Sunday, June 2, 2013

The Fallacies of Congressional Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen”

The Fallacies of Congressional Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen”

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 2, 2013


   Bob Quasius at CafĂ© Con Leche Republicans recently said: 

“The citizenship of Ted Cruz’s father is irrelevant. Ted Cruz was born a citizen of the United States based upon his mother’s citizenship and many years of residency in the U.S., per the federal statutes in effect at the time Ted Cruz was born. A natural born citizen is one who was born a citizen, as compared to someone not born a citizen and naturalized. Ted Cruz was born a citizen, and therefore he’s a natural born citizen.” 

Quasius’ argument is the classic example of Jack Maskell’s formal and informal logical fallacies of what the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is which are contained in his two Congressional Research (CRS) Memos.  Jack Maskell wrote in his CRS memo published in 2009: 

“[T]he weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that 'natural born citizen' means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship 'at birth' or 'by birth,' including any child born ‘in’ the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements."


Then he wrote in his 2011 CRS memo: 

"The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term 'natural born' citizen would
mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship 'by birth' or 'at birth,' either by being born
'in' the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born
abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for
U.S. citizenship 'at birth.' Such term, however, would not include a person who was not a U.S.
citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an 'alien' required to go through the legal
process of 'naturalization' to become a U.S. citizen."

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf  .

In this memo, he also added:  “there is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements, although several cases have addressed the term ‘natural born’ citizen. And this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.”

Maskell made his 2009 statement with little force and certitude.  He said that this “scholarly legal and historical opinion” “appears to support the notion” as to what the “natural born Citizen” clause means.  A “notion” is defined, in relevant part, as:  “1.  A general idea  2.  a belief; opinion  3.  an inclination; whim.”  Webster’s  New World Dictionary of the American Language 410 (1983).  Here is another definition:  “1:  Idea, conception 2:  a belief held:  opinion, view  3:  whim, fancy.  The Merriam-Webster Dictionary 480 (1974).  And this “opinion” only “appears to support” that notion.  Here, we can see that Maskell did not give us a clear and definite statement as to what the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is.  Rather, he only put forth a theory that this “scholarly legal and historical opinion” supported this general idea, belief, or opinion of what the definition of a “natural born citizen” is. 

While his 2011 statement contained more force, Maskell still stated that a “natural born citizen” “would mean” any person who is a “citizen by birth” or “citizen at birth,” regardless of the means by which the person obtained that birth status.  Maskell said “would mean.”  That means that the meaning that he gave to a “natural born citizen” is conditioned upon something else also being true.  But he did not tell us what that something else is, let alone demonstrate that whatever it is, it is true.  He also stated that “there is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements.”  As we shall see below, this is not true, for there are U.S. Supreme Court cases which have addressed the “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen” and that is a presidential eligibility requirement.   

First, as to the formal logical fallacy, let us break down what Maskell and Quasius actually said into its logical form.  I will use the following symbols:  Natural born Citizen=NBC, and Citizen at birth=CAB

All NBCs are CABs.
All persons like Ted Cruz (born in Canada to a U.S “citizen” mother and non-U.S. “citizen” father) are CABs.
Therefore, all persons like Ted Cruz are NBCs.

First, it is a tautology to argue that a “natural born Citizen” is a born citizen.  Second, this argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent (affirming that one is a CAB does not prove that one is a NBC).  Third, this argument suffers from fallacy in that it violates the rule of the undistributed middle (the middle term CABs is not distributed in either the major or minor premise meaning the term has not been defined as belonging or not belonging within the class of NBCs).  So, while the major and minor premises are both true, the conclusion, which equates a CAB to a NBC is false.  We should see intuitively that the conclusion does not follow from the two premises.  An easy way to see the invalidity of the argument is the following: 

All poodles are dogs.
Bubbles is a dog.
Therefore, Bubbles is a poodle. 

We know that this argument is not valid because, with dogs being comprised of more than just poodles, Bubbles can be a German Shepherd or some other type of dog.    

Second, now let us examine the informal fallacy of the Maskell/Quasius statement.  Now we will test the truth of the major and minor premises of the argument.  To do that, we need to help Maskell and Quasius a little by converting their invalid argument into a valid one.  Here we go: 

All CABs are NBCs.
All persons like Ted Cruz are CABs.
All persons like Ted Cruz are NBCs. 

This argument is valid because if the major and minor premises are true, the conclusion must be true.  But while the argument is valid as to its logical form, it is not sound, meaning that the major or minor premise or both are false.  This adjusted Maskell argument is not sound because its major premise is false.  With the major premise being false, so is its conclusion.  Let me explain.  First, the major premise, all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens” is false because the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers of the Constitution did not so define a “citizens at birth” and there does not exist any evidence that they did.  Second, regardless of how a “citizen at birth” may be defined, the text of Article II specifically states “natural born Citizen,” not “Citizen at Birth” or some variant thereof.  Additionally, while it is true that all “natural born Citizens” are “citizens at birth,” it does not follow that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.”  If I am wrong, Bob Quasius can cite for us an authoritative source which provides that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.”  So there is the challenge.  Let Bob Quasius or anyone else who might want to come to his aid provide one authoritative source which demonstrates that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.”  By doing this, he will also be proving that Jack Maskell is correct.   

Anticipating that Bob Quasius will not be able to provide any such source, I have therefore demonstrated how Jack Maskell is incorrect in what he stated to be the definition of a “natural born Citizen.”  Using their exact words, they made an invalid argument about who is included and excluded as a “natural born Citizen.”  Even adjusting what they said to make a valid argument, they made an unsound argument, for they provided a non-existent definition of a “natural born Citizen.”  Either way, Jack Maskell and Bob Quasius lose.   
Now as to the correct definition of a “natural born Citizen,” here it is:  A “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who are its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.  This is the settled definition of the clause under American national common law.  See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 Citizens and natives (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”); The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring);  Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830; Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 476-77 (1857) (J. Daniel concurring); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168-170 (1875); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898) (all confirmed Vattel’s Section 212 of the The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) definition of the “natural-born citizens” who “are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”).  This is the only definition of the clause that has ever existed and which has been recognized by our U.S. Supreme Court.  The conditions of being born in the country to “citizen” parents are both necessary and sufficient conditions of being a “natural born Citizen.”  The definition of a “natural born Citizen” therefore excludes anyone who is either not born in the country (or its jurisdictional equivalent) or not born to parents (both parents) who are its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth or both. 

Here is what this definition produces as logical statements:  I will use the following symbols:  Natural born Citizen=NBC; born in the country =BIC; and born to citizen parents=BCPs

All BIC and BCPs are NBC.

All Xs are BIC and BCPs.

Therefore, all Xs are NBC. 

If NBC, then BIC and BCPs.
X is not BIC and BCP.
Therefore, X is not NBC. 

If and only if BIC and BCP, then NBC.
X is not BIC and BCPs.
Therefore, X is not NBC. 

All NBCs are BIC and BCPs.
No Xs are BIC and BCPs.
Therefore, no Xs are NBC. 

The Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers required that future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military be “natural born Citizens.”  They required this because they wanted to protect these unique and singular and all-powerful civil and military offices from monarchical and foreign influence.  For the sake of the safety of those offices and the national security of the nation, they wanted to make sure that all future Presidents and Commanders be born with sole allegiance, faith, and loyalty to the United States.  Barack Obama (maybe born in Hawaii, but born to a U.S. "citizen" mother and a non-U.S. “citizen” father), Ted Cruz (born in Canada to a U.S. “citizen” mother and a non-U.S. “citizen” father), Marco Rubio (born in Florida to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents), Bobby Jindal (born in Louisiana to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents), and Nikki Haley (born in South Carolina to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents) were not born in the country (BIC) to citizen parents (BCPs).  Because they acquired foreign allegiance from either being born to one or two alien parents (all of them) or from being born in a foreign nation (Cruz and maybe also Obama), none of them were born with sole allegiance, faith, and loyalty to the United States.   Under all of the above logical statements, none of these individuals are “natural born Citizens.” 

The inescapable conclusion is that since Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and Haley are neither “natural born Citizens” nor “Citizens of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,” they are not eligible to be President. 

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 2, 2013
Updated April 14, 2014
####

Copyright © 2013
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
       


243 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 243   Newer›   Newest»
CaMaven said...

Hey Mario:

How 'bout Santorum?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

CaMaven,

Please provide what you maintain are Santorum's birth circumstances (with sources) and I will respond accordingly.

KenyanBornObamAcorn said...

Santorum is not eligible. His father was not a citizen when he was born! Kerchner did a piece on this:

http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/10/03/100-proof-rick-santorum-not-a-natural-born-citizen-father-naturalized-3-yrs-after-rick-was-born-foia-response-re-aldo-santorum/

Kanbun said...

I've advanced this question rhetorically before - if an Obot (or Maskell) spews this logic - what then is the difference between citizen and natural born citizen according to the framers (in the Constitution)? Can any of them answer that? Their answer would have to be there is no difference and then of course, why use two different terms?

js said...

Part I

The basis for the requirement of NBC as a qualification to become President was to eliminate foreign influence at the highest level of our government. The Founding fathers intent was to insure that the security of our nation would not devolve to anyone with loyalties other than to the USA.

That being said, the birth of an individual on US soil does not dictate that loyalty. A child born in the USA to a British father would hold British Citizenship, even if the father marries a US Citizen. The Child of a legal or illegal immigrant maintains the parent’s loyalty to their homeland. The loyalty of the child is natural; as children will naturally follow the allegiance of their father. This loyalty is bound in the marriage, as the fathers condition automatically became the wife’s at the time of the founding of this nation. Under modern laws, a woman’s right is equal to that of a man, but the condition of the child still bears upon a potential loyalty to a foreign power, which is a natural hereditary condition, and a right that no man made law can remove from that child (thus it is in agreement with natural law). This fact, beyond any duality of citizenship argument, leads us to the founding fathers expression as they included the term Natural Born Citizen in the Constitution. The primary purpose of the clause is to insure that the security of our nation would not devolve to anyone with loyalties other than to the USA, and a child born with dual nationalities has loyalties to a foreign nation, naturally, from the moment of his birth and does not qualify to be President of the United States.

As a natural born subject of Britain, Obama cannot also be a natural born citizen of the USA. This conflict is obfuscated by the CNS report, which omits information about the history of the NBC term, which if disclosed, would demand that the Congressional report deny the right of Obama to hold the Executive Office. This is corruption; misleading congress to make a mistake like this should be criminal, if not outright treason against our Constitution.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

js,

Can you resend Part II of your latest comments. I had a problem posting it.

js said...

