Supreme Court cases, reason, and logic those courts have come to their conclusions."

Been there; done that. And by "there" I mean here. See my comment of January 31, 2013 at 8:07 AM. (That's how Blogger displays the time-stamp to me as I read it in California. They may show it differently in New Jersey.)

I'm not the only obot who has explained to you the legal reasoning you pretend to want. The most impressive are the obots that cited WKA as the controlling authority *before* the ruling on the Ankeny appeal. I'm technically one of them but only because I recognized that others knew their stuff. Think how silly I'd now feel had I believed you instead.

Mr. Apuzzo, have you not noticed the pattern? You wrote, "when the Obots are not able to defend their position, they just tell us that their position won [...]" No, no. We're much more diabolical. Defending our position is easy. Rubbing your nose in your failure is tricky business, because no one likes a sore winner.

Have you not noticed the pattern? Do you, at this point, not get the game of this Unknown evil obotic Ninth-Circle scorpion? "Not able to defend"? How could you still think...

It's not my last resort. It's my first and favorite. You lost. It's reality. I'm going to continue hammering it. You make it so easy.; February 20, 2013 at 12:49 PM
Unknown said...: JS wrote:
"So tell us, if a foreign couple has a child in the US, does that give the US Jurisdiction over that child? Can we legally take the child from its parents as they leave to go home? Absolutely not."

Good question... not!

If an American couple -- two natural-born US citizens that married or otherwise hooked up -- want to emigrate to a foreign nation three days after having a baby here, does U.S. law demand that they leave their newborn child behind?

I mean, for the sake of argument, suppose that they had filled out all the government forms and gotten the appropriate federal or state agencies to approve their expatriation. Oh, wait, there aren't any. Not on this side.

The case that the courts cite on our issue, US v. Wong Kim Ark, was not about whether Wong could *leave* the United States. Leaving, no problem, citizen or not. With such exception as convicts serving sentences and heroes screwed by a policy called "stop-loss", we who are so lucky as to reside between Canada and Mexico are free to leave any time we want. There's likely a load of paperwork and line-waiting on the destination end, but on this side, despite our bureaucracy in most every other matter, the U.S. makes leaving easy. Live your life where you wish. If you choose to move away, we will not hold a grudge.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) was not about whether Mr. Wong could leave the United States. It was about whether he could return.

There are today nations that will not let their citizens leave. That's not us. The serious debate in the US is at another level. Should our President, in a State of the Union address, call nations that won't let their people leave "evil"? Should we join our allies in a treaty banning land mines? On the land mine thing our leaders want an exception for the border between North and South Korea.

So, back to your question.; I'm not cowering out. Yes, that US-born child of the foreign couple is natural-born US citizen, potentially eligible to be President of the United States.

What you literally asked, JS, was just plain stupid. If you take that as an insult, well, good for you. That's how I meant it. Not a *personal* insult of course; I'm all on about the stupidity of what you wrote here, the argument you chose to present. Don't know you personally.

One more thing: If the hypothetical child wants to return to the United States, hypothetically or actually, that kid would be well advised to bring his or her birth certificate. There's a technical point about a seal, and if I'm attempting to be too-clever-by-half I'll live with it. Contrary to the allegations in the verified complaint(s) in Kerchner v. Obama, in original or as amended multiple times, any properly sealed state record, such as a Hawaiian COLB, is fine.; February 20, 2013 at 1:39 PM
Unknown said...: Robert wrote:
"Every nation in the history of this planet has recognized that a child born within its borders to citizen parents is a natural born citizen."

No contest.

Robert wrote:
"Conversely, the citizenship of persons born to unknown, alien or mixed parentage has been widely debated with no uniform resolution: in some nations such children remain aliens and in others they are considered to be statutory citizens or capable of becoming statutory citizens. None have recognized such persons as 'natural born citizen'"

Wrong. Not entirely wrong; you are correct that it has been "widely debated". Wide debate is good. In the case at issue the wide debate reached a conclusion before I or Mr. Apuzzo or President Obama were born. I'll guess also before you were born, but I don't actually know where you rank on the human longevity record.

As I pointed out before, if you want to know what a term means in American law, look it up in /Black's Law Dictionary/. It is not a controversial work.

Robert wrote:
"So, where did you come up with your argument? You haven't presented anything valid here, yet?"

You never head of Black's Law Dictionary? The journals I cited, the law reviews of Yale and the University of Maryland, are they outside your concept of valid legal relevance?

Robert, do you know who, besides me, cites Black's Law Dictionary? I got that for you: The United States Supreme Court.

You don't have to take my word for anything. Check my facts. There's this thing now called "Google". Or maybe you prefer Bing, or Ask Jeeves, or, well, a number of others.

Is 30 seconds of fact-checking really too much to ask of you, Robert?

In my first comment here, on January 26, I called Black's Law Dictionary, "the preeminent reference on American legal terms". Does anyone disagree?. It's just plain true. It's ten seconds to Google-check. West Publishing's marketing department hammers it, as well they should.

"Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad." -- Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.; February 20, 2013 at 2:43 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Unknown,

This blog is dedicated to engaging in critical and serious thinking and discussion about the meaning of an Article II "natural born Citizen." Who won and who lost in some current-day lower courts regarding that issue does not satisfy that goal.

Looks like you have hit the end. You have nothing left to say except meaningless comment about winning and losing. If you want to contribute something of value here, you are free to do so. But spare me your inane commentary.; February 20, 2013 at 3:19 PM
Unknown said...: Carlyle said asked:
"What is the definition and legal meaning of an oath of office? If it cannot be enforced, can it be said to have any meaning at all? If it can be enforced, how and where do we do it?"

Carlyle addressed the question to Mr. Apuzzo, but it raises an issue that has been eating at me, so, if our host permits, I'll answer and use the opportunity to review my own comments and make an adjustment.

The power to enforce the oath belongs to the U.S. Congress.

In previous comments, I over-stressed what Courts ruled on the meaning of the term at issue. They certainly took my side over Attorney Apuzzo's on that, but an even stronger theme in the mass of court opinions has been that the Constitution assigns judging the qualifications of presidents to Congress, not the judiciary.; February 20, 2013 at 3:26 PM
MichaelN said...: @ Unknown.

What "common law" was it that the SCOTUS in the Minor case referring to?; February 20, 2013 at 4:42 PM
MichaelN said...: Unknown said....

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"God forbid the Obots should even try to show us by what historical sources, U.S. Supreme Court cases, reason, and logic those courts have come to their conclusions."

Been there; done that.

Response:

Nonsense.

You have been shown verbatim excerpts from THE historic benchmark 17th century English common law case (i.e. Calvin's case per Lord Coke)that native-birth was NOT SUFFICIENT to make a natural born subject.

All, you have "done" in face of this FACT, is ignore this truth, evade acknowledgment that this ruling/holding exists, when it is quoted verbatim from the text of Lord Coke's report of the case, and generally maintain your dishonest, bigoted stance and wallow in your denial of having been proven to be wrong.

There is NO WAY the Framers, Blackstone, Justice Swift, Horaace Gray, Black's Legal Dictionary, or anyone else could have found in 17th century English common law, that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject, then adopted such an absurd notion, because it's NOT THERE at all, in fact the opposite is to be found.

Lord Coke - Calvin's case....

""There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born.
1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king.
2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion.
And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered"

"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"

So IF the Framers had observed the English common law principles to determine a "natural born Citizen (as is your absurd contention), then for a native-born child to be an Article II "natural born Citizen", the child would have to be born under the allegiance of a US citizen.

All you do is harrass and throw rocks at those who have shown HOW WRONG YOU ARE.; February 20, 2013 at 9:42 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Unknown,

We can thank Barack Obama for some of our nation's greatest thinking of the Twenty First Century. What an asinine notion, that Congress and not the courts have the authority to tell us what an Article II "natural born Citizen" is. Such stupid statements would never exist in the non-Obama world.; February 20, 2013 at 9:51 PM
Robert said...: Unknown,

From your response:
["Natural born citizen. Persons who are born within the jurisdiction of a national government, i.e. in its territorial limits, or those born of citizens temporarily residing abroad." -- Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition.

February 20, 2013 at 2:43 PM]

Well, Obama claims he was born under British jurisdiction because he was born to a British/Kenyan father temporarily residing abroad. So, according to your impeccable source, Black's Law Dictionary, Obama is a natural born citizen/subject of Britain/Kenya.

To strengthen his claim to British/Kenyan citizenship, Obama has previously claimed he was born in Kenya and even made a point of publishing this claim in a publicly distributed biography.

He now claims to have been born in Hawaii (not recanting his claim of birth under British jurisdiction). However, Hawaii has never produced any documentation to support his claim even though they are required by their own laws to do so. Neither has anyone else ever produced a legitimate document verifying Obama's claim of Hawaiian birth. And, even the proven forgeries that Obama and his enablers have presented reinforce that he was born to a British/Kenyan subject father temporarily abroad.

So, do you have any other sources that support Mario's conclusions as well as Black's?; February 20, 2013 at 11:52 PM
Unknown said...: i have seen the obot light, wka was ruled a natural born citizen because he was the child of foreign citizens and born in california. Ok, so he was not ruled a NBC but it is all the same anyways. I do not know how he went from not even being a citizen to natural born citizen but what does it matter really? It is not like the US president is most powerful man in country or that his campaign spent 1b to get reelected for a job that pays 400K a year. He may not even be a citizen for all we know. It is all just splitting hairs.; February 21, 2013 at 12:47 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda, sorry I mean Unknown @February 20, 2013 at 2:43 PM,

I hope you are not serious about your great reliance on Black’s Law Dictionary as your source of the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.”

First, it is absolutely amazing that you would cite Black’s Law Dictionary as authoritative on the definition of a “natural born citizen,” which did not define the clause until 1991, and not Vattel’s, The Law of Nations, which defined the clause starting in 1758. The Founders and Framers read and relied upon The Law of Nations. They did not do the same with Black’s Law Dictionary which did not define a “natural born citizen” until 1991. This alone shows to what unreasonable extremes you would go to support your baseless position.

Second, Black’s Law Dictionary 5th edition was published in 1979. It contained and defined a “natural born subject.” It did not contain the clause “natural born citizen.” Black’s Law Dictionary 6th edition, which is the dictionary upon which you rely, was published in August 1991. For the first time, the dictionary contained and defined “natural born citizen.” The dictionary does not provide any source for its definition of the clause. It does not tell us what the original public meaning of “natural born citizen” was when the Constitution was ratified.

Third, the 1991 edition of Black’s is a modern dictionary. You do not provide any dictionaries from the time of the ratification of the Constitution which defines a “natural born citizen” consistently with how Black’s defined the clause in 1991. Therefore, the 1991 definition of the clause provided by Black’s Law Dictionary is neither authoritative nor controlling. See Noel Canning v. NLRB, ___ F.3d ____ , No. 12-1115 (D.C. Cir. 2013) , http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D13E4C2A7B33B57A85257AFE00556B29/$file/12-1115-1417096.pdf (“The Board has offered no dictionaries from the time of the ratification that define “happen” consistently with the proffered definition of “happen to exist.”).

So, it looks like you have failed again.; February 21, 2013 at 1:11 AM
Unknown said...: a foreign citizen being CiC is a blatant violation of article 2 and yet none of the major networks will even honestly research this matter which tells me this and his forgerys are being swept under the rug by corp media, judges and congress which should be scary for all americans. philip marshall is a former airline pilot who wrote interesting books on the anomalies of 911 and for his efforts he is now dead along with his 2 children and dog. The official story is murder/suicide. He had another book coming out about 911 but we wont be seeing that anytime soon.; February 21, 2013 at 1:21 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Unknown @February 20, 2013 at 1:39PM,

You said: “Contrary to the allegations in the verified complaint(s) in Kerchner v. Obama, in original or as amended multiple times.” Better reading comprehension on your part would reveal that the complaint was amended since during the litigation process and before the defendants filed an Answer or any motions, Obama went from President-Elect to President.; February 21, 2013 at 1:23 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: 4zoltan @ February 12, 2013 at 3:36 PM,

I of II

You said:

“They found it somewhere. How else do you explain Zephaniah Swift's statement about the laws of Connecticut?

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

That sure sounds like Connecticut used jus soli as the basis for citizenship. And Swift wrote that in 1795.”