This nation had recently undergone a devastating war against Britain to establish our Independence. It is not likely that the founding fathers would explicitly follow the common law of the Monarchy whose chains it had recently overthrown.

“When the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement.” Justice James Wilson Ware v. Hylton, 3 Dall. 199, 281 (1796)”

“The common law of England is not the common law of these states. I conceive, therefore, that there is nothing in that Constitution to hinder a dismemberment of the empire.” George Mason, June 19, 1788

There is indeed more than one just reason. The English common law is based on the State being the Church, and the government, with the King as the head of the English Church. The common law established in Calvin is based on this fact, and those who were not Christian, were not subjects of the King, but enemies. The common law of England would require that the US establish itself as a church had the founding fathers adopted English Common Law, and that the elected representative to the office of President would be representative as head of the American Church. This is a fundamental principal that our Constitution finds repugnant.

“Calvin's case, 7 Coke, 17: " All Infidels are in Law perpetui inimici perpetual enemies (for the Law presumes not that they will be converted, that being remota potentia, a remote possibility) for between them, as with the devils, whose subjects they be, and the Christian, there is perpetual hostility, and can be no peace; for as the Apostle saith, 2 Cor. 15. Quae autem conventio Christi ad Belial, aut quae pars fideli cum infideli (And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel), and the Law saith, Judaeo Christianum nullum serviat mancipium, nefas enim est quem Christus redemit blasphemum Christi in servitutis vinculis detinere. Infideles sunt Christi et Christianorum inimici (No Christian should be sold in slavery to a Jew, for it is unlawful that one whom Christ has redeemed should be held in the bonds of servitude to someone who blasphemes against Christ). And herewith agreeth the Book in 12 Hen. 8. fol. 4. where it is holden that a Pagan cannot have or maintain any action at all.” (this denotes that being a citizen of England makes you a subject of the Crown, or a servant of the church, which would find infidels in service to the same as an insult or blasphemy…so an infidel cannot become a servant, or subject)


The common law of England is not mentioned in the US Constitution. The Law of Nations, however, is. Under the Law of nations, the “naturals”, indigenous population, are the only means through which a natural born citizen can be created. A foreign traveler cannot produce a natural born citizen of a nation to which he/she is not a citizen of. It’s that simple, and in accords with the basis that we know are true. The founding fathers wanted to exclude foreign influence in our government. A foreign traveler in the borders of our country, going to school, is not a member of the indigenous population, and his offspring is not a natural born citizen because of that fact, and by cause of his citizenship in a foreign nation as this influence is passed to his children, those children are not eligible to become our President.
This is the design of the Constitution, which fails to name who shall be a natural born citizen. It was clear to the members of the Constitutional Convention that only natural means could provide such a prodigy. No law of man can create a natural born citizen, and congress was delegated authority over only naturalization, because legislation and laws cannot create a member of the indigenous population, that is already done by means of the natural law.
Congress only has the ability to naturalize those who would become members of our nation.

John Manuola said...

Kanbun...in all my debates with Obots, they continually assert that there are only two types of citizens...CAB and naturalized. They contend that there is no difference between ANY two persons born as citizens of this country. That's where their logic falls apart, as Mario has explained.

They ASSUME, based upon their interpretations of court cases that there all Citizens at Birth (CAB) are also Natural Born Citizens simply because the court cases point out that all NBC are CAB.

The fallacy in their logic is that one cannot assume the converse to be also true. In other words, just because it is true that all NBC are CAB does not necessarily mean that all CAB are NBC.

NBC is a subset of CAB. Although it is logically POSSIBLE for the converse to also be true (that all CAB are NBC), it is not a conclusion one can come to simply by proving that all NBC are CAB. You would have to also prove the converse to be true by it's own merits. Which, as Mario has shown time and time again, has never been proven.

What OBOTS have erroneously done is taken court cases where the courts have said that all NBC are CAB to mean they are equal. And in one sense that is true. All elements which make up a NBC also make that person a CAB. But not all persons meeting the criteria for being a CAB necessarily also meet the criteria for being in the subset known as NBC.

For the OBOTS to win they have to prove one of two things: 1) that Obama specifically meets the criteria for the subset known as NBC or 2) they would have to prove that NBC and CAB are equal in all aspects. Neither have been done at any time, by anyone...yet.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Kanbun,

I of II

You are correct in your observation regarding "natural born Citizens" and "citizens."

What Maskell and his followers do is conflate and confound a "natural born Citizen" with a "citizen at birth." Maskell have never proven that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.” Still, he puts forth a notion that Congress can just keep adding more and more people to the “natural born Citizen” class by simply making more and more “citizens at birth.”

Maskell provides for only one exclusion from the “natural born Citizen” class. In his 2011 CRS Memo, he did concede that a “natural born Citizen” “would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an ‘alien’ required to go through the legal process of ‘naturalization’ to become a U.S. citizen.” Hence, he states that the Founders and Framers would not have allowed a person who became a "citizen after birth” to be a "natural born Citizen." So, Maskell includes all persons who are made "citizens at birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act, regardless of circumstances, to be "natural born Citizens."

But the Fourteenth Amendment and Congressional Acts do not define the "natural born citizens." Rather, it is per Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) American national common law which does.

Additionally with respect to any Congressional Acts, the Constitution does not give Congress any power over defining the “natural born citizens.” Rather, its powers in matters of citizenship include all things related thereto except for defining the “natural born citizen” class.

The First Congress in 1790 said that children born abroad to U.S. “citizen” parents “shall be considered as natural born citizens.” The Third Congress in 1795 specifically removed the nomenclature “natural born citizen” from those children, replacing it with “citizens of the United States.” Under both of these naturalization acts, these children were “citizens at birth,” but yet the Third Congress through the work of James Madison in the House specifically made them just “citizens of the United States,” not “natural born citizens.”

Congress in 1802 provided through the Naturalization Act of 1802 that children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents who become so after 1802 were alien born. Before the 1802 law, we saw that the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795 treated them as “citizens at birth.” Now they became aliens if born to persons becoming citizens after 1802. This meant that over time, with all the old U.S “citizens dying off, there would not have been any more “citizens at birth” born under such circumstances. It is hard to believe that Congress would take what Maskell would consider to be a “natural born Citizen” and make him into an alien. With the Naturalization Act of 1855, Congress changed the 1802 law, which treated those children as aliens, and again provided that those same children became “citizens of the United States” at birth (“citizens at birth”), regardless of when their parents became “citizens,” which is what they had been since 1790. So Maskell wants us to believe that Congress can just turn “natural born Citizens” on and off whenever it pleases.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Maskell also contradicts himself. In his 2011 CRS Memo, he did concede that a “natural born Citizen” “would not include a person who was not a U.S. citizen by birth or at birth, and who was thus born an ‘alien’ required to go through the legal process of ‘naturalization’ to become a U.S. citizen.” The naturalization acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 treated children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and in need of naturalization. This early Congressional activity is solid evidence of how the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers defined a “natural born Citizen.” The Fourteenth Amendment since Wong Kim Ark changed how these children born in the United States to alien parents were treated. Today, these children are included as "citizens of the United States" at birth (“citizens at birth”). So Maskell under his “citizen at birth” theory, includes as “natural born Citizens” children who the Founders, Framers, Ratifiers, and early Congress (through the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855) deemed alien born and in need of naturalization even though he concedes that such children were not in the eyes of the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers “natural born Citizens.” In other words, children who are today “citizens at birth” were not at the Founding “citizens at birth.” So, according to Maskell’s exclusion, these children could not be “natural born Citizens” in the eyes of the Founders, Framers, Ratifiers, and Congress in 1802. But over time, these children are not considered “citizens at birth” and according to Maskell “natural born Citizens.” So, today under his lose definition (“citizen at birth), those children are included as "natural born Citizens," even though the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers considered them alien born.

It is highly unlikely that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers saw the “natural born Citizen” clause as a clause that would just keep changing over time to include more and more people within it as Maskell has it doing. It surely makes no sense that people who the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers considered alien born would later become “natural born Citizens” without a constitutional amendment ever having taken place to accomplish that. It further makes no sense when Maskell himself concedes that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers, if they considered such children alien born, would not have accepted them as “natural born Citizens.” As we can see, Maskell’s “citizen at birth” theory of a “natural born Citizen” just makes no sense and must be rejected by all reasonable thinking persons.

Robert said...

Obama highlights the overwhelming influence of the father as he has written an entire book, "Dreams of My Father" having only been in contact with his natural father, who even abandoned him, for an extremely small portion of his childhood and none of his adult life.

He was correct to assert that he was born under British jurisdiction. He has never been in allegiance with the United States by heritage or belief.

jayjay said...

Mario:

I think your treatise on Aristotle (or other classical philosophers) and the Greek/Roman view of NBC is both precise and to the point and should be quoted (or linked to) as required reading for all Obots.

Aristotle is much more correct than Jack Maskell fer shur!!

daddynoz said...

Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971)

2. The Constitution as originally adopted contained no definition of United States citizenship. However, it referred to citizenship in general terms and in varying contexts: Art. I, 2, cl. 2, qualifications for members of the House; Art. I, 3, cl. 3, qualifications for Senators; [401 U.S. 815, 829] Art. II, 1, cl. 5, eligibility for the office of President; Art. III, 2, cl. 1, citizenship as affecting judicial power of the United States. And, as has been noted, Art. I, 8, cl. 4, vested Congress with the power to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." The historical reviews in the Afroyim opinions provide an intimation that the Constitution's lack of definitional specificity may well have been attributable in part to the desire to avoid entanglement in the then-existing controversy between concepts of state and national citizenship and with the difficult question of the status of Negro slaves.

In any event, although one might have expected a definition of citizenship in constitutional terms, none was embraced in the original document or, indeed, in any of the amendments adopted prior to the War Between the States.

3. Apart from the passing reference to the "natural born Citizen" in the Constitution's Art. II, 1, cl. 5, we have, in the Civil Rights Act of April 9, 1866, 14 Stat. 27, the first statutory recognition and concomitant formal definition of the citizenship status of the native born: "[A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States . . . ." This, of course, found immediate expression in the Fourteenth Amendment, adopted in 1868, with expansion to "[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States . . . ." As has been noted above, the amendment's "undeniable purpose" was "to make citizenship of Negroes permanent and secure" and not subject to change by mere statute. Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S., at 263 . See H. Flack, Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment 88-94 (1908).

[snip]

"But it [the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment] has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents; and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress, in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization."

Thus, at long last, there emerged an express constitutional definition of citizenship. But it was one restricted to the combination of three factors, each and all significant: birth in the United States, naturalization in the United States, and subjection to the jurisdiction of the United States. The definition obviously did not apply to any acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of an American parent. That type, and any other not covered by the Fourteenth Amendment, was necessarily left to proper congressional action.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=401&invol=815

The entirety of case has many, many interesting points for discussion and pertinence.

Carlyle said...

Also, ask the OBOTs what the purpose of the NBC restriction is. Using their definitions, there is really no point to it.

Why would the Founding Fathers go to the trouble of spelling this out and not use the most restrictive definition reasonably possible.

If the True Definition is any thing weaker than this, the burden must be on them to PROVE it.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Daddynoz,

What is important to see in the Bellei case, among many things, is how the U.S. Supreme Court speaks about an “express constitutional definition of citizenship” that was finally developed from the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and “with expansion” from the Fourteenth Amendment. Since we know that a “natural born Citizen” already had a definition before these laws went into effect, one that existed at common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution (Minor; Wong Kim Ark), we can conclude that the Court was not referring to a “natural born Citizen,” but rather to just plain “citizen.”

Bellei confirms that any child born out of the United States to “citizen” parents (like Ted Cruz) is naturalized at birth by Congress and that such a child can become a “citizen at birth,” not under the Constitution, but rather only by Congressional statute passed under Congress’s naturalization powers. The fact that the Court recognizes such a child, who Maskell calls a “citizen at birth,” to be naturalized at birth by Congress also is evidence that the Maskell theory, “all citizens at birth are natural born citizens,” is simply wrong. I do not see how a child naturalized by Congress at birth can be a “natural born Citizen.” The contradiction is just too glaring.

What is also important about Bellei is how the Court says that what developed as an “express constitutional definition of citizenship” exists as a “combination of three factors,” which under the Fourteenth Amendment was birth or naturalization in the U.S., and jurisdiction. This is critically important because it shows that the Court is acknowledging that any definition of citizenship must be comprised of factors. The same also applies to “natural born Citizen.” The clause’s definition has to have specific factors or else it would not be a definition at all. Maskell tells us, although he does not prove it, that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.” We know that what he says cannot be any definition of a “natural born Citizen,” for he provides no factors for the definition of a “natural born Citizen” other than to equate it somehow to one being a “citizen at birth.” On the other hand, we know that the correct 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. These are concrete factors. And as I have argued, these factors are both necessary and sufficient conditions to be satisfied by one claiming to be a “natural born Citizen.”

So, Bellei demonstrates in various ways how Maskell’s “definition” of a “natural born Citizen” is no definition at all and that his thesis that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens” is to be rejected for it has no historical, legal, or logical support.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Carlyle,

Did you know that of all the courts that have decided the merits of the "natural born Citizen" question and ruled in favor of Obama, not one of them even mentioned let alone analyze the purpose of the "natural born Citizen" clause?

dick head said...

if children of us citizens born outside of US were called citizens of the US in Naturalization act of 1795 then how can obots possibly say they are NBCs aka CAB when they became citizens under this Naturalization Act? How can you be a NBC when you became a citizen under a Nat Act? President Washington signed this act and maybe i am going out on a limb by saying he knew the difference between a real NBC and a "citizen of the US", who, if born after adoption, would not be eligible. Maskell also outright lied about a few cases when he did not mention that parents had naturalized a year before their children were born.

MichaelN said...

The assertion, that English common law was the Framers' source of defining what goes to make a US Article II "natural born Citizen", doesn't work in favor of the Obots.

This one-liner, taken from the benchmark English law case, wherein it is alleged by the Obots, that all that was necessary to make a natural born subject of England, shows the Obot argument to be based on mere wishful thinking.

The simple fact is that native-birth in England was NEVER accepted as sufficient to make a natural born subject and what's more, native-birth was specifically and expressly rejected as sufficient to make a natural born subject.

Here's the one-liner, taken from Calvin's case (the benchmark English law case relied on by the hopey-changey mob, which is supposed to support their assertion, but in reality proves the Obots WRONG! (no matter what context the excerpt was within)

"...that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject,..."

.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I have demonstrated that it is logically invalid to argue as Jack Maskell does that since all “natural born Citizens” are “citizens at birth,” any person who is a “citizen at birth” is a “natural born Citizen.” I have also demonstrated that it is false and therefore unsound to argue that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.” There simply is no historical or legal support for such a proposition. The premise is therefore false.

Even if the English common law had any application for defining our national citizenship after the ratification of the Constitution and Congress passing the Naturalization Act of 1790, which it did not, Maskell fails to show how he could arrive at such a statement from the English common law. The English common law defined a “natural born subject,” not a “natural born Citizen.” Subjecthood under the English monarchy had a completely different role and produced much different consequences in the kingdom than citizenship did in the American republic. At best, the English common law was used to define state citizenship which became national citizenship only up to the time the Constitution was adopted. The English common law’s consequences to the republic and the Office of President, to whatever degree possible, were accepted by the grandfather clause of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. But after the Constitution was ratified, while the English common law continued to provide guidance to the states for, among other things, defining state citizenship, the English common law no longer had any role for defining national citizenship for those born after its adoption. Congress further confirmed the new paradigm through the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855. Simply stated, the Constitution and Congress abrogated the English common law as any source of law for defining national citizenship. So, Maskell and his followers have a lot of explaining to do.

Mick said...

Federalist 68 (Written by A. Hamilton, who had suggested that the President be a "Citizen at birth", but was overruled by the Common Law term of art "natural born Citizen"):

"Nothing was more to be desired than that every practicable obstacle should be opposed to cabal, intrigue, and corruption. These most deadly adversaries of republican government might naturally have been expected to make their approaches from more than one querter, but chiefly from the desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils. How could they better gratify this, than by raising a creature of their own to the chief magistracy of the Union?"

Mick said...

'an improper ascendant"--- Is defined by Samuel Johnson's "A Dictionary of the English Language, 1755" as:
"Ancestor" and "influence". So the use of the word "ASCENDANT" has dual meaning here, as in the improper foreign influence of a foreign ancestor. The use of the indefinite article "an" precedes a noun, "ancestor", which was preceded by "the desire to avoid foreign influence". Also a natural born Citizen is described as a "creature of their own".

Could "raising a creature of their own" possibly refer to the son of a foreigner? Federalist 68 tells us EXACTLY what a natural born Citizen is, "a creature of our own, born in the country of parents who cannot exert any foreign influence"

It also tells us that we the people decide who is eligible.

"Another and no less important desideratum was, that the Executive should be independent for his continuance in office on all but the people themselves."

Johnson's influential dictionary, look up "ascendant" yourself!

http://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/

Mick said...

Of course Maskell's "theory" is soundly beaten by the laws of statutory construction, that words in a statute have distinct and separate meaning, that one statute cannot by implication void the effect of another (therefore a "born citizen of the 14A cannot mean the same thing as a "natural born citizen" of Art. 2)

Schneider v. Rusk was recently quoted in the Hassan v. FEC case, where that court agreed that natural born Citizens attain their rights through Art. 2, and naturalized citizens attain them through the 14A. It is well held that the 14A NATURALIZES those born of resident alien parents by the law of nations concept of "habitation", i.e legal habitation creates a temporary allegiance (as long as the legal habitation exists). Therefore children born during that habitation also have allegiance, "and are as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen" (Wong Kim Ark).

Mick said...

It is obvious that "natural born Citizen" is a term of art:
Here is what the SCOTUS has said about terms of art:

“[W]here Congress borrows terms of art in which are accumulated the legal
tradition and meaning of centuries of practice, it presumably knows and adopts
the cluster of ideas that were attached to each borrowed word in the body of
learning from which it was taken and the meaning its use will convey to the
judicial mind unless otherwise instructed. In such a case, absence of contrary
direction may be taken as satisfaction with widely accepted definitions, not as
departure from them.” Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 263 (1952). See also Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U.S. 19, 32 (1990) (“We assume that Congress is aware of existing law when it
passes legislation”)."


Mick said...

“Words that are not terms of art and that are not statutorily defined are
customarily given their ordinary meanings, often derived from the dictionary.”
In the absence of a statutory definition, “we construe a statutory term in accordance with its ordinary or natural meaning.” FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S. 471, 476 (1994).

"natural born Citizen" cannot be broken down into its constituent words to determine its meaning.

Mick said...

SCOTUS has said explicitly that Law of Nations is "Common Law" in recent cases involving the Alien Tort Act.

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Kiobel_v_Royal_Dutch_Petroleum_Co_No_101491_2013_BL_102043_US_Apr/1

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Sosa_v_AlvarezMachain_542_US_692_124_S_Ct_2739_159_L_Ed_2d_718_20/1

Mick said...

“Within its legitimate sphere, Congress is supreme and beyond the control of the courts; but if it steps outside of its constitutional limitations and attempts that which is beyond its reach, the courts are authorized to, and when called upon in due course of legal proceedings must, annul its encroachments upon the reserved power of the states and the people”. US v. Reese, 92 US 214, 221 (1876)

Carlyle said...

Kind Sirs -

Near the last of the previous thread I asked some questions about whether Obama and Holder are "above the law" in a practical sense.

I would really appreciate hearing some response from you legal experts. To a simple engineer like myself, it appears that we may be in a tough bind. I would especially welcome observations that point out what I may have overlooked.

js said...

This is the most corrupt administration America has ever seen.

How long before they get the courage to take the eligibility issue seriously?

Justin said...

What about Puerto Ricans? What if one got elected and then Puerto Rico left the commonwealth? Justice Kennedy weighs in.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/14/puerto-rico-president_n_2875757.html

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I have always argued that Barack Obama has yet to conclusively prove that he was born in Hawaii or any other place in the U.S. I argued this in Kerchner v Obama in the N.J. federal courts which ruled that Commander Kerchner had no standing. I also presented this argument to the Pennsylvania state court which ruled it had no jurisdiction. I also argued it in the Purpura and Moran v. Obama ballot challenge in N.J. There I argued that there was no evidence before the court or in New Jersey as to who Obama is or where he was born. ALJ Masin and Obama's lawyer agreed and thereby averted my expert’s testimony that the Obama on-line long-form birth certificate he released in 2011 had been humanly manipulated and was therefore not reliable. But Obama’s lawyer and the court both said that Obama did not need to present any evidence as to his identity or birth place to New Jersey, for it was not necessary for him to run for President in New Jersey. ALJ Masin then, without any evidence before him, accepted (he said "accepting") that Obama was born in Hawaii and ruled that he was a "natural born Citizen." SOS Kim Guadagno adopted Masin's decision. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New Jersey Supreme Court refused to grant any appeal either as of right or on certification.