Your reliance on Swift to define the constitutional and uniform clause, “natural born Citizen” is misplaced. St. George Tucker in Tucker’s Blackstone, Note E instructed that “whenever the written law is silent,” and guided by “the nature and circumstances of each case,” we are to look to various sources of law to provide the rules of decision in any given case in which the federal courts otherwise had jurisdiction over the matter. He identified these sources of law and in this order: law of nations, common law of England, civil law, maritime law, general law and custom of merchants, and municipal laws of any foreign nation or of any state in the union. So, depending upon whether the written law was silent and the nature and circumstance of each case, one of those sources of law would provide the rule of decision in any given matter that was within the jurisdiction of the federal court.

James Madison instructed in Federalist No. 42 how the Founders and Framers defined terms used in the Constitution. In No. 42, Madison explained that “certainty and uniformity” were needed for the Constitution and new federal government. He explained that definitions of terms used in the Constitution were “evidently requisite” for its proper, certain, and uniform application and understanding. With respect to defining “piracies” and “felonies” as used in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10, he accepted the law of nations as a proper source for defining “piracies,” even though various state municipal codes defined the term. He did not state that the law of nations provided a definition of “felonies.” He said that state laws could not provide the definition of terms used in the constitution due to impracticality when each state provided a different definition and therefore there was no uniform definition provided. He added that English common law and English statutes provided a “loose signification” of the meaning of “felonies” and that in any event, those laws were not to provide the rules of decision in any matter unless those laws were given that force by “legislative adoption.” He further said that using the meaning the individual states gave to the term “felonies” would be “impracticable” as the English common law and English statutes “would be a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” for defining the constitutional term. Hence, he concluded that the power given to the federal government to define “felonies” was “necessary and proper.”

Let us apply these principles to defining an Article II “natural born Citizen” and to how Swift defined “natural born subject.” The states were free to apply whatever law they wished when there was no written law (statutory) on the matter. But the laws followed in the states did not bind other states, let alone become the laws that provided the rules of decision on the national level. Swift defined a “natural born subject” under the English common law as that character applied to state citizenship in Connecticut. But state citizenship, however defined, by one state did not determine citizenship in other states, let alone define national citizenship. The national government needed uniformity when it came to not only naturalization (Article I, Section 8, Clause 4) but also national citizenship and letting individual states define citizenship surely was not going to provide that uniformity.

Continued . . .; February 21, 2013 at 1:47 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

Article II uses “natural born Citizen,” not “natural born subject” which is a clause that existed in the English common law and what Swift used in this statement. The Founders and Framers were well aware of that law’s use of the latter term, but they rejected that term, both in the Declaration of Independence (Jefferson obliterated the word “subjects” in “our fellow subjects” and replaced it with “Citizens” so as to read, “our fellow Citizens” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/02/AR2010070205525.html ) and the Constitution. Rather, they chose a clause which did not exist in the English common law, let alone defined by it. See United States v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. 785, 788 (1866) (“The constitution uses the words 'citizen' and 'natural born citizens;' but neither that instrument nor any act of congress has attempted to define their meaning. British jurisprudence, whence so much of our own is drawn, throws little light upon the subject . . . . Blackstone and Tomlin contain nothing upon the subject.”). So, surely that law cannot be looked to to define the clause. On the other hand, the law of nations did specifically define a “natural-born citizen.” So, following Madison’s thinking, he would have looked to the law of nations to provide its definition. He would not have allowed the states to provide that definition because the states did not provide uniformity on the matter. Nor would he have allowed the English common law to provide that definition, for there was no “legislative adoption” of that law by the federal government. Moreover, the English common law would have been “a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” for defining a “natural born Citizen.” And finally, to whatever degree the English common law or statutory law still exerted any influence on the national level, that law was clearly abrogated by Congress when it passed the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 (consistent with the law of nations rule that children follow the condition of their parents (“partus sequitur patrem”), treated children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born).

So, we can fairly conclude that the Founders and Framers would have defined a “natural born Citizen” under the law of nations and not under the English common law which only the states selectively used for their “internal and domestic concerns.” Hence, reliance upon Swift and his statement which applied to citizenship in Connecticut and not to national citizenship is misplaced.; February 21, 2013 at 1:49 AM
MichaelN said...: @ 4zoltan

Justice Swift was opposed to adopting English common law in Connecticut, and no doubt also opposed to ECL at a national level, if he would have any say there.

So how do you figure that Justice Swift would even look to English common law to find definition for a citizen of Connecticut?

And in the very UNLIKELY event that he did, then where did he find it that native-birth sufficed to make a natural born subject?

It is NOWHERE to be found in the English common law rulings or holdings.; February 21, 2013 at 2:23 AM
Unknown said...: So as robert said, blacks law dict would make barry a nbc of us and the united kingdom? Are we leaving any other countrys out? Barry was born with divided allegiances and a dual citizen which of course wouldve been a ideal situation for a future CiC in eyes of Framers. Judge masin saw no problem with this or barrys fudged BC image. We have some real patriots in power now who cannot be bought, threatened or bribed when it comes to fulfilling their oath to US Constitution.; February 21, 2013 at 4:09 AM
Unknown said...: Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"What an asinine notion, that Congress and not the courts have the authority to tell us what an Article II 'natural born Citizen' is.

Courts, not obots, authored that asinine notion. For example:

"it appears that Plaintiffs have raised claims that are likewise barred under the 'political question doctrine' as a question demonstrably committed to a coordinate political department. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 216, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). The Constitution commits the selection of the President to the Electoral College in Article II, Section 1, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment and the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3. The Constitution's provisions are specific in the procedures to be followed by the Electors in voting and the President of the Senate and of Congress in counting the electoral votes. Further, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, also provides the process to be followed if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, in which case the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified. None of these provisions evince an intention for judicial reviewability of these political choices."
[Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F.Supp.2d 477, 479 (D.N.J.2009)]

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"Such stupid statements would never exist in the non-Obama world."

"The non-Obama world"? Wow. There's a world that's defined, distinguished from the real one, by the explicit absence of Barack Obama? Might you, perhaps, be taking the Obama denial thing a bit too far?; February 21, 2013 at 9:36 AM
MichaelIsGreat said...: Hello Mr. Apuzzo,

Have you heard about the recent case by Attorney Orly Taitz (I think Noonan et al v Bowen et al) on the Supreme Court of the USA where she sent 10 sets of documents for her case to the Supreme Court of the USA judges and got 5 sets back (9 judges and 1 for the archives).
Apparently, 4 sets are sent only to four judges and 1 set is kept for the archives.
Apparently, the clerks choose the four judges to whom to send a particular case!!
Therefore, when a case is planned against Obama at the Supreme Court, these clerks can pick four liberal judges, among them two Obama appointees Sotomayor and Kagan, and basically only these four liberal judges will decide on doing anything against a case against Obama!!!
By the way, Sotomayor and Kagan have previously not recused themselves on cases directly related to Obama and I expect them to keep behaving this way on the case brought by Taitz to the SCOTUSA.

My question is the following. Do you not think that this system is highly flawed and should urgently be changed or improved dramatically?
Again, any case against Obama can be easily rejected, denied by allowing the clerks (or whoever else) to choose four liberal judges in order to ensure the denial of a case!!!

You had a case recently. What happened to it?

KEEP FIGHTING AGAINST THE USURPER IN CHIEF, HUSSEIN OBAMA.
Obama has already bankrupted the USA by squandering more than $6 TRILLION of US deficit in four years and he plans, the coming four years, to squander at least $1 TRILLION of US deficit each year!!!; February 21, 2013 at 10:10 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Unknown,

I of II

You said: “Courts, not obots, authored that asinine notion. For example:

‘it appears that Plaintiffs have raised claims that are likewise barred under the 'political question doctrine' as a question demonstrably committed to a coordinate political department. See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 216, 82 S.Ct. 691, 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962). The Constitution commits the selection of the President to the Electoral College in Article II, Section 1, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment and the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3. The Constitution's provisions are specific in the procedures to be followed by the Electors in voting and the President of the Senate and of Congress in counting the electoral votes. Further, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, also provides the process to be followed if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, in which case the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified. None of these provisions evince an intention for judicial reviewability of these political choices.’

[Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F.Supp.2d 477, 479 (D.N.J.2009)].”

Another fail, Linda, I mean Unknown. First, so you seem to think that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined by who says it. Here is the absurdity of your position exposed: Jack said man can walk on water. Jill said what an asinine statement. The court said man can walk on water. Jill said what an intelligent statement. Surely, you would not agree with either the court or Jill. So you see, who says something does not prove the truth or falsity of anything. That truth or falsity exists despite who makes the statement. The problem that you have is that you and your Obot fellows become Jill and rely simply on who said something without showing that what was said has any reasonable basis in fact and law.

Second, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Kerchner did not think much of the lower court’s reliance on the political question doctrine. That Court did not even mention the doctrine in its decision. Also, note that the Court of Appeals dismissed the case only on the issue of standing. It never reached the merits of the question of what is the constitutional meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Continued . . .; February 21, 2013 at 11:03 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

Third, not only common sense but also constitutional law demonstrates that the statement that determining the constitutional meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a “political choice[]” to be made by the Electoral College and Congress is wrong.
The Twentieth Amendment provides a mechanism for Congress to follow should a president elect fail to qualify. But while Congress surely has the power to fully investigate the matter and make a decision based on its own investigation whether a president elect qualifies to be President, the extent of its investigation can only go as far as its legislative and regulatory powers allow it to go. Again, Congress has no power to define a “natural born Citizen.” Defining a “natural born Citizen” does not fall under any investigation in aid of any legislative function. Also, the Twentieth Amendment does not commit to Congress the task of determining what a “natural born Citizen” is, i.e, what is the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” See Nixon v. United States, 506 U.S. 224, 237 (1993) (“Our conclusion in Powell was based on the fixed meaning of "[q]ualifications" set forth in Art. I, § 2. The claim by the House that its power to "be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members" was a textual commitment of unreviewable authority was defeated by the existence of this separate provision specifying the only qualifications which might be imposed for House membership. The decision as to whether a Member satisfied these qualifications was placed with the House, but the decision as to what these qualifications consisted of was not” (citing and discussing Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 539 (1969)). See Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 550 (1969) (in invalidating the House's decision not to seat a Member accused of misuse of funds, the Court held that “in judging the qualifications of its members Congress is limited to the standing qualifications prescribed in the Constitution"). Surely, if Congress cannot add to those constitutionally prescribed qualifications for its own members, it also cannot take away from them. Giving Congress the power to define a “natural born Citizen” with respect to presidential qualifications would do just that, either add to the definition or take away from it and thereby impact on the qualifications to be President. Hence, it is clear under Powell that it is the courts which must determine the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” and not Congress.

So maybe you might want to read Nixon and Powell. These courts surely did not agree with the statement that interpreting constitutional eligibility requirements as presented by the Constitution was a mere “political choice” to be decided only by Congress. The constitutional force of what those courts said is equally applicable to deciding the question of constitutional eligibility of a President Elect and what the role of the Electoral College and Congress is in that regard.

I repeat, the sort of indefensible thinking that you and others present would not exist in a non-Obama world.; February 21, 2013 at 11:04 AM
js said...: @ Unknown @ February 20, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Is that your best shot, you didn't address the point. AN ALIEN COUPLE has a child IN THE USA. The child was born in the USA. Does the Government have jurisdiction over the child. Its that simple. Instead, you run around in circles omitting any answer to the point.

The 14th amendment as you quoted, rejected the citizenship of children born in the USA who were NOT SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION.

So the answer to the question is absolutely not. The Child does not retain any right to US Citizenship under the 14th Amendment. The case of Wok was contingent upon the establishment of a permanent residence of the parent, the ruling was not based up the rights of the parents, but the right of the government to deny the child's citizenship, which if it had been allowed, would subject the children of the slaves, born in the US to parents DENIED citizenship.

As I stated, the state has no right to remove the child of a foreign couple from their guardianship as they depart to their homeland. The 14th Amendment, at that point, fails to exert any legal authority over the child.

The point is that Obama, as a child of a foreign father, could not be denied the right of the foreign citizenship by the US Government. BHO actually admitted to his foreign citizenship at birth, subject to the jurisdiction of Britain, disqualifying himself as POTUS.

The Courts have failed to uphold their duty.; February 21, 2013 at 11:50 AM
Carlyle said...: Doesn't The Constitution guarantee that the Federal Government must allow us to petition? And that our grievances be heard and judged?

I think that is what angers me most. Having a complete hearing and being ruled against is one sort of thing, but being denied a hearing is quite another.

Don't we have a strong case that our Constitutional Rights are being violated? And isn't there a process where THAT can be addressed.

Specifically, should not the first step be divorced from Obama and we simply get a supreme authority to agree that we have a right to be heard - on ANY topic?

Then the courts could no longer deny us?; February 21, 2013 at 11:50 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: You like to refer to Obama eligibility cases in which I have been involved, although you only use those portions of the cases that you believe serve your purpose.

Let us not forget that in my New Jersey case, Purpura and Moran v. Obama, Obama’s lawyer conceded and Administrative Law Judge Jeff S. Masin confirmed that there was no evidence presented by anyone to the State of New Jersey and the court, including the on-line alleged birth certificate image, which demonstrated who Obama was or where he was born. Still Judge Masin ruled:

“Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” Initial Decision, p. 7.

ALJ Masin "accepted" that Obama was born in Hawaii to rule that he is a "natural born Citizen." But at the same time, Obama's lawyer conceded and Judge Masin confirmed that there was no evidence presented to the State of New Jersey, let alone to the court, that proved that he was born anywhere. So, ALJ Masin ruled that Obama was born in Hawaii, but without any such evidence admitted into the court record, and that by that fact alone, and despite his being born to a non-U.S. citizen father and U.S. citizen mother, he was an Article II “natural born Citizen.”; February 21, 2013 at 1:07 PM
Unknown said...: Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"First, so you seem to think that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined by who says it. Here is the absurdity of your position exposed: Jack said man can walk on water. The court said man can walk on water. Jill said what an intelligent statement. Surely, you would not agree with either the court or Jill. So you see, who says something does not prove the truth or falsity of anything."

This is a question of law, not of fact. Water-walkers meet their test at the sea; legal theories, in court. When the judiciary decide that they lack jurisdiction they dismiss the cases. By the time appeals are exhausted, that's the answer.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"Second, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Kerchner did not think much of the lower court’s reliance on the political question doctrine. That Court did not even mention the doctrine in its decision."

Nonsense. An appellate court's silence on a point does not suggest disagreement with the lower court. If the appeal has one issue that's both easy and dispositive, the court likely will never reach the others. In the Kerchner appeal, the standing issue was really, really easy because of the Berg precedent.; February 21, 2013 at 11:53 PM
Unknown said...: Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
'''Still Judge Masin ruled:

“Thus, accepting for the point of this issue that Mr. Obama was born in Hawaii, he is a ‘natural born Citizen’ regardless of the status of his father.” Initial Decision, p. 7.

ALJ Masin "accepted" that Obama was born in Hawaii to rule that he is a "natural born Citizen." But at the same time, Obama's lawyer conceded and Judge Masin confirmed that there was no evidence presented to the State of New Jersey, let alone to the court, that proved that he was born anywhere. So, ALJ Masin ruled that Obama was born in Hawaii, but without any such evidence admitted into the court record, and that by that fact alone, and despite his being born to a non-U.S. citizen father and U.S. citizen mother, he was an Article II “natural born Citizen.”'''

Wrong reading. Masin lists your two objections to Obama on page 2. The first begins, "Mr. Obama has not proven that he meets the Constitutional requirements for the Office of President." Masin found that the law under which you brought the objection gives Obama no such burden.

Your second argument, as Judge Masin put it, "Even if he was actually born in the United States, he is not a 'natural born Citizen' because his father was not a citizen." To state his disagreement with that theory, Mason accepted, "for the point of this issue", that Obama was born in Hawaii. That doesn't mean he's ruling on where Obama was born. He's rejecting your theory that Obama cannot be an NBC even if born in Hawaii.; February 22, 2013 at 12:32 AM
Unknown said...: I watched the nj ballot challenge on youtube. Obama did not need a lawyer, judge masin did that himself. You could tell early on the deck was stacked when marios graphics expert was not allowed to testify on authenticity of bc image and the judge talked for awhile that he would have no idea where image came from so BC was meaningless. The obama lawyer showed no evidence he was even born here and yet the judge said he was born in hawaii and a nbc anyway based on the ECL. Al Capone wouldve been happy with that performance. It was a strange, sickening feeling for me watching that fiasco. I never thought the courts and congress would ignore a illegal president with forged bonafides up until march of last year but i was dead wrong.; February 22, 2013 at 4:57 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Unknown @February 21, 2013 at 11:53 PM,

I of II

You are wrong about what happens “in court.” What happens “in court” includes both fact finding and law finding and its application once found. Today, facts are usually found by a jury and law finding and application done by a judge, although a judge can also be the fact finder. Also, some issues are a mixture of both fact and law. That we assign an issue to be decided by either a judge or a jury does not necessarily determine its nature as a fact or law question. The matter is more complex than that. Query for you: is the finding of whether someone is a “natural born Citizen” a question of fact, law, or both?

That a court decides a “legal” question does not end the debate on whether what the court has decided is correct. If that were true, there would be no appellate process. And even after all appeals are exhausted, while we as a society accept when indicated a court’s decision as both authoritative and binding, the facts found or the legal principle established “in court” can still be debated among the public and legal scholars. A great example of this is the abortion issue. While the “legal” issue was “finally” decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade, the public, religious institutions, lawyers, judges, scholars, and other professionals still continue to debate whether the Court decided the matter correctly. Whether right or wrong, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia continues to maintain that the Constitution does not include a right to abortion, and that the issue needs to be addressed by each state.

Judge Simandle’s ruling that a court, when asked to interpret the Constitution, cannot decide what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is because in his opinion it was a “political question” was never tested in the higher court. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals simply did not comment. Contrary to your straw man argument which has me saying that an appeal court’s silence suggests disagreement, silence by an appeals court means just that. It means that the legal principle has yet to be decided by that more authoritative court. And of course, we do not have any statement from the U.S. Supreme Court on the issue. Hence, the matter is not settled as your wishful thinking would like us to believe.

Continued . . .; February 22, 2013 at 11:23 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

Finally, on the issue of standing, as I demonstrated to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Kerchner v. Obama, despite Berg v. Obama, the issue is not as you conveniently say “really, really easy.” After receiving my response to its Order to Show Cause, the Third Circuit did not impose defense damages and costs upon me. It discharged its Order to Show Cause and rightfully so. In fact, standing is a highly debated legal issue within the courts and legal community. There is a plethora of law review articles that debate the issue of standing in general and specifically whether Justice Scalia’s Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife standing ruling is correct. Even the U.S. Supreme Court has split 5-4 on the issue of standing. For example, in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, 549 U.S. 497 (2007), a case involving the scientifically controversial subject of “global climate change,” the Supreme Court found 5-4 that the plaintiffs (twelve states and several cities) had standing to bring an action against the Environmental Protection Agency to force it to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) as pollutants. The EPA had steadfastly refused to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Four Justice dissented on standing and the merits. As to standing, Chief Justice Roberts, joined by Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, dissented because he believed that the plaintiffs were using the courts to engage in a governmental policy debate regarding “global climate change.” He believes that global warming is a problem to be dealt with by “policymakers in the Executive and Legislative Branches of our Government,” not the courts. There is no such policy debate with the “natural born Citizen” clause. Rather, that issue is purely one of constitutional interpretation and application which involves the Founders’ and Framers’ original intent as to what meaning they gave to the clause when they inserted it into the Constitution as part of presidential eligibility. The birth status required to be eligible to be President is not an ongoing societal practical problem that needs scarce government resources to be addressed. Rather, it involves a one-time decision of our U.S. Supreme Court as to what the Constitution means in that specific regard. Finally, there is no U.S. Supreme Court case on a plaintiff’s standing to enforce Article II “natural born Citizen” clause. Hence, there is still room to bring that issue to the Supreme Court should it ever accept such a case.; February 22, 2013 at 11:39 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Unknown @ February 22, 2013 at 12:32 AM,

Here is a little case to demonstrate the absurdity of your position regarding what ALJ Masin did in New Jersey. The case of State v. Jack is presented to the court for resolution. The State argues that not only did Jack kill Jill, but that he did so in a manner which constitutes murder. The defense argues to the court that the evidence presented to the jury does not prove the State’s case. The defense argues that the evidence shows that:

1. Jack did not kill Jill.

2. Even if Jack killed Jill, he did not commit murder.

Decision of the Court:

The court rules that “accepting” that Jack killed Jill, he committed murder. Guilty!

On appeal, the defense argues that for the court to rule that Jack committed murder, there had to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he killed Jill. It argues that since the court found that he committed murder, it had to find that he killed Jill. You are the attorney for the State and you argue on appeal that the lower court did not really find that Jack killed Jill. Rather, it only addressed the defense second argument that even if Jack killed Jill, he did not commit murder. You argue that the court only ruled that if Jack killed Jill, he is guilty of murdering Jill. So you tell the appeals court that the trial court’s finding that Jack murdered Jill is perfectly fine even though the court did not find that Jack killed Jill. In your world, that is a perfectly sound argument. Indeed, in your world, the trial court only ruled that Jack murder Jill. It did not rule that Jack killed Jill.

Now let’s apply our little hypothetical case to ALJ Masin’s ruling. Your logic fails because you fail to understand that whether or not Obama was born in Hawaii, is a necessary condition of ALJ Masin’s ultimate finding that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” ALJ Masin ruled that Obama is an Article II “natural born Citizen.’ He did not say that there was insufficient evidence before him for him to make that determination. Additionally, Masin did not say that even if Obama was born out of the United States, to his U.S. citizen mother and non-U.S. citizen father, he was a “natural born Citizen.” We know that such a ruling would be wrong because Obama’s mother was too young (18 years old and not the minimum of 19 years old) at the time of his birth to extend her U.S. citizenship to him. Also, being made a “citizen of the United States” at birth by Congressional naturalization statute which applies to children born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents alone, while making one a “citizen of the United States,” does not nor could it make one an Article II “natural born Citizen.” So, ALJ Masin’s finding that Obama was born in Hawaii was necessary to his ultimate finding that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” But again, Obama did not present one iota of evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State or to the New Jersey court demonstrating who he is or where he was born, but ALJ Masin still found that he was born in Hawaii and therefore a “natural born Citizen.”; February 22, 2013 at 12:35 PM
Unknown said...: Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"You are wrong about what happens 'in court.'"

I was pointing out what actually did happen in court, including in your own case, and you responded with a hypothetical example in which, "The court said man can walk on water."

Whether the actions of Congress in certifying the election of a president are subject to judicial review is a question of law not of fact. Whether man can walk on water is, in a technical sense, a matter of fact, but more a matter of fantasy. Courts need not take on "claims describing fantastic or delusional scenarios" Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 32-33 (1992).

Seriously? *I'm" the one wrong about what happens in court?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"Contrary to your straw man argument which has me saying that an appeal court’s silence suggests disagreement, silence by an appeals court means just that."

Why did you write, "Second, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Kerchner did not think much of the lower court’s reliance on the political question doctrine"?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"Finally, on the issue of standing, as I demonstrated to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Kerchner v. Obama, despite Berg v. Obama, the issue is not as you conveniently say 'really, really easy.' After receiving my response to its Order to Show Cause, the Third Circuit did not impose defense damages and costs upon me."

It was really, really easy, as the Third Circuit Court of Appeals made abundantly clear. In the hard ones they don't issue orders to show cause why the *attorney* should not be liable for damages and costs.; February 23, 2013 at 12:18 AM
Unknown said...: I was going back and forth with a obot or maybe just a head in the sand lib and he said i had provided no evidence the SC ever said a NBC must have 2 american citizens as parents so i asked him if "born in a country to parents who are its citizens" rings a bell and that "parents" mean more than one. I asked him how wka could be a NBC when he wasnt even a citizen to begin with and he considered that absurd and illogical of course. I also asked him to provide evidence that a child of a foreign citizen was a NBC in eyes of Framers or old SC cases. All of us crazy birthers have been waiting for that. The John Jay letter was meaningless to him. I do not think john jay wouldve swore in a foreign citizen as president like roberts did twice. In my mind the SC has a obligation to enforce NBC clause and declare him a illegal president under article 2. The lack of character is appalling in DC.; February 23, 2013 at 1:51 AM
Unknown said...: The obots say you can only be natural born or naturalized which means a child of a russian and american born in siberia is of course a nbc. Even your avg clueless voter would not agree with that. A citizen of the us is just a made up 3rd class of citizen now by evil birthers although every law congress has ever passed enabling citizenship says "citizen", being naturalized says "citizen" and the 14th says " citizen" along with Article 2. Even obamas judge - lawyer j masin did not use that argument. Wka did not have to naturalize so he is natural born in obotville.; February 23, 2013 at 5:30 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Unknown @February 23, 2013 at 12:18 AM,

(1) You said: “I was pointing out what actually did happen in court, including in your own case, and you responded with a hypothetical example in which, ‘The court said man can walk on water.’"