On the issue of who Obama is and where he was born, consider this new information:

Professor Henry Graff, Distinguished College Professor at Columbia University for 46 Years, Doubts Obama Ever Went to Columbia
Article: Ghost of Columbia- Part II: Legendary Columbia Professor Never Heard of Obama | by Wayne Allen Root @ TheBlaze.com

An excerpt: ” … until now, I was the only one publicly voicing my suspicions. That just changed in a big way. Meet Professor Henry Graff, perhaps the most legendary and honored professor ever at Columbia University. He was THE American History and Diplomatic History professor at Columbia for 46 years. And he is more emphatic than yours truly that there are no Obama footprints at Columbia.
I was put on Professor Graff’s trail by another Columbia classmate, skeptical about Obama’s story. He told me that Professor Graff had been the speaker for the Class of ’53 last weekend at Columbia. My friend was watching Graff answer questions from the crowd when he was asked about Obama at Columbia. Graff said, “I have my doubts he ever went here.”
I did some digging and located Graff’s home phone number. I called him yesterday. Now retired, he was delighted to hear from me. He agreed to go on the record about Obama. Unlike Obama, Professor Graff clearly remembered me. He was thrilled to hear from his former student. I was in several of Graff’s classes and he remembered me like it was yesterday. He sounded great- like he hasn’t lost any of his trademark sharpness in 30 years since we last met.
I was honored to learn that this legendary historian has been following my political career for many years. But he had no such cheery things to say about the President. Graff said, “I taught at Columbia for 46 years. I taught every significant American politician that ever studied at Columbia. I know them all. I’m proud of them all. Between American History and Diplomatic History, one way or another, they all had to come through my classes. Not Obama. I never had a student with that name in any of my classes. I never met him, never saw him, never heard of him.”

Even more importantly, Professor Graff knew the other history and political science professors. “None of the other Columbia professors knew him either” said Graff.
Graff concluded our interview by saying, “I’m very upset by the whole story. I am angry when I hear Obama called ‘the first President of the United States from Columbia University.’ I don’t consider him a Columbia student. I have no idea what he did on the Columbia campus. No one knows him.” “

Read the full essay and report here:

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/ghost-of-columbia-part-ii-legendary-columbia-professor-never-heard-of-obama/

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

We can conclude that Congressional Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell and his followers are wrong in maintaining that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens” because their theory is contrary to the safety of the Office of President and the nation’s national security, American historical development, Founding-era historical authority, Congressional legislative activity from 1790 to the present, legal precedents from our U.S. Supreme Court and lower courts, American tradition, and logic.

js said...

I will be a cold day in hexx before Mr Maskell defends himself.

That's what happens when you get to hide behind a lie of competence. He abused the dignity of the Congress to advance the liberal agenda.

From that point forward, all you get is apathy.

MichaelN said...

js said...

"I will be a cold day in hexx before Mr Maskell defends himself.

That's what happens when you get to hide behind a lie of competence. He abused the dignity of the Congress to advance the liberal agenda.

From that point forward, all you get is apathy."
--------------------

Maskell fails the test of peer review.

He must be publicly challenged and called to account or publicly ( an more importantly to the US Congress) withdraw his flawed partisan conclusion.

Isn't there something about "under the color of law" which might bring Maskell undone?

MichaelN said...

Maskell and his deliberate misleading of the Congress is the "Archilles Heal" of the traitorous revisionists.

The sharp edge of truth must be applied in haste and with great force to this vulnerable point.

I think Mario's articles particularly in this thread are of great value to this end and copies should be sent to all members of Congress, repeatedly by many of their constituents for individual comment and greater action on the part of Congress as a whole towards getting a second opinion on the matter of definition of Article II "natural born Citizen".

There is no time to waste.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter, the artsy fartsy Obot queen, has taken a stab at my Jack Maskell article. You can read her haughty prose here. http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/he-says-apuzzo-i-say-a-pazzo/

She says that I have misread Minor v. Happersett because the Court said that “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” I say, so what in light of the fact that the Court also 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.” Hence, the Court said that at common law, if you were not born in the country to citizen parents, you were an alien or foreigner. This is the same exact thing that Congress reflected in its Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855. So Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, has proven nothing but to show that she does not understand what she reads.

Then Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, turns to my logical analysis of the Maskell argument. In the first part of her attempt at logic, it is quite clear that she has totally missed my point about Maskell’s first argument being invalid. I showed that Maskell’s first argument as having this invalid logical form (“natural born Citizen”=NBC; “citizen at birth”=CAB):

All NBCs are CABs.
All X’s are CABs.
Therefore, all X’s are NBC.

To show the invalidity of this argument, I wrote:

All poodles are dogs.
Bubbles is a dog.
Therefore, Bubbles is a poodle.

Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, says that this argument is not valid and faults me for presenting it. She misstates my presentation, even attempting to prove me wrong by showing by use of some other irrelevant logical argument why this argument is not valid. I said that this Maskell argument is not valid because it violates the rule of the undistributed middle and also is fallacious for affirming the consequent. I said that this is the argument presented by Maskell. So, what is ironic is that Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, attacks me, in her twisted and incorrect way, for the argument when what she is really doing is attacking Jack Maskell.

Then Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, takes a shot at the second part of my logical analysis of the Maskell argument:

All CAB’s are NBCs.
All X’s are CAB’s.
Therefore, all X’s are NBCs.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

I explained that I took Maskell’s invalid argument (above) and made it valid through this logical form. I did this to show where Maskell’s informal fallacy is hidden. I showed how this argument is logically valid, but unsound because its major premise, All CAB’s are NBCs, is false. I explained that Maskell has not presented any evidence to prove the truth of this major premise. I presented U.S. Supreme Court case law which addressed the meaning of a “natural-born citizen” and this case law does not support Maskell’s thesis that all “citizens at birth” are “natural-born citizens.” And even though Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, comes to Maskell’s aid, she also does not present any evidence to show that Maskell’s major premise, as reconstructed by me, would be true. What she does in place of presenting any evidence that the major premise is true is just to say that the premise does not strike her “as being facially incorrect, invalid, or untrue.” From this statement we can see that Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, has very little understanding of informal logic and fallacies. An informal fallacy has the exact facial appeal that she relies upon. But when its underlying truth is tested, it fails.

I have demonstrated how Maskell has not proven that his adjusted major premise is true. I have also presented my evidence that shows that the adjusted major premise is false. I have therefore unmasked the informal fallacy of the adjusted Maskell major premise, i.e., that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.” Yet, Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, says that I have proven nothing. On the contrary, she is the one who just says a lot of mixed up nothing (like her art work), demonstrates how incapable she is of understanding case law, and proves how ignorant she is when it comes to logic.

js said...

I didn't see your post Mario, but I did make one there as well.



Part I


Befuddled!!

That ole mind is confused by double talk, eh?

1- Children are born with their parents allegiance. They are naturally loyal to the country of their parents. This is a simple thing we all can agree upon. It is the natural heritage, a hereditary right, and it is a natural descent of citizenship. No nation denies the children born within its own borders or traveling in foreign lands citizenship. So it is by natural descent.

2- Children born in foreign lands to parents that are aliens to that land are still citizens of the parents country. This also is a simple thing, there should be no dispute about this. It is the same natural heritage, the hereditary right, of all children to that natural descent of citizenship. To deny this would be like saying the children of illegal immigrants in the USA would have no right to the Mexican citizenship of their parents. That in itself would be a grievous insult to the national sovereignty of Mexico itself. The Children of Citizens of Mexico, born in the United States, do not lose their natural right to Mexican citizenship.

3- Compounding 2, above, is that foreign nation which grants the child of foreign nationals born within its borders, citizenship. So, when the natural parents and the child return to their homeland, the child literally holds 2 citizenships. One being the natural citizenship passed to the child by natural law, and the second being, the naturalization of the child to a foreign citizenship which exists only by latchet of man made law. Should the parents remain in the foreign nation, those conditions still exist, whether the parents naturalize as citizens or not, the condition of the child at birth, does not change.





The topic that this post addresses is the establishment of natural born citizenship (NBC) as a qualification, to become the President of the United States (POTUS) as the term was understood by our founding fathers, at the time that they established our Constitution. The term natural born citizen itself is not explained in the Constitution. This is agreed to by all, and that its definition is what divides so many of us.

js said...

part II



The intent of the founding Fathers is what we need to figure out. Why did they make NBC a requirement to become the POTUS. In order for us to establish the reason, we need to study the cause. The point cant be argued that the meaning of NBC could not contradict that reason, so if we establish the reason, documented in the writing of the founding Fathers, then we can logically rule out anything that contradicts that meaning to establish a high probability of their intent.

That meaning cannot contradict anything we know that the Constitutional Convention was disputing or debating when we first see the term used. The Founding fathers intent was to insure that the security of our nation would not devolve to anyone with loyalties other than to the USA. This point is well established in historical documents. At the time these issues were at hand, is when we find the term "Natural Born Citizenship" inserted into the Constitutional Conventions draft copies, replacing the use of "citizen" as a qualification to become POTUS. The phrase made it all the way through, without challenge and became a requirement for any person to become POTUS. So it is safe to assume that the founding Fathers understood the term NBC as they used it, to preclude the qualification of any person who was born with any loyalty to any nation, other than the United States of America.

Based on this intent, the founding Fathers established that, at birth, if the child holds loyalties to any foreign nation at birth then that person is not qualified to become POTUS. It doesn't matter if later on in life that the Childs loyalty to the USA is an unbreakable bond and the child is a hero and saves the lives of a thousand of his countrymen. The time, at the birth, and the condition, loyal to no nation other than to the USA, is all that we need to know. This definition is in full agreement with the writings of the founding Fathers, as well as, with the Law of Nations, to which they were familiar with, as well as the fact that it does not contradict natural law, which is the natural descent of citizenship of children following the citizenship of their parents. Dual citizenship is no different than if the child had no US citizenship at all. When it comes to qualification to become POTUS, as understood by the Founding Fathers, we must reject any child born with any loyalty to any foreign nation, and to be a dual citizen at birth is to have an allegiance to a foreign nation.

Case closed.

The SCOTUS cannot contradict the Constitution, and when all the laws come together, there are none that can stand up as law if they do. No person, who was born with a loyalty/allegiance to any nation other than to the United States to include any dual citizenship condition “at the time of their birth”, is qualified to become POTUS.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, tries again and fails again. Here is her response to my comment: http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/mario-apuzzo-esq-s-distributed-muddle/

Now she is starting to understand things a little better. But she does not admit the blunder that she made with the first part of my logical presentation, i.e., that to argue that since all “natural born Citizen” are “citizens at birth,” and since Obama is a “citizen at birth,” he is a “natural born Citizen.” We have to recognize this argument as invalid, because Maskell relies upon it.