Regarding “in court,” you made a general statement. You did not say “in court” was directed specifically to what happened in the Kerchner case. Now that you see your error, you want to adjust.

In any event, you have missed the point which is that walking on water could have been replaced with any example, including a point of law. Hence, the point is who is making the statement, not what the statement is. You want to close debate on the issue based on who made the statement. I am saying that debate on the issue does not close solely because of who made the statement, regardless of whether the issue is one of fact or law.

(2) You wrote: “Why did you write, ‘Second, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Kerchner did not think much of the lower court’s reliance on the political question doctrine’"?

I do not think much of knitting. That does not mean that I disagree with it. So, courts do not think much of many things. It could simply mean that they are not interested in the matters. It does not mean that they disagree with them.

(3) You said: “It was really, really easy, as the Third Circuit Court of Appeals made abundantly clear. In the hard ones they don't issue orders to show cause why the *attorney* should not be liable for damages and costs.”

You just want to ignore that the Third Circuit, navigating in uncharted waters of a plaintiff’s standing to enforce Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause, after receiving and reading my response to its order to show cause, discharged that order and freed me from having to pay any defense damages and costs. I know that upsets vindictive and small people like you so much, but too bad for you. Just get over it and live with it.; February 24, 2013 at 12:00 AM
thalightguy said...: Missouri's Representative Rowland is at it again, he has introduced HB41 for the 2013 year in an attempt to redefine the definition of a "natural born citizen.

It reads in part:

...As used in this subsection, "natural born citizen" means having been declared a national and citizen of the United States at birth under 8 U.S.C. Sections 1401 to 1409, as amended, or having been declared a national and citizen of the United States under federal law as it existed at the time of the nominee's birth...

http://www.house.mo.gov/billsummary.aspx?bill=HB41&year=2013&code=R; February 24, 2013 at 3:25 AM
Unknown said...: Bill Cunningham appears on hannity and says nothing about barry being illegal. I think hannity has to shut up about it or get fired or worse. Article 2 is not complex and yet corp media is silent or dishonest. Fox hammers him a lot but they do not cover this or his forgerys. Larry Sinclairs book about obama and donald young is ignored. The bushes have skeletons in the closet too with 911, jfk and running drugs into mena,ark airport with bubba clinton and yet media is silent. They could at least do a honest investigation. If i owned Fox mario, jerome corsi, farah, col sellin, cmdr kerchner, terry lakin, christopher monckton, orly, larry and arpiao would be given airtime.; February 24, 2013 at 3:57 AM
MichaelN said...: Isn't there a media ombudsman or media ethics commission to address this type of behavior by the media?; February 24, 2013 at 3:41 PM
Unknown said...: Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"Regarding 'in court,' you made a general statement. You did not say 'in court' was directed specifically to what happened in the Kerchner case. Now that you see your error, you want to adjust."

And then readers look up and see me cite, "Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F.Supp.2d 477, 479 (D.N.J.2009)".

What set you off on this particularly stupid path was my note, "an even stronger theme in the mass of court opinions has been that the Constitution assigns judging the qualifications of presidents to Congress, not the judiciary." You called it an "asinine notion", and claimed, "Such stupid statements would never exist in the non-Obama world." Well it was courts, not obots. I cited Kerchner as an example.

You doubled down on, calling my citation of courts an absurd position in that I, "seem to think that the truth or falsity of a statement is determined by who says it." Mr. Apuzzo, I'm comfortable with the notion of citing courts on questions of law. I don't think you helped your case by making up a story in which, "The court said man can walk on water." You did give me a legitimate opportunity to cite Denton v. Hernandez on "fantastic or delusional" claims, which is always fun.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"I do not think much of knitting. That does not mean that I disagree with it. So, courts do not think much of many things. It could simply mean that they are not interested in the matters. It does not mean that they disagree with them."

Your meaning was clear. Your point was not that there exist court opinions in which this issue is absent. You were not oblivious to what the phrase "do not think much of" means.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"You just want to ignore that the Third Circuit, navigating in uncharted waters of a plaintiff’s standing to enforce Article II’s 'natural born Citizen' clause, after receiving and reading my response to its order to show cause, discharged that order and freed me from having to pay any defense damages and costs."

Your response came *after* the Court's opinion, so I think I'm on strong ground ignoring it's effect on how easy that decision was.

Furthermore, upon your response, the Court explicitly declined to modify its opinion, writing, "In response, Mario Apuzzo filed a 95-page statement that contains, inter alia, numerous statements directed to the merits of this Court’s opinion, which the Court finds unpersuasive. His request that the Court reconsider its opinion is denied, as the appropriate procedure for that issue is through a Petition for Rehearing."

The mandate by certification on 23 August 2010 confirmed the order and opinion of 2 July 2010. Contrary to what you pretend, Mr. Apuzzo, the Third Circuit did not modify its opinion on your appeal.

The court did discharge the Order to Show Cause, writing, "However, based on Mr. Apuzzo’s explanation of his efforts to research the applicable law on standing, we hereby discharge the Order to Show Cause." See what got you out of paying money? What you demonstrated to the Court was your own effort, not any problem with their opinion.; February 24, 2013 at 3:48 PM
Unknown said...: Article 2 might as well be burned up because it is surely not being enforced. The leftists constantly lie about this section of US Constitution but they would first to complain if they were thrown in prison and their constitutional right of due process was being ignored; February 24, 2013 at 8:09 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Unknown,

I of II

You continue to waste my time with things that really do not have any bearing on the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” But then I understand that that is the Obot play book. Just fill the blog pages with ridicule, personal attacks, and empty court victories and the day’s work is done. I can understand why that is the limit of your rhetoric, for you have no good argument on why you are correct on the definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

I will address only one aspect of your latest comment which shows that you do not understand what the Third Circuit Court of Appeals did in Kerchner v. Obama.

(1) You said: “Your response came ‘after’ the Court’s opinion, so I think that I’m on strong ground ignoring it’s effect on how easy that decision was.”

This statement makes no sense. First, my response surely could not have come before the court wanted me to address its order to show cause. Second, it is what a response says rather than when the response is made which, discounting any time limitation requirement, goes to show whether the response has any merit.

(2) You said: “Furthermore, upon your response, the Court explicitly declined to modify its opinion, writing, ‘In response, Mario Apuzzo filed a 95-page statement that contains, inter alia, numerous statements directed to the merits of this Court’s opinion, which the Court finds unpersuasive. His request that the Court reconsider its opinion is denied, as the appropriate procedure for that issue is through a Petition for Rehearing.’

The mandate by certification on 23August 2010 confirmed the order and opinion of 2 July 2010. Contrary to what you pretend, Mr. Apuzzo, the Third Circuit did not modify its opinion on your appeal.

The court did discharge the Order to Show Cause, writing, ‘However, based on Mr. Apuzzo’s explanation of his efforts to research the applicable law on standing, we hereby discharge the Order to Show Cause.’ See what got you out of paying money? What you demonstrated to the Court was your own effort, not any problem with their opinion.”

The error that you make is that you conflate two parts of the Court decision into one and use the Court’s disposition as to the first without separately addressing how the Court disposed of the second. The Court opinion had two parts, one part that found that the plaintiff’s did not have standing and another part which ordered that I show cause why I should not have to pay for defense damages and costs for my having appealed on the issue of standing. Can you understand that so far? I hope so.

Next, I wrote my 95-page response to the Court’s Order to Show Cause. To show that I should not have to pay damages and costs for having appealed on the issue of standing, I had to show that my position on standing was not unreasonable. In doing that, I showed how I thought the plaintiffs did have standing. Of course, my arguments went to the merits of the Court’s decision on the issue of standing (the first part of its decision). Since the Court had ordered that I show cause why I should not be made to pay defense damages and costs, I did not file a Petition for Rehearing in order to defend my position on standing. That is why the Court said I had written “numerous statements directed to the merits of this Court’s opinion, which the Court finds unpersuasive” and that my “request that the Court reconsider its opinion is denied, as the appropriate procedure for that issue is through a Petition for Rehearing.”

Continued . . .; February 24, 2013 at 9:47 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

But how the Court responded to my argument on the second part of its decision, that part regarding the order to show cause, was different from how it responded to my argument as to the first part. The Court did not complain that I attacked the “merits” of the Court’s opinion as to that aspect, and it surely could not have since it ordered that I address that second aspect of its ruling. On that, the Court was satisfied that I properly explained why I should not have to pay defense damages and costs incurred by them in my appeal on the issue of standing. It is there that the Court modified its stance, discharged its order to show cause, and freed me from having to pay any defense damages and costs.

So, I hope you understand now that there were two parts to the Court’s decision and that these two separate and distinct parts are not to be blended into one. The Court did not modify part one of its decision, but it did modify part two.

Now please do not waste more of my time on this. If you want to continue to post comments here, limit them to addressing what is the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” providing your evidence for your position, rather than filling up precious pages with the usual Obot tripe.

By the way, I see that you like to conflate things, for you also conflate a “natural born Citizen” with a “citizen of the United States.” It must be in the genes.; February 24, 2013 at 9:48 PM
Unknown said...: Lets cut to the chase here, i want the obots or anyone to show evidence that the Framers wanted a foreign citizen as CiC or where in NA 1790, the common law used by Framers or in the old supreme court cases where the child of a foreign citizen was ruled or undoubtedly considered a NBC. Saying ankeny vs indiana supercedes US Constitution and MvH on such a simple matter is like saying i would last more than 1 minute vs ali in his prime. Challenging the eligibility of a sitting president in court is about as politically charged as it gets and from what i have seen the playing field has been far from level.; February 24, 2013 at 11:41 PM
Unknown said...: lets cut to the chase here, where is the obot evidence that the Framers wanted someone who was born to a foreign father (who never even naturalized) and thus a foreign citizen to be eligible for CiC in most powerful office in country?; February 24, 2013 at 11:49 PM
Unknown said...: Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"This statement makes no sense. First, my response surely could not have come before the court wanted me to address its order to show cause."

Now you are getting it. The Court's decision to affirm on standing was really, really easy because of the Berg precedent. It was just of you to try to argue that their reaction to your *later* response showed otherwise.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"The error that you make is that you conflate two parts of the Court decision into one and use the Court’s disposition as to the first without separately addressing how the Court disposed of the second."

The first is the precedential opinion. That they decided not to impose costs or damages changed it not in the least.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"Now please do not waste more of my time on this. If you want to continue to post comments here, limit them to addressing what is the definition of a 'natural born Citizen,' providing your evidence for your position, rather than filling up precious pages with the usual Obot tripe."

If you did not want to discuss your appeal or your response to the OTSC, then perhaps *you* should not have brought them up. I'll try my point again, quoting myself: "In previous comments, I over-stressed what Courts ruled on the meaning of the term at issue. They certainly took my side over Attorney Apuzzo's on that, but an even stronger theme in the mass of court opinions has been that the Constitution assigns judging the qualifications of presidents to Congress, not the judiciary."

My point there strikes me as relevant to the core issue here. Your response was: "We can thank Barack Obama for some of our nation's greatest thinking of the Twenty First Century. What an asinine notion, that Congress and not the courts have the authority to tell us what an Article II 'natural born Citizen' is. Such stupid statements would never exist in the non-Obama world."

You have some nerve writing such petty nonsense, taking us down these inane paths, raising all these irrelevant issues, then blaming *me* for wasting time.; February 26, 2013 at 2:47 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Unknown,

What a waste of time it is debating with you. You just answer back anything that just keeps you going, even if it does not contradict any point that I may make.

The Berg case was different from the Kerchner case in many respects. I explained it all in my 95-page response to the Third Circuit Court’s Order to Show Cause. The point that you and other Obots cannot stomach is that the Court discharge its Order to Show Cause.

Regarding your point about part II of the Court’s decision not changing Part I, no one ever said that was the case. You just make up these straw man arguments and then just shoot away.