Second, Artsy Fartsy, Girl Reporter, underplays the second part of my logical analysis where I show, by converting Maskell’s invalid argument into a valid argument, that such an argument is unsound because the major premises is false. Maskell’s major premise would be all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.” Artsy Fartsy fails to understand the importance of the maneuver of taking someone’s invalid argument and making valid. It is done to show that if the argument is to succeed, then its premises must be true. And it is here that I have shown that Maskell’s major premise is false.

Artsy Fartsy just blows this point off by simply saying that there is just a disagreement between Maskell and me on the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Now is that not just genius for Artsy Fartsy to figure out. I have challenged both Maskell and Artsy Fartsy to provide evidence that Maskell’s adjusted major premise is true. We do not hear from Maskell. And from Artsy Fartsy, she simply says that U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark trumps Minor v. Happersett. So there you have the strength of their argument which is supposed to prove that their major premise is true. We know that Minor defined a “natural-born citizen” as a child born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. And we also know that Wong Kim Ark, interpreting the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and its “subject to the jurisdiction” clause, and ultimately defining a “citizen of the United States” at birth under that amendment, did not alter Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen,” and even distinguished a “natural-born citizen” from a “citizen of the United States” at birth under that amendment. Artsy Fartsy is just making stuff up given that she has nothing else to present to us which would show that the Maskell major premises is true.

So, Maskell’s first argument, that since Obama is a “citizen at birth” he is a “natural born Citizen” is not valid. And his second argument with my adjusted major premise, all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens,” has no historical and legal support. Hence, Maskell’s argument as to what is a “natural born Citizen” and whether Obama meets that definition is wrong.

Carlyle said...

All these people like Artsy Fartsy are inconsequential. It matters not one whit what they babble about.

But alas, even those of us who try to understand this in a objective and open minded manner may, in the end, not matter much either.

Right now I would say the most power is with the MSM. The vast public will follow wherever they lead.

The USSC is obviously at the apex of this food chain - but only if they wish to be. So far they have CHOSEN to sit on the sidelines.

Interestingly, Maskell is otherwise probably the most important. It does not matter if he is right or wrong, only that he IS and that he HAS SPOKEN. Congress critters who know the truth can legitimately hide behind him. Those who do not yet know will rest peacefully in that their official designated research arm has looked into this and made a formal determination.

So, basically, all is well and all is quiet.

Robert said...

Neither Obama or any of his Obots, Maskell and Artsy Fartsy included, have ever provided any evidence that substantiates their claim that Obama was even a citizen at birth.

Stronger evidence: his grandmother's claim, the Kenyan government, Mombassa locals, Obama's early bios, etc. puts his birth in Kenya at a time when his mother was not old enough to transfer US citizenship.

Maybe we need to have some real disclosure of travel and passport records including his and his parents' along with actual legal birth records to settle this matter. Of course, if he were eligible and could prove it, this would already have been done. This is way too simple.

Unfortunately, except for those in Mario's camp, I don't see anyone who appears to be even remotely interested in determining the truth of the identity of the so-called leader of the free world. Nor can I discern any intelligent reason to justify why anyone would be so willing to provide blind cover to enable such an anti-American, incompetent, liar as Obama to remain in our Oval office against the clear mandates of our Constitution. I wonder, would any of these folks go to a heart doctor whose records were as flaky as Obama's?

Obama is clearly NOT eligible to serve as POTUS. He needs to be removed from office and his total putative presidency needs to be nullified.

paraleaglenm said...

“There are only two types of citizens: those who are native born and those who are naturalized.” Schaufus v. Attorney General of United States 45 F.Supp. 61,66 (D. MD 1942)

It is Wong Kim Ark (1898) that ignored a century of legislated naturalization law (Art1Sec8) that relied solely on jus sanguinis, following the pre-constitutional treatise of Dr. Ramsey. Ark conflated U.S. legislated act with 'common law' of England, holding that native born children of 'domiciled' aliens (even if not immigrant applicants) were U.S. citizens at birth.

Actually, there are two types of citizens, natural born or those by force of naturalization law, which includes 'de-alienage' of children born to foreign parents.

This was fallacious and in error. British common law was barred from having force of precedent unless formally recognized by the high courts of each state.

In fact, British statute, namely the 1772 British Nationality Act followed jus sanguinis, not the jus soli of Calvin's Case, or what Blackstone called a feudal practice with Gothic sources.

Our congress can repair the damage done by Wong Kim Ark by citing the 1866 Civil Rights Act preamble as the legislative history of the 14th Amendment's 'born in the United States, and under the jurisdiction thereof' as meaning of a father 'not subject to any foreign power.'

However, our congressmen, trained lawyers, have been compounding error upon error, i.e., law schools compounded the error of a few judges into a fiasco of legislated act.

Soon, the Immigration Reform Act will come again before congress. However, our congressmen are ill-informed and ignorant, and signing of any bill that does not repair the damage done by Wong Kim Ark, damage done to 8 USC 1401 and our borders, and the disaster of birthright citizenship, will be the end of our constitutional republic.

Yes . . . the end of our Republic . . . the Mantle of Tyranny will fully cloak our freedoms once the electorate has been polluted by illegal immigrants.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Artsy Fartsy is really losing it. She posted on her blog a picture of an elephant that is dumping on her own blog.

h2ooflife said...

Mario wrote: "Because they acquired foreign allegiance from either being born to one or two alien parents (all of them) or from being born in a foreign nation (Cruz and maybe also Obama), none of them were BORN WITH sole allegiance, faith, and loyalty to the United States."

That sounds logical to the undiscriminating mind, but it is in fact nonsense. No baby ever born was imbued with allegiance, faith, and loyalty due to invisible borders claimed by a king or government. That is pure fantasy thinking and writing. Those qualities are inculcated by patriotic fathers and mothers and teachers, not by soil or declared borders.
But those born to American citizens inherit membership in their parents' country and nation, and it is attended by latent obligations of obedience and fidelity to its laws and constitution.
If they are male, then they have an obligation to fulfill their obligation if called in a time of national need or threat. Then they are obligated to live-out their innate duty of allegiance and loyalty to their nation via obedience to those who constitute its leadership.
No allegiance in contracted via place of birth, it is only contracted via the blood connection that leads to birth and inheritance of certain unalienable rights, and automatic membership with its attendant obligations.

Claiming that foreign birth confers foreign allegiance is an utterly baseless assertion. The soil of nations would have to have mind-control powers for that to be true. With it being false, it is also false to conclude based on it that domestic birth is therefore a requirement, when we know for a fact that the founding fathers understood that all children of American citizens were and would be born as Americans also via natural political inheritance, as they so inscribed in the first naturalization act.

These self-evident facts do not require a law degree to grasp. It's Natural Law 101.
Yet closed minds are unwilling to allow reason into their pre-programmed thinking. That results in message conflict, disagreement, and muddying of what is most fundamental, -namely that all natural born citizens are children of only American parents. Arguing for a domestic birth requirement contributes absolutely nothing to the truth about Obama's ineligibility. Absolutely nothing! And it violates the Natural Law principle of natural membership.

It doesn't matter where he was born. He in not the child of American parents, and he is not even a 14th Amendment citizen either. He is only a citizen by State Department policy, not law, nor SCOTUS opinion. He possesses Grigg's citizenship only and it could be rescinded with a mere signature.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

H2ooflife,

You reject that a baby can be “imbued” with allegiance, faith, and loyalty from the land on which he or she is born, but you accept that a baby can be so imbued by the parents to whom he or she is born.

You accept that children can have an “innate duty of allegiance and loyalty to their nation.” But you reject that children could acquire that duty from the land on which they are born, and you accept that children acquire that duty only from the parents to whom they are born.

You reject that the soil of a nation can have any “mind-control powers” over a child, but you accept that a child’s parents can.

While you make these statements, you do not provide any evidence to support them. You do not explain why a baby can be born with certain qualities through birth to certain parents, but that baby cannot be born with those same qualities through birth on a nation’s soil.

Furthermore, you make your unsubstantiated statements despite the fact that the world since the beginning of civilization has recognized that a child obtains allegiance, faith, and loyalty from the country in which and from the parents to whom he or she is born.

js said...

H2Ooflife said "It doesn't matter where he was born"

But U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)disputed that, didn't it? Wok was born in the USA. The SCOTUS recognized he was born as a citizen of the USA. If it didn't matter where he was born, they would not have done anything like that. He would have been deported back to China, he was born a dual citizen though.

That's a catch 22 you missed. Being born in the USA, the USA provided citizenship, by naturalization, to WKA, because at the time of his birth, his parents were considered permanent residents of the US even though they were not citizens, there were under the complete jurisdiction of the US. The presence, and establishment of a permanent residence, before the birth of the child, established the roots of an allegiance to the USA.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

Artsy Fartsy is peddling at her blog that Minor in 1875 left open the question of who were the “natural-born citizens.” She adds that Wong Kim Ark then decided the question in 1898. She even has mad Professor, Reality Check, writing that I did not read Wong Kim Ark at some point in the past which is absolutely absurd. Of course, Artsy Fartsy is just making stuff up.

Here is what Minor decided:

“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 [680] 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.”

We can see that the Court clearly told us who were the “natural born Citizens.” They were all children, born in a country, of parents who were its citizens.” It also said that at common law, children who were not born with such birth circumstances were “aliens or foreigners.” The Court did leave open the question of whether a child “born within the jurisdiction” to alien parents was a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment, which the Court said “some authorities” maintained. This question had nothing to do with who was a “natural-born citizen” which the Court had already answered.

Wong Kim Ark, a Fourteenth Amendment case, in 1898 answered the Fourteenth Amendment question left open by Minor. Here is the "single question" asked by the Court:

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

Id. at 653.

And here is the holding:

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

Id. at 705. So, we can see that the Court returned to the Fourteenth Amendment which was its task to construe.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Support for my position that Wong Kim Ark did not hold that Wong was a “natural born Citizen” may be found in Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L.Rev. 1, 31-32 (Winter 1968) (says that Wong had nothing to do with defining a “natural born Citizen”), and Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct.App. 2009), transfer denied, 929 N.E.2d 789 (2010) (in Footnote 14 the court said: “We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution’s Article II language. . .”).

Now, how can Artsy Fartsy not see that Minor definitely defined a “natural-born citizen” and see anything in either the Wong question presented or in the holding about a “natural born Citizen?” She must be imaging some piece of art when she reads Minor and Wonk Kim Ark. The problem for Artsy Fartsy is that the written legal word is not some piece of art to be molded into whatever one can imagine it to be. So, Artsy Fartsy, the great Jack Maskell defender, really has nothing with which to back herself or Maskell up.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

js,

You said about Wong Kim Ark’s parents: “The presence, and establishment of a permanent residence, before the birth of the child, established the roots of an allegiance to the USA.”

Wong’s parents’ allegiance was but local and temporary, but yet strong enough for them to make a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment (a British “natural born subject” per Lord Coke). But that allegiance was not strong enough for them to make an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the Wong Kim Ark Court held that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” at birth. It did not hold that he was a “natural born Citizen.”

dick head said...

you know you are living in a banana republic when state courts cite with a straight face wka as justification for letting fraud on ballot. wka had absolutely nothing to do with a a NBC of the US, he was ruled only a citizen of the US. A real natural born citizen never needed the 14th or any act of congress to become a citizen because they are of course natural born. Born in United states to american citizens=NBC and eligible in eyes of our Founders to be CiC.

dick head said...

we have a lot of disloyal NBCs but at least they were actually born with full allegiance to USA because their parents were US citizens. I think the Founders would want someone who loved our country, had high morals, followed the US C religiously and genuinely wanted the best for US and its citizens.

js said...

THe permanent domicile is cited in the WKA case. I doubt if the parents were transient that the SCOTUS would have provided that citizenship.



169 U.S. 649

United States v. Wong Kim Ark

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

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

No. 18 Argued: March 5, 8, 1897 --- Decided: March 28, 1898

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

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

Fogbow Foggy said...

Ankeny and progeny live together in perfect harmony.

Your analysis of the natural born citizen clause is fatally flawed. In truth, jus soli and jus sanguinis operate independently of each other. Jus soli is derived from the common law and the 14th Amendment, and gives anyone born in the U.S. natural born citizenship. But a natural born citizen can also be derived from statutes by virtue of jus sanguinis. However, jus sanguinis applies only to those born outside the U.S. to citizen parents. Since the source of jus sanguinis is statutes, Congress can indeed change the definition of natural born citizen, but only for children born outside the U.S.

I know you don't understand the above, so go ahead and declare that you've won on the basis of logic.

However, the logic of Bubbles the Poodle does not have a great influence on the law of the land. You stick with Bubbles, I'll stick with the law.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Fogbow Foggy,

I of II

(1) Jus soli and jus sanguinis operate independently of each other only within the context of creating “citizens of the United States.” Under constitutionally or statutorily prescribed circumstances, either one can serve as the basis for making a “citizen of the United States” at birth. A modified jus soli (Wong Kim Ark said “domiciled and resident” alien parents) is found in the Fourteenth Amendment, which creates “citizens of the United States” at birth. Jus sanguinis is also found in Congressional Acts which apply to children born out of the United States and which also create “citizens of the United States” at birth.

A “natural born Citizen,” which is the presidential citizenship standard, is a higher degree of citizenship than that of a “citizen of the United States.” When it comes to the President and Commander in Chief of the Military, the highest form of allegiance is required. That highest form of allegiance is found in a “natural born Citizen.” This means that the person to hold those offices cannot be born with dual or multiple allegiances and citizenships.

Whenever a person is granted U.S. citizenship by either jus soli or jus sanguinis alone, there is created the problem of dual or triple allegiances and citizenships at birth. Hence, within the context of creating a “natural born Citizen,” jus soli and jus sanguinis do not operate independently of each other. Rather, a child is required to satisfy both basis of citizenship in order to be a “natural born Citizen,” which allows the child to be born with sole allegiance, faith, and loyalty to the United States.

There exist legal sources which prove my point. Minor v. Happersett said that at common law, a “natural-born citizen” was one who was born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. This American national common law rule contains both jus soli and jus sanguinis. The Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, making children born out of the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents “citizens of the United States” and not “natural born citizens,” demonstrate that jus sanguinis is not sufficient to make a “natural-born citizen.” Wong Kim Ark said that jus soli (“born in the country”) is necessary to make a “natural-born citizen” and a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. All together, these sources demonstrate that both jus soli and jus sanguinis are necessary to make a “natural born Citizen.”

You may read my article, “ Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance at Birth, accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/05/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html , for greater details on why unity of citizenship and allegiance at birth by the merging of jus soli and jus sanguinis is necessary to make one a “natural born Citizen.”

(2) The Fourteenth Amendment does not make anyone a “natural born Citizen.” Neither the amendment’s text nor debates indicate in any way that the amendment repealed or amended Article II and the “natural born Citizen” clause. The words, “natural born Citizen,” are not found in the amendment’s text. Knowing that Article II requires persons to be “natural born Citizens” in order to be eligible to be President, the amendment’s debates do not show that Congress was intending to change the eligibility requirements to become President. Minor confirmed this reading of the Fourteenth Amendment when it said that the definition of a “natural-born citizen” is found at common law and not in the original or amended Constitution. Wong Kim Ark said the same thing.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

(3) Statutes can make “citizens of the United States,” but they cannot make “natural born Citizens.” Such statutes are naturalization acts of Congress. Naturalization acts do not make “natural born Citizens.” Congress has been passing such acts, pursuant to its naturalization powers, since 1790. Despite these statutes being in existence, both Minor and Wong Kim Ark confirmed that the definition of a “natural-born citizen” existed only at common law, and not under either the Constitution itself, which included the Fourteenth Amendment, or under any Act of Congress. Since Congress only has power to naturalize, it cannot change the constitutional definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Additionally, to give Congress such power would be tantamount to allowing it to amend the Constitution without constitutional amendment.

(4) Ankeny committed grave constitutional error in assuming without demonstrating that the Fourteenth Amendment defines a “natural born Citizen,” and in reading Wong Kim Ark, a Fourteenth Amendment case, as changing the American national common law definition of a “natural-born citizen,” as confirmed by Minor.

So, Foggy, I have not only won on the basis of logic, but also on the basis of what the law has been and continues to be.

Finally, as we can clearly see from what I have presented, your argument only masquerades as a legal argument. In reality, it is only a bunch of bubbles.

Fogbow Foggy said...

Well, congratulations on winning in your mind yet again.

It's probably getting boring by now, winning every argument. Well actually, winning the same argument over and over and over, without being able to convince a single court. Since you're so victorious in all your arguments, are you planning to file another lawsuit?

If I won a lot of cases proving that the president was ineligible, but he was still in office and nobody was even thinking of removing him, I'd try at least a couple more times to take my wonderfully winning arguments to court. Since you've won all your lawsuits so far, perhaps you should take the time out of your busy schedule to win another one.

Yeah, you should probably do that, instead of proving over and over that Jack Maskell was wrong. After all, you have the right instinct. The reason nobody in Congress wants anything to do with birtherism has a lot to do with Jack Maskell. Of course, he doesn't work in a vacuum like you do. His work was reviewed at several levels above him, by other attorneys who double checked his work before the report was issued. That's how the CRS works, because Congress relies upon their work.

How many times do you have to win before the grownups pay attention to you and actually remove the President?

Oh, wait. I remember now. Nobody's ever going to remove the president for being ineligible. Probably because nobody but you knows how often you've won all your arguments. Ya think?

dick head said...

the 14th has nothing to do with a nbc you blowhard. fogblow is a nasty piece of work

ajt said...

Shallow thinking...

Mario, you said:

"Naturalization acts do not make 'natural born Citizens.' "

Fogbow, he said:

"... congratulations on winning in your mind yet again."

Mario, it is obvious that Fogbow missed your substantive point so that he could troll in the shallow end of the intellectual pool.

Mario, you are very kind to Obot trolls, but THAT is why we trust you, in addition, of course, to your substantive responses.

Art

js said...

Poor fogblow...old chap must have Alzheimer's or worse to stand up like that old boy does.

The omissions, and his intent to make those omissions, show that he is not at the top of his game!

MichaelN said...

s said...
"part II
The intent of the founding Fathers is what we need to figure out.

Why did they make NBC a requirement to become the POTUS. In order for us to establish the reason, we need to study the cause.

The point cant be argued that the meaning of NBC could not contradict that reason, so if we establish the reason, documented in the writing of the founding Fathers, then we can logically rule out anything that contradicts that meaning to establish a high probability of their intent."


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

It must be considered that USC Article II "natural born Citizen" was not descriptive of a means to or be recognized as a US citizenship, rather it was descriptive of one who was ALREADY a US citizen AND of the highest possible allegiance.



Fogbow Foggy said...

Part 1:

Nobody is claiming that President Obama is a natural born citizen because of a naturalization act. He's a natural born citizen because it is settled law since 1898 that if he was born in the United States, he's a natural born citizen under the 14th Amendment and the common law going back hundreds of years.

Here is a list of cases decided since President Obama took office which confirm that law, and reject Mr. Apuzzo's arguments:

“Thus, the Court [Minor v. Happersett] left open the issue of whether a person who is born within the United States of alien parents is considered a natural born citizen… The Court in Wong Kim Ark reaffirmed Minor in that the meaning of the words "citizen of the United States" and "natural-born citizen of the United States" "must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the constitution.’ They noted that "[t]he 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………Based upon the language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 4 and the guidance provided by Wong Kim Ark, we conclude that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born Citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purposes, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), transfer denied, 929 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. 2010)

“Most importantly, Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, Arizona v. Jay J. Garfield Bldg. Co. , 39 Ariz. 45, 54, 3 P.2d 983, 986 (1931), and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. … Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.”
Allen v. Obama et al., No. C20121046 (Ariz. Pima County Super. Ct. Feb. 24, 2012)

“It is well settled that those born in the United States are considered natural born citizens.”
Tisdale v. Obama, No. 3:12-cv-00036-JAG (E.D. Va. Jan. 23, 2012), aff’d, No. 12-1124 (4th Cir. Jun 5, 2012) (per curiam)

“No court, federal, state or administrative, has accepted the challengers’ position that Mr. Obama is not a “natural born Citizen” due to the acknowledged fact that his father was born in Kenya and was a British citizen by virtue of the then applicable British Nationality Act. Nor has the fact that Obama had, or may have had, dual citizenship at the time of his birth and thereafter been held to deny him the status of natural born. It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here. … The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law. 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.”
Purpura v. Obama, No. STE 04534-12, 2012 WL 1369003 (N.J. Adm. Apr. 10, 2012) (initial decision), decision adopted as final (NJ Secy of State Apr. 12, 2012), aff’d, No. A-004478-11-T03, 2012 WL 1949041 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. May 31, 2012) (per curiam).