You accuse me of bringing up the Kerchner appeal. You are the one who first brought up the political question doctrine and then when I disagreed, brought up the Kerchner case and how the District Court ruled on the issue of the political question doctrine. Why would I bring up the political question issue when the definition of a “natural born Citizen” has nothing to do with the political question doctrine which only applies when a court is being asked to resolve something the resolution of which belongs with another branch of government. The political question doctrine limits courts from acting, not the public from debating on a blog the definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

You say that the political question doctrine is “relevant to the core issue here.” But there is no political question involved in a court interpreting what the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. Marbury v. Madison long ago instructed that the courts are well equipped to interpret the constitution and duty bound to do so. This is a really, really easy case of no political question being implicated. It is not even close. Arguing that the political question doctrine prevents a court from interpreting the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is about as absurd as arguing that the political question doctrine prevented the court from deciding whether Wong Kim Ark was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. The simple point that you miss is that the national character of citizenship does not change based on whether someone is running for public office. In other words, a person is or is not a “natural born Citizen,” regardless of whether he is running for President or not. Congress simply has no role in deciding if someone is a “natural born Citizen.” That is a constitutional question for the judicial branch to answer. Congress can under the Twentieth Amendment have a role with respect to whether a President-Elect is qualified for the position. But it first needs a legal opinion on whether that person is a “natural born Citizen” if it is going to do its job properly. And when that question arises in a case or controversy setting, it will be a court that answers the question, not Congress.

You are the one who posts “petty nonsense” here. My articles and comments have always been focused on the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” It is Obots like you who, when you have no valid legal argument, substitute ridicule, personal attack, and even race (you have not used the race card) for evidence, argument, and reason. These base tactics are pernicious to the pursuit of truth in any matter. But then that does not stop you and your Obot colleagues.; February 26, 2013 at 6:11 PM
MichaelN said...: The term "natural born Citizen" in the context of Article II of the USC, is not an eligibility criteria for US citizenship............ it is an eligibility criteria to qualify for the office of POTUS, for a person who is ALREADY a US citizen.

i.e. To be eligible for POTUS, a person must already be a US citizen.

A US citizen can only be such by either native-birth or naturalization.

It's for sure that a naturalized person cannot be POTUS.

This leaves only the native-born citizen available to be possibly eligible for POTUS.

The word "natural" is added to "born citizen" and this can only be to add something else to what is already a born citizen.

A born citizen who is only such through native-birth, can only be a natural born citizen via an additional extra quality that a born citizen does not have.

That extra quality can only be citizen parents.; February 26, 2013 at 11:30 PM
Unknown said...: MichaelN asked:
"Isn't there a media ombudsman or media ethics commission to address this type of behavior by the media?"

A variety of private organizations have taken on that role. The First Amendment protects their right to do so.

There is no government body empowered with that role. The First Amendment forbids it.

We've strayed from our host's central topic, but if the question rates appearance, should not also the answers?; February 27, 2013 at 12:44 AM
Frank Davis said...: Should we read it as,

“No Person except a natural born Citizen”, or "a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”

or should we read it as,

"No Person except" "a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States”, “at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution”?

Did they mean "natural born Citizen" or did the mean "natural born Citizen of the United States?; February 27, 2013 at 1:14 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Frank Davis,

The Constitution, Acts of Congress, and treaties, when referring to U.S. “citizens,” either call them “natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States.” In keeping with those laws, I have therefore only identified two classes of “citizens,” the “natural born Citizen” class and the “citizen of the United States” class.

Obama/Rubio/Jindal/Haley/Cruz eligibility supporters make up a third class which they call, “naturalized citizens.” They do this so that they can say that anybody who is a “citizen” and not a “naturalized citizen” is a “natural born Citizen.” Of course, they also say that there is no such thing as being naturalized at birth. So they create for themselves the perfect model which serves their conclusion that any person who is born a “citizen of the United States” is a “natural born Citizen.”

Apart from being wrong based on historial sources, Congressional Acts, and U.S. Supreme Court cases, they are wrong simply given the text of the “natural born Citizen” clause, which says “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen.” They have no explanation as to why the Founders and Framers added “natural” to “born Citizen,” if the only requirement was to be born a “citizen.” With no such explanation, they either ignore the word (a violation of Marbury v. Madison) or say that a “natural born Citizen” has the same meaning as a “natural born subject,” which again finds no support from the text of the Constitution and also has no historical or U.S. Supreme Court support. See United States v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. 785, 790 (1866) (“The constitution uses the words 'citizen' and 'natural born citizens;' but neither that instrument nor any act of congress has attempted to define their meaning. British jurisprudence, whence so much of our own is drawn, throws little light upon the subject . . . . Blackstone and Tomlin contain nothing upon the subject”). Id. at 788.; February 27, 2013 at 8:28 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Frank Davis,

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 has two classes of “citizens,” the “natural born Citizens” and the “Citizens of the United States.” It would make no sense for the sentence to add “at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,” unless the time requirement applied only to one of the two stated classes. It could not also apply to “natural born Citizens,” for then no one born after the adoption of the Constitution would be eligible to be President given that no one born after the adoption of the Constitution could be a “natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.” The correct reading is that the sunset provision applies only to “Citizens of the United States,” which makes that class no longer eligible to be president for those born after the adoption of the Constitution. For those born after the adoption of the Constitution, only the “natural born Citizens” among them are eligible for the office of president. Since the “Citizen of the United States” class was grandfathered, it follows a fortiori that the “natural born Citizen” class would have a more exacting standard. And that more rigorous standard is born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. Thus, all “citizens” who are not “natural born Citizens” are therefore “citizens of the United States,” which under the plain language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, makes them not eligible to be president.; February 27, 2013 at 8:52 PM
thalightguy said...: Mario’s response to Frank Davis

Mario,

You say, ‘I have therefore only identified two classes of “citizens,” the “natural born Citizen” class and the “citizen of the United States” class.’

If there are only two separate classes, then how can a “natural born Citizen” be eligible to be a U.S. Representative or U.S. Senator? They wouldn’t be, but we know they are.

Consider the following.

The U.S. Constitution gives us three types of Citizens of the United States, “natural born Citizen”, “born Citizen” and “naturalized Citizen”; it only defines the latter two and grants Congress the task of regulating the last.

A Citizen of the United States can become a U.S. Representative or a U.S. Senator but only those who are natural born Citizens may become President of the United States.

(...continued); February 27, 2013 at 11:42 PM
thalightguy said...: (Continued...)

1. Citizen of the United States

Article. I.

Section. 2.
No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Section. 3.
No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen

a. natural born Citizen

Article. II.
Section. 1.
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

b. All Persons born in the United States under the jurisdiction thereof.

c. Naturalized in the United States under the jurisdiction thereof.

Amendment. XIV.
Section. 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.; February 27, 2013 at 11:44 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Unknown,

Here is a nice example of your “really, really, easy” issue of Article III standing.

The National Law Journal reports that the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday ended a nearly five-year effort by a group of lawyers, human rights workers, media organizations and others to challenge the constitutionality of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act of 2008, nation's major federal surveillance law. They charged that the Act violated the plaintiffs' free speech and privacy rights as well as the Constitution's separation of powers.

The Federal District Court held that the plaintiffs did not have standing. Adopting a “novel view of standing,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs did have standing. The Second Circuit denied rehearing en banc by an equally divided vote. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certification because of “the importance of the issue” and because of “the novel view of standing adopted by the Court of Appeals.” In a 5-4 (the majority consisted of Justices Samuel Alito, Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas and the dissent was of Justice Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan) decision, the justices ruled that the coalition, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, did not have standing to bring the lawsuit.

In his dissent, Justice Breyer said: “The Court has recognized that the precise boundries of the ‘case or controversy’ requirement are matters of ‘degree . . . not discernible by any precise test’” (Clapper, citing and quoting Babbit v. Farm Workers, 442 U.S. 289, 297 (1979)).

This case shows how controversial and uncertain the issue of standing has become in our justice system with the District Court finding no standing, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals finding standing, and the U.S. Supreme Court ruling 5-4 that there is no standing.

The case, Clapper v. Amnesty International USA, No. 11-1025 (February 26, 2013), can be read here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/11-1025_ihdj.pdf

The National Law Journal article can be read here: http://www.law.com/jsp/nj/PubArticleNJ.jsp?id=1202589751211&et=editorial&bu=New%20Jersey%20Law%20Journal&cn=NJLJ%20Daily%20News%20Alert%3A%20February%2027%2C%202013&src=EMC-Email&pt=New%20Jersey%20Law%20Journal%20Daily%20News%20Alert&kw=SUPREME%20COURT%20RULES%20CHALLENGERS%20TO%20SURVEILLANCE%20LAW%20LACK%20STANDING; February 28, 2013 at 12:39 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Thatlightguy,

(1) You said: “If there are only two separate classes, then how can a “natural born Citizen” be eligible to be a U.S. Representative or U.S. Senator? They wouldn’t be, but we know they are.” I do not agree.

First, while not all “citizens” (members) are “natural born Citizens” (a class), all “natural born Citizens” (a class) are “citizens” (members). Second, a “natural born Citizen” (a class) is also necessarily a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) (a class) (a “natural born Citizen” is necessarily born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” So in both cases, a “natural born Citizen” (class) is a “citizen” (member) and a “citizen of the United States” (class) and if older than 7 and 9 years, both would be a “citizen of the United States” (class) for at least 7 and 9 years, respectively. Once reacing 25 years old and 30 years, both could be a Representive or Senator, respectively.

(2) You said: “The U.S. Constitution gives us three types of Citizens of the United States, ‘natural born Citizen’, ‘born Citizen’ and ‘naturalized Citizen’; it only defines the latter two and grants Congress the task of regulating the last.” I do not agree.

The phrases “born Citizen” and “naturalized Citizen” do not appear as phrases in the Constitution, let alone as classes of citizenship. What does appear as both phrases and classes of citizenship are “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States.” “Born Citizen;” “naturalized Citizen;” and “born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof” are means by which one becomes a “citizen,” not classes of “citizens.”; February 28, 2013 at 1:08 AM
Unknown said...: My wifes certificate of naturalization says she is a "citizen of the United States" which is straight out of 14th amendment so it is nice to see the US Constitution is followed sometimes. For obots to claim naturalized citizen is a class of citizen and "citizen of the us" is not is a blatant lie. Any citizenship law congress has ever passed says "citizen of the united states" and tellingly there has never been a law passed saying a child of american citizens born on us soil is a citizen/NBC. Mario has given us history lessons on natural law and i would like to add that the biological parents raising their children would also be considered natural for the parents and offspring. vattel rightfully said " the country of the father is the country of the son". I do not think the natural law is that difficult to discern. I also do not think the children of foreigners born in territory of ancient rome would be considered NBCs of rome back then either or even citizens. NBC is not some radical new concept the Framers thought up on their own.; February 28, 2013 at 1:40 AM
Unknown said...: a NBC is also a citizen of the US but not all citizens of the US are NBCs. If you want someone who is a foreign citizen as CiC then amend article 2 to make a citizen of the US eligible now.; February 28, 2013 at 1:44 AM
js said...: dickhead said;

"If all it took to be a natural born citizen is birth on US soil then that term wouldve been in 14th amd but instead "citizen of the United states""

Not really.

If birth on US soil already made a person a natural born citizen, they would not need to award citizenship to anyone born in the USA, period. Congress doesn't have the power to create natural born citizens, they only have the power to naturalize aliens, period.; February 28, 2013 at 11:14 AM
Carlyle said...: EVERY issue MUST have standing somewhere for someone. Otherwise there is no Rule of Law - only a capricious veneer.

So, in every case where standing is denied, shouldn't it be required of the decision makers to demonstrate the legitimacy of their opinion by giving an example of a configuration where standing would not be denied?

Otherwise, that leaves us all in the position of trying to randomly "fit every peg into every hole", in multitudes of combinations. That is really only more Justice Delayed and Justice Denied.

Like I have said before, I am a lot more interested in figuring out how to get this in court and get it decided, rather than a mixture of people here arguing over what things mean.

I would like to solicit ideas from anybody who can help as to: Now! What do we do?; February 28, 2013 at 12:21 PM
Unknown said...: Why should american citizens have to beg to have article 2 enforced? Lack of standing is a load of nonsense.; March 1, 2013 at 12:03 AM
Carlyle said...: Mr. DH (I presume that pejorative is meant to apply to the OBOTs, not yourself)?

First of all I am very alarmed about Zero. By any measure whatsoever he is inexperienced and a really green amateur. Ideologically he is far far left - a truly odd choice for a country who claims to clamor for center-moderate. Then there are his known (strong!) ties to Islam and Communism.

Second, I hold the MSM 99% responsible for misinformation and disinformation. They took no part whatsoever in vetting him. Our current form of election process REQUIRES a thorough digging by the media. And, of course, related to that are the vast amounts of unreleased - indeed, proactively suppressed - documents and records. Not to mention the now known outright document fraud. And don't get me started on election fraud!

But, thirdly, there is the HUGE ISSUE of the Rule of Law. I have known for at least 40 years that politicians are slippery and that is hard to tell whom to trust. I have also known that "activist judges" occasionally legislate from the bench. I am also aware of the long history of The Constitution slipping away at the hands of the Supreme Court.

BUT

I have never imagined in my wildest dreams and most profound paranoia that the Rule of Law is DEAD! I had always counted on the fact that no matter how bad things got, there was always that great tradition to fall back on. And that therefore, nothing Really Awful could happen.

Boy, have I been stupid. I am quite literally scared out of my wits. No more slippery slopes - we are teetering on the edge of a square-cornered abyss. Without a robust Rule of Law, a seemingly random puff of wind can be a tipping point - an action or decision from which there is no return.

In that context, Zero and all his Flying Monkeys are just proverbial flies in the ointment. The Big Story here is the collapse of the Rule of Law. Nobody seems to get that. Even the widely known conservative talkers and writers do not seem to grasp the seriousness of the situation.; March 1, 2013 at 12:14 PM
Unknown said...: Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"Here is a nice example of your 'really, really, easy' issue of Article III standing.

The National Law Journal reports that the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday [...]"

I never said that the issue of standing is easy in general. I said it was "really, really easy" in *your* appeal, that *you* chose to take to the Third Circuit and to bring up here. Your point now seems to be that other attorneys and other cases have raised serious issues with the standing doctrine. Yes, they have. Correct me if I'm wrong on this: In those other lawyers efforts, FRAP 38 never came up.

Mr. Apuzzo, you might recall criticising me in that I, "give importance to what some modern attorneys believed". My answer on that was: "Not exactly my point, but true enough." Now we see that that you are so desperate for modern support that you try to associate articles and cases that have nothing to do with you or your issue.

That source you cite -- The National Law Journal -- Did you bother to spend two minutes Googling what they've published on the matter at issue here? I did, just now. Found a couple dozen articles on challenges to Obama's eligibility, mostly straightforward factual reporting: suit alleges; court dismisses; appellate court affirms dismissal. Their favorite case now seems to be Trump versus Maher. Your source leaves me cautioned not to call your efforts a joke, because that would be an insult to jokes.; March 1, 2013 at 2:19 PM
Unknown said...: Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
'''Apart from being wrong based on historial sources, Congressional Acts, and U.S. Supreme Court cases, they are wrong simply given the text of the “natural born Citizen” clause, which says “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen.” They have no explanation as to why the Founders and Framers added “natural” to “born Citizen,” if the only requirement was to be born a “citizen.” With no such explanation, they either ignore the word (a violation of Marbury v. Madison) or say that a “natural born Citizen” has the same meaning as a “natural born subject,” which again finds no support from the text of the Constitution and also has no historical or U.S. Supreme Court support.'''

As a member of the "they" that Mr. Apuzzo lambastes, I feel compelled to contest. I start with "U.S. Supreme Court support" that Mr. Apuzzo asserted not to exist:

All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. [United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. (1898)]

Contrary to Mr. Apuzzo's reporting that my side, "has no historical or U.S. Supreme Court support", the above is a direct -- and to the best of my ability accurate -- quote of a majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court. The quote is not news to Mr. Apuzzo. His client, Nicholas E. Purpura, with his counsel, chose to take the matter to an administrative court in the great state of New Jersey. They lost. My quote above of the SCOTUS is not some obscure out-of-context data-mining find. Attorney Apuzzo sought a ruling from a NJ administrative court, and he got one. The SCOTUS quote appears in the verdict of Attorney Apuzzo's own case.; March 1, 2013 at 4:15 PM
MichaelN said...: There needs to be a memo sent to all the members of congress and the senate, to expose Jack Maskell's deceit and to explain what Article II "natural born Citizen" really means.

The representatives in government will not act until the Jack Maskell lie has been exposed and the representatives can no longer use his definition as a cover.; March 1, 2013 at 4:45 PM
MichaelN said...: Unknown quoted ....

"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. [United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. (1898)]"

The problem you have is that you misunderstand that "born in the allegiance of the King" meant to the 17th century English to be "born under the ligeance of a subject", so therefore Justice Swayne was correct, but to apply this principle to the US republic, a native-born child in US would need to be born under the allegiance of a US citizen.

That is what Swayne was saying in generalizing (not specific to Wong Kim Ark), and that is why Wong Kim Ark was NOT ruled or held to be a natural born citizen, i.e. because he was not born under the allegiance of a subject.

Then in support of Justice Swayne's generalization as to the common principle of native-birth applying to both the children of aliens and subject/citizen parents we have Binney's statement which also supports Justice Swayne's generalization,

i.e.

"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. 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. "

One thing which Binney got wrong is that the "right of citizenship" DID DESCEND, via the naturalization acts, here see for yourself....

1790
"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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed."

1795
"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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States:"

More important is that the WKA court made no objection to Binney's statement, i.e.

" 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."

The "same principle" was with regard to eligibility for citizenship and NOT qualification for natural born citizenship.

Article II "natural born citizen" was not an eligibility criteria for citizenship.

It was the eligibility criteria for a US born citizen to qualify for POTUS.

i.e. both a child of an alien, if born in the US, was as much a US CITIZEN as the natural born child of a US citizen by operation of the same native-born principle; they were both US citizens by operation of that principle.

It was the native-birth that made both children CITIZEN.

They were both born citizens.

The "natural" born citizen had the additional quality of being born to US citizen parents, but said child did not need that quality to be equally eligible for citizenship.

So maybe you can answer this question now?

What did Lord Coke mean by this, if it did not mean that native-birth was not sufficient to make a natural born subject?

"...it is nec coelum, nec solum, neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born"; March 1, 2013 at 7:15 PM
Unknown said...: how you can you be born to the allegiance of US when father is a foreign citizen? barry was born with dual allegiances according to fudged BC image. Carlyle, once i found out about the forged bonafides, fake ss number and the child of a foreign citizen being blatantly ineligible for CiC i knew congress, judges and major media are in the tank. Look up cia mockingbird.; March 2, 2013 at 12:38 AM
MichaelN said...: @ Unknown.

Here's some "historical or U.S. Supreme Court support" for you to ponder.

The following "is a direct -- and to the best of my ability accurate -- quote of a majority opinion of the United States Supreme Court.

Seems like the SCOTUS agrees with the principle that "children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his natural character as a citizen of that country"

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

"If Ann Scott was of age before December, 1782, as she remained in South Carolina until that time, her birth and residence must be deemed to constitute her, by election, a citizen of South Carolina while she remained in that state.

If she was not of age then, under the circumstances of this case, she might well be deemed 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 natural character as a citizen of that country."

Now I wonder where is that elusive rule in 17th century English common law, where native-birth was sufficient to make a natural born subject?

No one seems to be able to find it.

Do you suppose that's because it never existed?; March 2, 2013 at 1:00 AM
Unknown said...: Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"What a waste of time it is debating with you."

Well, O.K. I agree. You are wasting your time. What goal could you possibly achieve at this point?

Perhaps I too am wasting my time, as family and friends occasionally remark. It's a hobby.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"The Berg case was different from the Kerchner case in many respects. I explained it all in my 95-page response to the Third Circuit Court’s Order to Show Cause."

So you've decided to over-rule the Third Circuit? The Court found your numerous statements directed to the merits of their opinion unpersuasive. Their opinion clearly hammered you on the Berg precedent, just as we obots told you in advance.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"The point that you and other Obots cannot stomach is that the Court discharge its Order to Show Cause."

Point for Apuzzo. Upon reading his response, The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit discharged its F.R.A.P. 38 Order to Show Cause. Obot schadenfreude *denied*. I did not get my way on that one. If my team stomachs it, it's because we have no choice.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"Regarding your point about part II of the Court’s decision not changing Part I, no one ever said that was the case. You just make up these straw man arguments and then just shoot away."

So in one post you both claim to have distinguished your case from Berg in your response to the OTSC, and you call "straw-man" at my point that your response prompted no change in the Court's opinion.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"You accuse me of bringing up the Kerchner appeal."

Yes.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"You are the one who first brought up the political question doctrine and then when I disagreed, brought up the Kerchner case and how the District Court ruled on the issue of the political question doctrine. Why would I bring up the political question issue when the definition of a 'natural born Citizen' has nothing to do with the political question doctrine which only applies when a court is being asked to resolve something the resolution of which belongs with another branch of government."

In this particular strand, what I first brought up was that several courts opined that Congress, not the judiciary, judges the qualifications of presidents. When you called that an "asinine notion" I quoted the District Court on your case, and that's where the political question doctrine appeared. Incidentally, some other courts did not name the political question doctrine when holding that the decision belongs to Congress; see the California decisions on Keyes v. Bowen for example.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"The political question doctrine limits courts from acting, not the public from debating on a blog the definition of a 'natural born Citizen.'"

Agreed. I'm not arguing that the political question doctrine limits blog debate. I'm arguing for debate grounded in reality, where the rulings of real courts matter and Barack Hussein Obama II is President of the United States.; March 2, 2013 at 2:52 AM
ksdb said...: @unknown, your quote from Wong Kim Ark was actually the Supreme Court's citation of a lower court ruling (Rhodes v. U.S.), which was summarizing the Supreme Court ruling from Shanks v. Dupont. When it says, "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens," it's talking about people born in the United States and how they would either be a British subject at birth or a natural-born citizen (not a dual citizen). It's based on the Treaty of 1783 that recognized children of British loyalists as British subjects. Under this ruling, Obama is a British subject (even if he could legally prove he was born in the U.S.) and not a U.S. citizen. Again, this ruling effectively negates the idea that a natural-born citizen can be a dual citizen at birth. It's an either/or proposition. If you were born to a parent who adhered to British loyalty (such as Obama's British-Kenyan father, who never became a U.S. nor even a resident alien) then your citizenship status followed your parents.; March 2, 2013 at 6:59 AM
MichaelN said...: Unknown quoted.....

"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. [United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. (1898)]"

The problem you have is that you misunderstand that "born in the allegiance of the King" meant to the 17th century English to be "born under the ligeance of a subject".

Justice Swayne was correct, but to apply this principle to the US republic, a native-born child in US would need to be born under the allegiance of a US citizen.

That is what Swayne was saying in generalizing (not specific to Wong Kim Ark), and that is why Wong Kim Ark was NOT ruled or held to be a natural born citizen, i.e. because he was not born under the allegiance of a subject.

Then in support of Justice Swayne's generalization as to the common principle of native-birth applying to both the children of aliens and subject/citizen parents we have Binney's statement which also supports Justice Swayne's generalization,

i.e.

"The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. 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. "

One thing which Binney got wrong is that the "right of citizenship" DID DESCEND, via the naturalization acts, here see for yourself....

1790
"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: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed."

1795
"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: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States:"

More important is that the WKA court made no objection to Binney's statement, i.e.

"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."

The "same principle" was with regard to eligibility for citizenship, and NOT qualification for natural born citizenship.

Article II "natural born citizen" was NOT an eligibility criteria for citizenship.

It was the eligibility criteria for a US born citizen to qualify for POTUS.

i.e. both a child of an alien, if born in the US, was as much a US CITIZEN as the natural born child of a US citizen by operation of the same native-born principle; they were both US citizens by operation of that principle.

It was the native-birth principle that made both children CITIZEN.

They were both born citizens.

The "natural" born citizen had the additional quality of being born to US citizen parents, but said child did not need that quality to be equally eligible for citizenship as the child born to alien parents.

So maybe you can answer this question now?

What did Lord Coke mean by this, if it did not mean that native-birth was not sufficient to make a natural born subject?

"...it is nec coelum, nec solum, neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born"; March 2, 2013 at 1:25 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of IV

There is an ongoing debate on the “natural born Citizen” clause going on at Café Con Leche, at http://cafeconlecherepublicans.com/birther-madness-2#comment-19469. Here is my latest comment to one of the commenters there:

Lawrence F. Mazzucchelli,

You really should be sure that you are correct in your position before you go around insulting and attacking others on some point (or stop your deceitful presentation of historical sources).