“In 2009, the Indiana Court of Appeals (“Indiana Court”) addressed facts and issues similar to those before this court. [Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). … The Indiana Court rejected the argument that Mr. Obama was ineligible, stating that children born within the United States are natural born citizens, regardless of the citizenship of their parents. … This Court finds the decision and analysis of [Ankeny] persuasive.”
Farrar v. Obama, No. OSAH-SECSTATE-CE-1215136-60-MALlHI (Ga. Office of St. Admin. Hrg. Feb. 3, 2012), decision adopted as final (Ga. Sec’y State Feb. 7, 2012).

Fogbow Foggy said...

Part 2.

“While the court has no doubt at this point that Emmerich de Vattel’s treatise The Law of Nations was a work of significant value to the founding fathers, the court does not conclude that his phrase–”The natives, or natural born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”–has constitutional significance or that his use of “parents” in the plural has particular significance. This far, no judicial decision has adopted such logic in connection with this or any related issues. In fact, the most comprehensive decision on the topic, Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, examines the historical basis of the use of the phrase, including the English common law in effect at the time of independence, and concludes that the expression “natural born Citizen” is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.”
Paige v. Obama, No. 611-8-12 WNCV (Vt. Super. Ct. Nov. 14, 2012).

“However, the United States Supreme Court has concluded that ‘[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States. ‘Other courts that have considered the issue in the context of challenges to the qualifications of candidates for the office of President of the United States have come to the same conclusion.”
Voeltz v. Obama (“Voeltz I”), No. 37 2012 CA 000467, 2012 WL 2524874 (Fla. Cir. Ct. June 29, 2012).

“In addition, to the extent that the complaint alleges that President Obama is not a “natural born citizen” even though born int he United States, the Court is in agreement with other courts that have considered this issue, namely, that persons born within the borders of the United States are “natural born citizens” for Article II, Section 1 purpose, regardless of the citizenship of their parents.”
Voeltz v. Obama (“Voeltz II”), No. 37 2012 CA 002063, 2012 WL 4117478 (Fla. Cir. Ct. Sept. 6, 2012).

“The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion [U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark], and as this court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case.”
Fair v. Obama, No. 06C12060692 (Md. Carroll Cty. Cir. Ct., Aug. 27, 2012).

“Those born “in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” U.S. Const., amend. XIV, have been considered American citizens under American law in effect since the time of the founding, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 674-75 (1898), and thus eligible for the presidency…”
Hollander v. McCain, 566 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.N.H. 2008).

Of course, all these cases were wrongly decided, and the fact that no court has ever accepted Mr. Apuzzo's arguments simply means that he wins and they lose.

Also, when one of his clients is convicted of a DUI and is sentenced to jail, fines and loss of driver's license, I imagine Mr. Apuzzo informs the client that he actually won the case, because he demonstrated superior logic and the jury made a "grave error". That must be enormously comforting to the client, n'est ce pas?

js said...

Why do you post such blatant lies foggy?

It’s not even in dispute that the child's citizenship followed the father in every nation in the world before sufferage. Women couldn't even sit on juries until after WWII in the USA. For a woman to own property and assume the head of household and hold custody of her children after divorce, she had to be declared a free dealer by the courts first.

When both Minor and WKA cases were tried, when a man married a woman, she automatically assumed the citizenship of her husband, which falls in line in the USA with the concept that a wife cannot be compelled to testify against her husband, willingly or not.
It is a matter of FACT, the assertion in the BNA of 1947 on citizenship automatically recognized the citizenship of Obama's father upon BIRTH, making him a citizen/subject of England when he was born, by the natural heritance, a birthright nobody can dispute.

The FACT that the founding fathers created the NBC clause, and the purpose that it was created for, is just as clear as Obama's British citizenship. The purpose is that the Office of the POTUS would NEVER devolve to any person who holds any allegiance, to any nation, at birth other than the USA.

It’s simple, its fact, and no number of spins that you make can change that, only an amendment to the US CONSTITUTION. The 14th amendment DOES NOT CONTAIN THE WORDS Natural Born Citizen. It does, however, provide naturalization to children born in the USA, who are SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION of the United States.

Stacking judicial error upon judicial error does no service to this nation. It only serves to prove that the ignorance that the corrupt administration of justice in this nation exists, and people like foggy fogbow delight in seeing the truth and justice go by the wayside.

Fogbow Foggy said...

In other words, js, what I said is true: Every case decided since President Obama took office has been wrongly decided, and the fact that no court has ever adopted Mr. Apuzzo's arguments means that he wins and they lose. Didn't I put that accurately?

He has defeated Jack Maskell. He has defeated all the military lawyers at CAAFLOG. He has defeated everyone at Fogbow. He has kicked everyone's butt, if the truth be known.

He's won so thoroughly and so often, it's a wonder that President Obama is still serving as president and there are no plans to remove him. Also no plans to conduct a Congressional investigation. Also no pending lawsuits anywhere that have the slightest probability of removing him from office.

The more important question you need to answer is, what event took place recently that suddenly inspired me to come back and post here? Can you think of anything?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

The Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers relied upon ancient Latin maxims to interpret laws and they would expect us today to do the same when interpreting the Constitution.

“Salus populi suprema lex” was a cardinal maxim of the ancient Roman empire. It means the welfare of the people is the supreme law. Black's Law Dictionary 1202 (5th ed. 1979).

Using this maxim, we are told that we are to interpret the “natural born Citizen” clause in the best interest of the nation and its people.

The Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers believed that allegiance to a nation, its people, and their ideals best promoted and preserved that nation, its people, and their ideals. Hence, they believed that allegiance promote the welfare of the people.

Of all public offices mentioned in the Constitution, only the President/Commander in Chief of the Military and Vice-President are required to be “natural born Citizens.” These are unique, singular and all-powerful civil and military positions. With the clause applying only to the unique constitutional office of President and Commander (the Vice-President was included by the Twelfth Amendment ratified in 1804), the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers told us that we are to give to the clause the highest level of allegiance, for they expected the President to possess that high level of allegiance to the nation and its people. Hence, among all our citizens, it is only the “natural born Citizen” which requires the highest form of allegiance.

With the meaning of the clause being driven by its attachment to the unique office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, and with those offices requiring that they be held by persons possessing the highest form of allegiance, the clause can only mean a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. Born under such circumstances, the child is born with allegiance, faith, and loyalty only to the United States. Any other selected birth circumstances under the Fourteenth Amendment or Acts of Congress, while sufficient to produce membership in our nation which our Constitution calls “citizen of the United States,” do not satisfy such a high standard of allegiance, for the member of our nation is allowed to be born with dual or triple conflicting allegiances. Such conflicting allegiances create doubt, whether real or imagined, in the total and unqualified commitment of the President and Commander in Chief to the United States. In matters of protecting American institutions, foreign relations, national security, and war, such doubts cannot be allowed to exist.

So, if we are to correctly interpret the “natural born Citizen” clause, which applies only to the Office of President/Commander in Chief of the Military and Vice-President, we must give to the clause the requirement of possessing the highest level of allegiance from the moment of birth. It is this high level of allegiance, held by the singular and all-powerful President from the moment of birth, which will best promote and preserve the nation, its people, and their ideals. This means that any person to be a “natural born Citizen” must be born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Foggy,

You said about Jack Maskell: “His work was reviewed at several levels above him, by other attorneys who double checked his work before the report was issued. That’s how the CRS works, because Congress relies upon their work.”

The Titanic is a ship that that was considered unsinkable. Its strength and capacity to withstand collision was reviewed at several levels above, by other engineers and shipbuilders who double checked the work before the ship was allowed to sail. That is how shipbuilding works, because the public relies on the safety of ships.

“Titanic received a series of warnings from other ships of drifting ice in the area of the Grand Banks of Newfoundland.[115] Nonetheless the ship continued to steam at full speed, which was standard practice at the time.[116] It was generally believed that ice posed little danger to large vessels and Captain Smith himself had declared that he could not 'imagine any condition which would cause a ship to founder. Modern shipbuilding has gone beyond that.'[117][i]” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Titanic .

One of the Titanic’s four funnels was a dummy.

The rest is history.

Fogbow Foggy said...

Your Roman maxim is wonderful, and really brings home your point.

I think we should ignore the fact that "natural born subject" was a term of art learned by every lawyer trained in the English common law for more than 175 years in the colonies, ever since Calvin's Case.

Let's pretend that all 35 of the legally trained minds at the Constitutional Convention decided to reject the definition of "natural born subject" that's in Blackstone's Commentaries. Let's pretend they ignored English common law for just this one phrase in the Constitution.

Here's how it went down: John Jay said "natural born citizen" in his letter to George Washington, Washington brought it up in the convention, and all the trained lawyers pretended they'd never heard the phrase before, so they did some research into Roman maxims and utterly ignored the English common law they'd been taught and which was published in Blackstone's ten years before the Revolution.

Or even better, let's pretend that Vattel's definition of natural born citizen was adopted by the Framers, even though it directly contradicted the English common law definition, and even though the Framers included many, many other English common law concepts in the Constitution without alteration.

Because the "natural born citizen" clause was so important, according Bubbles the Poodle's plans for building the Titanic, that they decided to ditch the meaning of the phrase from English common law, and adopt the meaning some Swiss dude wrote -- a totally different meaning than they'd been trained to understand, and which directly contradicted English common law. Also, they took this major step and debated this incredibly important change in the common law without any recorded discussion.

By god, you win AGAIN, Mario. Good work!

What Vattel wrote wasn't based on any English statute or any other country's statute. It contradicted English common law. What country's common law was Vattel describing, and why did the Framers decide to adopt some other country's common law for just this one phrase?

js said...

Wow, condescending BS used to cover the lies.

Does that make you feel all...grown up...foggy?

dick head said...

the minor and venus courts took a qoute out of law of nations to describe the natives or NBCs and nothing was mentioned about the child of alien like wka being one. All fogblow can do is cite one of al capOnes judges nonsensical and dishonest rulings

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Fogbow Foggy,

You are still having difficulty reading the English language. Here is what the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court clearly said in Minor:

“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 v. Happersett, (1874) 21 Wall. 162, 166-168.

This passage was quoted verbatim in Wong Kim Ark at page 679-80. This definition of a “natural-born citizen” was provided by our U.S. Supreme Court. This is the supreme law of the land. So you can cite all the other “authorities” (Attorney General, Secretary of States, law professors, politicians, etc.) or lower courts which might have a different opinion. The U.S. Supreme Court trumps them all.

The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor in defining a “natural-born citizen” made no reference to any English common law. And they surely did not use Blackstone’s definition of an English “natural born subject,” which contains no requirement for citizen parents.
This is what Justice Swayne said regarding any notion that the English common law defined a “natural born Citizen,” which shows that it did not:

“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.”