The Alexander Herald article was found by a commenter by the name of xsid who provided the article to Attorney Leo Donofrio. I also received a copy of the article. I read the article as did Mr. Donofrio. Mr. Donofrio wrote a very good blog piece on the great find by xsid. His article can be found at http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/12/28/the-publius-enigma-newly-revealed-evidence-establishes-that-president-james-madisons-administration-required-citizen-parentage-to-qualify-native-born-persons-for-u-s-citizenship/. I also wrote at my blog, http://puzo1.blogspot.com , on the McClure citizenship case based on the article provided by xsid and my own reading of that article. I also included a full discussion of the McClure case in my brief filed in the Kerchner and Laudenslager v. Obama Ballot Challenge in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, accessed at http://www.scribd.com/doc/83104811/Kerchner-Laudenslager-v-Obama-Ballot-Challenge-Brief-on-Behalf-of-Objectors-Filed-28Feb2012 .

You say that I have not honestly presented the McClure case. You protest that I

“cherry picked the paragraph that you build your argument on. I say this because IF you had read the original article you would have seen these two key sentences that appeared well before your cherry picked passage:

‘In my judgement, however, our Minister has erred in his decision – & Mr. McClure ought to have been held as a Citizen of the United States. Mark! We are not considering what the law ought to be; but what the law is.’ —- Publius.”

Please allow me to help you to correctly read the James McClure citizenship case as reported in the Alexandria Herald article. The Minister to whom Publius referred was General Armstrong and the error that he made was in how he interpreted and applied the Naturalization Act of 1802, which the James Madison Administration ruled granted to McClure the status of a “Citizen of the United States” naturalized after birth (not a “natural born Citizen”). The fact that Armstrong erred does not show that I am mistaken in my presentation of or misrepresented the McClure case.

The issue in the case was not whether James McClure was a “natural born Citizen.” Rather, the issue was whether he was a “Citizen of the United States” through naturalization after birth. Even though the American Minister in London issued to McClure a passport “confessing him to be a native citizen of the U.S.,” the French authorities declared McClure to be a British subject and therefore an enemy of France. They ordered his arrest and General Armstrong refused to come to his aid. In order for him to be a “citizen of the United States,” he had to show what law granted him that status.

Continued . . .; March 2, 2013 at 7:18 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of IV

The Minister to whom Publius referred, General Armstrong, on March 16, 1810 wrote to McClure and advised him that he found that he was born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785. McClure’s British father naturalized under the laws of South Carolina on February 20, 1786. Armstrong said that McClure’s birth in South Carolina did not make him a citizen and that his father’s naturalization certificate only proved that the father was a citizen and nothing more. He also said that McClure’s claim to citizenship would be accepted if he were able to show that a South Carolina naturalization statute provided that the naturalization of the father also naturalized his children born before his naturalization. He found that no certificate exited from South Carolina showing that father McClure’s naturalization also naturalized his children who included James McClure.

Given this state of affairs, Mr. Rodman met with McClure in Paris and decided to intercede on his behalf. He wanted to personally meet with Armstrong, but he had left Paris. He therefore met with a Mr. Russell, Charge d’affaires at Paris, who explained to Mr. Rodman that McClure had to show that he was a citizen either under a U.S. statute or under a South Carolina statute. He explained that with no federal statute providing any help, McClure could rely only upon a state statute. Russell said that Armstrong analyzed the Naturalization Act of 1802. Russell informed Rodman that Armstrong found the Act inapplicable to McClure’s situation. He found that “dwelling in the United States” did not mean dwelling in the United States at the time of the naturalization of the father. He further found that McClure was not dwelling in the United States either at or after the naturalization act was passed or at the time of claiming to be considered a citizen. Therefore, since McClure was not dwelling in the United States, he could not become a “citizen of the United States” under that federal statute. Russell explained this was the decision of General Armstrong who was his superior and he could do nothing about it.

Publius then provided the quoted passage that you only partially produced:

“In my Judgement, however, our Minister has erred in his decision – & Mr. McClure ought to have been held as a citizen of the United States. Mark! We are not considering what the law ought to be; but what the law is-----If the case of comes within any of the U.S. Acts, it is the 4th section of the Act of April, 1802---which is in these words:

‘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 U.S. 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 parent's being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship, shall, if dwelling in the U. S. be considered as Citizens of the United States; and the children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the U.S. be considered as citizens of the U. States: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the U. States, &c, &c.’”

[Act of April 14, 1802, c. 28, § 4; 2 Stat. 155]

Continued . . .; March 2, 2013 at 7:21 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: III of IV

It is in how Armstrong interpreted the Naturalization Act of 1802 that Publius said he erred. In quoting Publius, you left out of the quote: “If the case of comes within any of the U.S. Acts, it is the 4th section of the Act of April, 1802” and the whole quoted Act. The part that you left out of the quote shows that Publius disagreed with Armstrong in the sense that Publius believed that Armstrong had erred in not finding that McClure was a naturalized “citizen of the United States” under the Naturalization Act of 1802. Publius did not think, as you suggest, that Armstrong had erred in not finding that McClure was a “natural born Citizen.”

Publius showed that McClure’s father naturalized under the laws of South Carolina, before any federal naturalization act had yet been passed. (The first federal naturalization act was passed in 1790.) He found that McClure was the child of a naturalized citizen, being under the age of 21 when his father naturalized. He explained that therefore the only issue was whether McClure was “dwelling in the United States.” Publius explained that the issue with that clause was “to what period of time, does the section point?” He ruled that the time period was to be determined by the children to benefit from the law being with the father at the time of his naturalization. Hence the time period meant “at the time of his [the father’s] naturalization.” Under this interpretation, the children that the father left behind in his native country would not benefit from the law, but those with him in the United States would. Publius explained that Benjamin Franklin said that the law said “grace once over them,” which made them “citizens of the United States,” but did not do the same for children left behind in their native country.

It is then that Publius addressed Rodman’s “hint” that McClure did not need any naturalization act of Congress or South Carolina statute to make him a “citizen of the United States,” because he was born in the United States. Publius stated:

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

Here we can see that Publius clearly stated that the United States did not adopt any jus soli principle of citizenship. Rather, children followed the citizenship of their parents which principle followed jus sanguinis citizenship.

Publius also took the opportunity to state “with a considerable diffidence” that maybe the 1802 statute was defective because it did not provide for the loss of citizenship by a person who should become a “citizen of the United States” by naturalization and who should move back to his native country and that it should have granted to a U.S. citizen the right of expatriation.

Continued . . .; March 2, 2013 at 7:22 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: IV of IV

Finally, as a show of respect for General Armstrong, Publius expressed that given the complexity of the case, “a very honest and enlightened man might honestly differ with [Publius] on the occasion.” In other words, he said that he could understand why General Armstrong had found that McClure was not a “citizen of the United States” under the Naturalization Act of 1802. But still, Publius amply demonstrated how General Armstrong had erred in so ruling.

So, Lawrence, as we can see, you have misread (or deceitfully presented a false version of) the McClure article and have unjustly accused me of misstating the case as published in the Alexandria Herald. As you can also see, the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802, passed by many Founders and Framers, prove without any doubt that a child born in the United States to alien parents was not even a “citizen of the United States” at or after birth, let alone a “natural born Citizen.” May I hear from you how you could have gotten your understanding of the McClure case so wrong.; March 2, 2013 at 7:22 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Unknown,

What part of Order to Show Cause Discharged do you not understand? Just get over it and live with it.; March 2, 2013 at 10:44 PM
Unknown said...: mario was on amazon one time giving the obots and me a great history lesson on the Framers, US Constitution, law of nations and the old supreme court cases. Obots do not let the truth get in the way of a good (or usually not so good) lie. Only a fool or liar would believe these ballot challenges have been impartial.; March 3, 2013 at 12:08 AM
thalightguy said...: Mario,

The Minor v Happersett Court (while explaining who the citizens were prior to the 14th Amendment) described the “citizens of the United States” as being the members of the United States; they quoted A2S1C5 and A1S8C4 to conclude that additions may be added to this membership in two ways, by being born or naturalized. (Also see, Ramsay’s Dissertation on the manner of acquiring the character and privileges of a citizen of the United States)

Citizen of the United States
1. Born
2. Naturalized

It is my opinion that the Wong Kim Ark Court took those who are admitted by being born and divided them into two categories, the “natural born citizens" and the “native born citizens”.

Citizen of the United States
1. Born
a. natural born Citizen
b. native born Citizen
2. Naturalized; March 3, 2013 at 1:33 AM
Unknown said...: Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
'''“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.”

Here we can see that Publius clearly stated that the United States did not adopt any jus soli principle of citizenship. Rather, children followed the citizenship of their parents which principle followed jus sanguinis citizenship.'''

Wrong. We see Publius clearly assert that in a state of the United States, the state's law, not federal, is the authority on birthright citizenship. The rules on birthright citizenship in South Carolina were different from those in Virginia. There's no indication that Publius thought South Carolina's policy better, or more in line with American principles, than Virginia's.

Let's try looking to the Constitution. We find federal power over citizenship in two places. The first is Article I, section 8, clause 4, which gives Congress power, "To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." It's part of the original Constitution as adopted in 1787.

The second is the 14'th Amendment. It begins, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." It ends, "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article." But the 14'th Amendment was adopted in 1868, long after this 1811 article. That federal power did not yet exist.

At the time of McClure's case and Publius's writing, the federal government could prescribe uniform naturalization rules, but births within a state were under state jurisdiction. The rules on birthright citizenship were not uniform.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
'''So, Lawrence, as we can see, you have misread (or deceitfully presented a false version of) the McClure article and have unjustly accused me of misstating the case as published in the Alexandria Herald. As you can also see, the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802, passed by many Founders and Framers, prove without any doubt that a child born in the United States to alien parents was not even a “citizen of the United States” at or after birth, let alone a “natural born Citizen.” May I hear from you how you could have gotten your understanding of the McClure case so wrong.'''

That is so wrong on so many levels...
Why do you address "Lawrence" here, on your blog, when the debate so clearly resides at cafeconlecherepublicans.com? Are you going to be fair and also copy here all the posts refuting yours, and if so did you ask permission? Did Lawrence F. Mazzucchelli agree to come defend his position here, or is it just your preference, Mario Apuzzo Esq., to attack him where he is *not* around to defend?

The Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802 say *nothing* about the citizenship of the native-born. Congress had no such power until the 14'th Amendment. The states had that power. Mr. Apuzzo, I explained this back on February 15, and here we have Publius confirming it, but you just go on with you made-up claims of what the law and essay say.

Your parenthetical remark -- "or deceitfully presented a false version of" -- you've got a lot of nerve making a crack like that after the way you've behaved.; March 3, 2013 at 6:57 AM
MichaelN said...: It was not the English common law which showed a way to native birthright citizenship.

It was the US laws which formed the basis for the native birthright citizenship principle.

The English law did not have a birthright subject via solely native-birth AT ALL, without the the child being "born under the ligeance of a subject", the native-born child was not a birthright subject, not a natural born subject, not a subject of any type.; March 3, 2013 at 7:15 AM
MichaelN said...: Part 1 of 2

Unknown said.....

"At the time of McClure's case and Publius's writing, the federal government could prescribe uniform naturalization rules, but births within a state were under state jurisdiction. The rules on birthright citizenship were not uniform."

----------------
The US Supreme Court justices in Minor V Happersett don't agree with you.

The following excerpt should speak for itself.

U.S. Supreme Court
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874)

"...by the Fourteenth Amendment "all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" are expressly declared to be "citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside." But in our opinion it did not need this amendment to give them that position. Before its adoption, the Constitution of the United States did not in terms prescribe who should be citizens of the United States or of the several states, yet there were necessarily such citizens without such provision. There cannot be a nation without a people. The very idea of a political community such as a nation is implies an

Page 88 U. S. 166

association of persons for the promotion of their general welfare. Each one of the persons associated becomes a member of the nation formed by the association. He owes it allegiance and is entitled to its protection. Allegiance and protection are in this connection reciprocal obligations. The one is a compensation for the other; allegiance for protection and protection for allegiance.

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

To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment, it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation and what were afterwards admitted to membership..... cont'd....; March 3, 2013 at 4:27 PM
MichaelN said...: Part 2 of 2

Looking at the Constitution itself, we find that it was ordained and established by "the people of the United States," [Footnote 3] and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several states that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, [Footnote 4] and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of "the United States of America," entered into a firm league of

Page 88 U. S. 167

friendship with each other for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretense whatever. [Footnote 5]

Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these states when the Constitution of the United States was adopted became ipso facto a citizen -- a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was consequently one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.

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 [Footnote 6] 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, [Footnote 7]"

and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus, new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization."; March 3, 2013 at 4:27 PM
Unknown said...: One thing i liked about the minor court is that they knew the US Constitution was their boss and they really tried to go by it and what the Framers wanted. Chief Justice Waite looked very stern and he seemed like he was worthy of the highest respect. I do not think he wouldve sworn in a foreign citizen as president as it wouldve violated his oath to US Constitution. Politicians come and go but the US C is permanent hopefully; March 4, 2013 at 2:48 AM
Chief said...: Mario, it is my fervent belief that Obama is not even a citzen of our country. I believe he is an illegal alien in our midst. Where is the passport he used in his college years to travel to Pakistan, India and Indonesia? Those documents do not exist, nor can they be traced since his records are sealed and his foriegn passport has expired and certainly has been expunged from the records of Indonesia. We will never get to the conclusion of this issue through the courts as they are all in the hand's of the puppet mastre Soros, and that includes the Chief Justice of SCOTUS.; March 5, 2013 at 1:45 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Chief,

Despite the over 200 cases that have been filed against Obama throughout the country which have challenged his place of birth narrative in one way or another, he has yet to present to any court competent evidence showing who he is and where he was born.

Also, do not mistake what is reported by the media in any medium or what any person may produce on the internet as that competent evidence.; March 5, 2013 at 2:06 PM
Chief said...: Mario, it is my opinion that the evidence out there is vast, and where there is smoke there is fire, the media other than the MSM is full of verified reports of evidence found and its not just heresay it is backed up verified affidavits of forensic specialists who have worked in various fields of law enforcement for years doing investigative work. You and Charles have done a Yeoman's job in your efforts to get this issue resolved, and you are both to be commended for what you have done. That said, and not rain on your parade Orly Taitz has been presistent in her case against Obama, I do not always agree with her posting, and playing the blame gaime at times, but she has not ever given up chasing this imposter. Here is her latest posting "Congressional meetings 03.05.2013 re ObamaForgeryGate. 14 Congressmen, among them 12 members of the Judiciary committee received subpoenas. Report will be provided tomorrow". Where this will go, your guess is as good as mine, probably in the waste heap of Capital Hill. For all of us it is simply where is the proof of who Obama is? His puppet master has concealed everything possible about him, he is even forcing expungement of official records as every source to continue the coverup of Obama. I think Obama's charade is starting unravel, but not fast enough. The courts are compromised, Taitz was suppose to have a case in full conference of all the judges at SCOTUS 2/15/13 has anyone in the legal community heard or been aware of this case or the outcome of this confernce? I have much more to say but I will end it here, please respond as I do value your opinion. Thanks again for your efforts before the courts.; March 6, 2013 at 12:02 PM
Carlyle said...: Chief, you are correct.

The more I have studied this, the more I am convinced that there is a Big Secret hiding in the suppressed records.

NBC is not "big" enough. Especially in that the official narrative already proves that The One is not NBC. At this point (especially) after the second election, even really "gotcha" items, such as his father is different than who he has always claimed, are no longer that big of an issue.

Yet the Flying Monkeys continue to dig in. The "most transparent administration in history" continues to shut down all discussion of bona fides. The MSM continues to run scared.

So, what can be SO damaging. The only thing I can think of is exactly as you say. The One is no kind of citizen at all. There has surfaced no document whatsoever even hinting that he is a citizen. No passport, no social security, no draft registration, nada, nothing. Unless you count known forgeries.

Which brings up a whole other big question: What is SO bad as to require multiple forgeries?; March 6, 2013 at 1:27 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Chief,

You might not know it but I, like Attorney Orly Taitz, am still persistent in the presidential eligibility case against Barack Obama. Being a “natural born Citizen” has three necessary and sufficient elements, time of birth, place of birth, and citizen parents. Orly has focused only on the time of birth and place of birth issues, expressed as the controversy regarding Obama’s birth certificate, social security number, and draft registration card. I have focused on all three, time of birth, place of birth, and citizen parents.

Orly is continuing to litigate the time of birth and place of birth issues. While I have never conceded that Obama was born in Hawaii because he has yet to produce to any court competent evidence of who he is and where he was born, I am still litigating the issues of time of birth and citizen parents.

So, as you see, both Orly Taitz and I are both still persistent in the presidential eligibility case against Obama.; March 6, 2013 at 3:54 PM
Unknown said...: Quarles harris was murdered for snooping around obamas passport records. Harris worked in john brennans company. The public will never see a legit obamao bc, draft card or passport; March 6, 2013 at 11:09 PM
Doublee said...: Would you please clarify the terms obiter dictum and ratio decidendi?

Here is my dilemma. I have always understood that the definition of natural born citizen in Minor v. Happersett is not dicta. I have now read just enough more to become confused.

Mrs. Minor’s status as a citizen – natural born or otherwise - was critical as far as having her case heard. If she were not a citizen, Chief Justice Waite would have dismissed her case.

Having established that Mrs. Minor was citizen, Chief Justice Wait could now address the main question before the court. Did the Constitution grant women the right to vote?

Is only the reasoning that supports the question before the court ratio decidendi and therefore, the definition of natural born citizen is obiter dicta? Is it a stretch to say that the definition of natural born citizen is part of the reason for the decision?; March 7, 2013 at 12:43 PM
Anonymous said...: Hi Mario, I was wondering if you had read this particular piece on allegiance?

The Alienigence Of The United States Under The Present Naturalization Laws (second edition, pub. 1853) by Horace Binney

I had to reread it several times, but as it is only 33 pages it was not time consuming. If you haven't read this yet, you- or your readers- may find it interesting. Although it begins by slogging through English common law (birthplace=GB nbC subject) it does get around to US citizenship/naturalization.

snip from page 22:

"The child of an alien,if born in the country is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen"; March 7, 2013 at 1:41 PM
Anonymous said...: After a bit of poking around, I see that you did address Binney already.

It is absolutely clear that a simple distinction was made between the types of United States citizenship, one being natural and the other by statute, and that the citizenship by nature included a citizen parent. So very simple.

I suppose the reason I haven't noticed the obots take on Binney before is because I began to tune them out when they did their inevitable twisting of history to torture it to their desired narrative. Ah well. As usual they count on people not reading the material source quoted from, and only quoting small snips they hope supports their claim. Sleight of hand nonsense which is intended to make people tune out, and has been fairly successful in that regard.

Even though Binney is quite clear in his meaning, obama sycophants sure do overlook that and supply their opinion of his intended meaning instead. I haven't seen an obot quote from pg. 22 of this edition of Binney "essay" for example. It can't be twisted around as easily, can it?; March 7, 2013 at 2:55 PM
Anonymous said...: Doublee - "Is only the reasoning that supports the question before the court ratio decidendi and therefore, the definition of natural born citizen is obiter dicta? Is it a stretch to say that the definition of natural born citizen is part of the reason for the decision?"

Try removing this passage from the decision - "These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

Does the opinion change? Is there any effect on the opinion?

If the answer is no than it is obiter dicta. Read United States of America v. John Allan Crawley, 837 F.2d 291 for a discussion of dictum.; March 7, 2013 at 4:35 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Doublee and 4zoltan,

I of II

Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” is binding precedent and not dicta.
Not knowing whether the Court would agree with her that voting was a privilege or immunity granted to “citizens” by Article IV of which the state of Missouri, because of the Fourteenth Amendment, could not deprive her, Virginia Minor had to first make the threshold showing that she was a “citizen.”

The parties, in their question to the Court, assumed that Virginia Minor was a “citizen of the United States” under the then-new Fourteenth Amendment. The question that they presented for resolution was that given that she was a “citizen,” did she enjoy a voting right under Article IV of which the state of Missouri could not deprived her. If she did, then Missouri’s constitution and statute, allowing only men to vote, were unconstitutional, and Missouri could not deprive her of the right to vote.

The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court did not assume Virginia Minor’s citizenship status as the parties did. It set out to first convince itself that she satisfied the threshold question of whether she was a “citizen.” In answering that question, it said that she did not need the Fourteenth Amendment to acquire that status. The Court then set out to prove that Virginia Minor was a “citizen.” It explained what is meant to be a “citizen,” saying that it meant no more than membership in the nation. The Court then showed how Virginia Minor was a “citizen” by first defining a “natural-born citizen.” It stated that the Constitution, which already included the Fourteenth Amendment, did not define a “natural-born citizen.” It then said that its definition could be found at “common-law” with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution. It then provided the law of nations (Vattel’s Section 212) definition of the clause and not the English common law’s definition of a “natural born subject,” when it said:

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

Minor, at 167-68.

So, by the court defining a “natural-born citizen,” the Court explained that children who were born in the country to “citizen” parents were not only “citizens” like their parents, but because they were born in the country to “citizen” parents, also “natural-born citizens.” So, knowing that Virginia Minor was born in the United States to “citizen” parents, which made her a “natural-born citizen,” and concluding that all “natural-born citizens” are necessarily “citizens,” the Court had no problem finding that she was a “citizen.” Hence, the Court informed that all “natural-born citizens” are necessarily “citizens,” but not all “citizens” are necessarily “natural-born citizens.”

Continued . . .; March 7, 2013 at 4:48 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

The Court also raised on its own the question of whether children “born in the jurisdiction” to alien parents were “citizens.” Note that the Court said “citizens,” not “natural-born citizens.” The Court again on its own said that despite what “some authorities” had concluded, that, unlike one being for sure a “citizen” if one belonged to the class of persons who were “natural-born citizens,” “there have been doubts” whether anyone who belonged to that other class of persons was even a “citizen.” Since Virginia Minor was born in the United States to “citizen” parents, the Court said it was not necessary for it to resolve those doubts and that it could hold that Virginia Minor was a “citizen,” which is the only status that she needed to pierce the citizenship threshold of being able to argue that she was entitled to Article IV privileges and immunities and Fourteenth Amendment protection of those rights from state deprivation.

The Court’s thoughtful and careful explanation of American citizenship and specifically its definition of a “natural-born citizen” is part of the ultimate holding of the Court and not obiter dictum. To come to these conclusions about American citizenship, the Court engaged in a focused and reasoned analysis of the historical development of American citizenship, starting with the American Revolution and how it created the original citizens, explaining what the Framers relied upon to define their future birthright citizenship which they called “natural-born citizen” (relying upon American national law which it called “common-law”), commenting on how more “citizens” could be made by Congress through its naturalization powers, and explaining the role of the Fourteenth Amendment. In that process, the Court confirmed the one and only definition of a “natural-born citizen” which existed at “common-law” with which the Framers were familiar. It said that that definition was “all children, born in a country, of parents who were its citizens.” The Court did not in any way indicate that the Fourteenth Amendment changed that definition in any way. In fact, the Court even said that the Fourteenth Amendment did not define a “natural-born citizen.” It reflected carefully upon what it set out to do and how it defined what it found. The Court had to first define a “natural-born citizen” before it could determine if Virginia Minor was a “citizen.” It had to determine if she was a “citizen” in order to apply Article IV and the Fourteenth Amendment. The conclusions that the Court reached are all part of the ratio decidendi of its ultimate holding which was that being a “citizen” did not bring with it the right to vote, which resulted in it finding that Missouri, despite Virginia Minor being a “citizen,” could through its constitution and statutes still deny a woman like Virginia Minor the right to vote. Hence, defining citizenship and specifically a “natural-born citizen” were part of the reason for its decision, making those rulings binding precedent and not obiter dictum.; March 7, 2013 at 4:48 PM
Chief said...: Mario thank you for your response, your efforts, and Orly's tenaciousness will bear fruit it is only a matter of time before this criminal imposter will see the inside of a correction facility for his RICO acts, and the RICO acts of those that abet his every criminal move. A point in this was the timely departure of his in-house council immediately after the releas of his bogus BC from the white house Robert Bauer ran as fast as he could back to his law firm to put distance between his action while in the white house, even though in the end he like John Dean of the Nixon era will see his efforts in that adventure end up putting him in jail also. We just need a grand jury for indictment of all of them. Stay the course, and we will win out in the end. Thanks.; March 7, 2013 at 10:51 PM