United States v. Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. 785, 788 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866). The court told us that we did not derived the definition of a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen” from the English common law.

Furthermore, Minor said that "there have been doubts" whether a child born "within the jurisdiction" to alien parents was a "citizen" (not to be conflated and confounded with a "natural-born citizen"). If the English common law had prevailed in the U.S. since before and after the Constitution was adopted, the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court would never have made such a statement, for under the English common law there would not have been any doubt that such children were "subjects" and therefore "citizens."

So if the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor did not use Blackstone and the English common law, what did they use? It is plain from what Minor wrote that it used Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen,” which does require both birth in the country and citizen parents. Vattel at Section 212 of The Law of Nations said: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758). What I find hard to believe is how you are not able to read and comprehend such a simple and plain statement written English which was paraphrased almost word for word in Minor and Wong Kim Ark.

As far as the post-Obama courts that you cite, they are all lower courts. Moreover, their rulings are in direct conflict with both Minor and Wong Kim Ark’s definition of a “natural-born citizen.” Finally, we have not yet heard from the U.S. Supreme Court on Obama’s eligibility.

So, Fogbow foggy, it looks like your efforts at convincing the public on the definition of a “natural born Citizen” will just keep failing. But you are welcome to keep trying

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in 1875 decided Minor after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. The Court said that the definition of a “natural-born citizen” was not found in the Constitution. It said that the definition was found in the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they adopted the Constitution. The Court then defined a “natural-born citizen,” not under the English common law, but rather under the same rule laid out by Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations. Wong Kim Ark cited and quoted Minor and that exact definition. Hence, Wong Kim Ark agreed with all that. Virginia Minor satisfied the Court’s definition of a “natural-born citizen.” Minor therefore left open the question of whether a child “born within the jurisdiction” to alien parents was a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Wong Kim Ark in 1898 answered the Fourteenth Amendment question left open by Minor. It defined a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Court was defining a “natural-born citizen,” it would have told us like Minor did and like it conceded that its definition was not found in the Constitution.

Wong Kim Ark did not deal with presidential eligibility. The Court was not faced with the question of whether Wong was a “natural born Citizen.” The Court did, however, hold that Wong, born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents, was included as a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. At best, Wong can be expanded (Obama’s father was not domiciled in the U.S.) to include Obama as a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. Because Wong did not deal with presidential eligibility and did not hold that Wong was as a “natural born Citizen,” its holding cannot be relied upon to include Obama, born in the U.S. (maybe) to a non-U.S. citizen father as a “natural born Citizen.”

Fogbow Foggy said...

Convince the public? Why in the world would I ever have to convince the public?

Did you know that six months ago, the public voted in a presidential election?

Helloooooo! Are you trying to say YOU'VE convinced the public?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

MichaelN said...

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

"The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in 1875 decided Minor after the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. The Court said that the definition of a “natural-born citizen” was not found in the Constitution. It said that the definition was found in the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they adopted the Constitution. The Court then defined a “natural-born citizen,” not under the English common law, but rather under the same rule laid out by Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations. Wong Kim Ark cited and quoted Minor and that exact definition. Hence, Wong Kim Ark agreed with all that. Virginia Minor satisfied the Court’s definition of a “natural-born citizen.” Minor therefore left open the question of whether a child “born within the jurisdiction” to alien parents was a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Wong Kim Ark in 1898 answered the Fourteenth Amendment question left open by Minor. It defined a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Court was defining a “natural-born citizen,” it would have told us like Minor did and like it conceded that its definition was not found in the Constitution.

Wong Kim Ark did not deal with presidential eligibility. The Court was not faced with the question of whether Wong was a “natural born Citizen.” The Court did, however, hold that Wong, born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents, was included as a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. At best, Wong can be expanded (Obama’s father was not domiciled in the U.S.) to include Obama as a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. Because Wong did not deal with presidential eligibility and did not hold that Wong was as a “natural born Citizen,” its holding cannot be relied upon to include Obama, born in the U.S. (maybe) to a non-U.S. citizen father as a “natural born Citizen.” "

---------------
As well as that, the majority decision of the SCOTUS in WKA, cited favorably to Horace Binney's recognition of TWO types of born US citizens, i.e. "the child of an alien, if born in the country" and "the natural born child of a citizen", thus the SCOTUS in WKA clearly held that the term "natural born" was associated to citizen parents to the exclusion of alien parents.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Reality Check has attacked me on his blog. I responded. This is what he now says:

"I replied to Mario’s latest nonsense inline. Unless he issues an apology for calling me a liar when I was clearly right he will no longer be allowed to comment here."

And this is the fearless Professor, Reality Check. He took his ball and went home.

h2ooflife said...

Here's something of interest I came across while researching "natural citizen" Since HTML tags aren't working, I'll capitalize:

LAHORE, PAKISTAN: Rejection of the writ petition by the Supreme Court, regarding the reconstitution of the Election Commission of Pakistan filed by Dr Tahirul Qadri, has once again sparked intense debate over the status of dual nationals in Pakistan. The term, dual nationals, should be distinguished from that of foreign nationals and hence, these must not be confused with each other.
There have been attempts to reduce dual nationals to pariah status. National sentiments towards them give the impression as if they are the root cause of all ailments of the country.

It should not be forgotten that most dual nationals are NATURAL CITIZENS of Pakistan and have secured this status by birth. There is no justification whatsoever of depriving any natural citizen of his/her basic citizenship right guaranteed by the Constitution.

The Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 recognizes the right of dual nationality of its citizens with 17 countries. Therefore, having been recognized by law, dual nationals should also be given full citizenship rights by allowing them to participate in the country’s political life.
In Pakistan, the part of the Constitution, BARRING dual nationals from becoming parliamentarians contradicts the state’s official policy on the issue of dual nationality.
[hmmmm, State policy versus THE CONSTITUTION, which one is supreme?]
It must be ratified by either changing the state policy on dual nationals or by amending the Constitution to this effect.

As far as the OATH OF ALLEGIANCE of a dual national to a second country is concerned, it is only a *legal formality*,(!!!) varying from county to country, and does not affect his loyalty to the first state. [i.e., solemn oaths of renunciation and new loyalty are big fat lies that mean nothing because honesty and truth mean nothing, similar to swearing to tell the truth before Congress]

If people like Sayeeda Warsi, Lord Nazir Ahmed and Lord Sarwar, despite being of Pakistani origin, can secure important political positions in the UK, then why not in Pakistan? [because it VIOLATES the Constitution, moron!]
Instead of complicating the issue of dual nationality, we should deal with it objectively [as opposed to legally] by putting it in its true context.
Doubting the patriotism and sincerity of millions of expatriate Pakistanis is neither justifiable nor justified. Therefore, dual nationals should also be given their due. [except for serving as Prime Minister. That would not be acceptable to the British nor the Pakistanis]

Mohsin Raza Malik
Published in The Express Tribune, February 28th, 2013.
http://tribune.com.pk/story/513425/recognising-rights-of-dual-nationals/

Fogbow Foggy said...

You won AGAIN! Congratulations!

That's his loss, not yours. I'm sure if you repeated the same silly arguments you make a hundred more times on his blog, you'd eventually have convinced him, er, I mean the public.

"Every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born. The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."

Well, whaddya know! Wong Kim Ark DID say that Mr. Wong was "natural born" after all, huh?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

H2hooflife,

Very nice analogy.

This is typical political rhetoric which we also see with Obama & Co. (having also been elevated to judicial opinions) in which the speaker or writer slams large square pegs into small round holes.

I can’t say it better than that it’s the Constitution, stupid!

h2ooflife said...

CITIZEN is to "subject" what Freeman is to serf.

I understand what citizenship is. But I don't understand what subjectship is, nor what Citizenhood is.
Being a Citizen is an equal membership in an association of equals.
Being a subject is being an unequal, monarch-owned, life-long possession of a dictator.
The former is about self-sovereignty, while the later is about servitude. There is no equivalence between them. They are from opposite worlds. They can't be interchanged nor substituted for each other.
Adding adjectives in front of them does not change that fact, even if they are the same adjectives. It is not the adjectives that makes them identical because it is the nouns that make them different. The nouns are from wholly different universes. One is natural while the other is dictator-imposed. "All the fruit of seed, sow, sheep, cow, serf, and slave belong and remain the property of the Lord of the domain because they came into existence on his property." That's jus soli.
It's opposite is the principle of freedom. The off-spring of freemen do not belong to the King but to the parents, and they inherit their national membership from them, not from the King's soil or his self-proclaimed borders.
Freemen have an obligation to protect and defend their families and society, and that may include serving in the national military. But subjects have an obligation to obey and obey and obey because they are subject and not free. They are born to obey and be subservient all their life unless they are born into the elite ruling class.
But for the freeman, the government is the one meant to obey, -obey the will of the People, which includes the will to be free.

h2ooflife said...

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

Foggy, what does "in force" mean?
There were thirteen independent colonies with thirteen colonial governors, legislatures, and courts, each of which had its own laws about who was a subject, a born subject, and a natural subject. So "in force" by what force?
The Declaration of Independence was a radical and total alteration in the relationship between colonists and government as the monarchical principles of subservience and unquestioning obedience were rejected (except by pathetic servile Loyalists like yourself).
What went before did not survive the overthrow of the old by the Declaration of Independence when it came to membership in one's sovereign state. All concepts of monarchical authority were trashed and reviled, and natural rights became king in their place. The first natural right is the right of belonging. Children belong to parents and parents belong to their civilized society, not to the Crown. Children inherit that which the parents possess, whether riches or poverty, pride or shame, high status or ignobility, including membership in their family, society, State, and nation.
The States were the arbiters of who their citizens were and state law was supreme over naturalization processing as well as immigration. Only Virginia has been identified as a State that granted jus soli citizenship to children of immigrants. No one has yet identified any others that didn't strictly follow jus sanguinis. So the proclamation made by an ignorant Chief Justice does not change reality. It is what it is, -not what fantasy claims it is.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

h2hooflife,

You are correct.

The English common law adherents want to keep it imposed upon our understanding of what a “natural born Citizen” is simply because a “natural born citizen” contains “natural born” as does a “natural born subject.” They argue that by analogy an American “natural born Citizen” is the equivalent to a British “natural born subject.” But the analogy has no basis and fails on both a substantive and logical ground.

First, from a historical point of view, can you imagine telling the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers that, after they fought and won a bloody Revolution with England, that a “natural born Citizen” was the equivalent to an English “natural born subject?” The two types of memberships are so different that the only common element among them is that they are both memberships in a society. But then what does that prove, but nothing. The “citizens” of Cuba and the “citizens” of North Korea are also members of their societies. Does that make U.S. “citizens” equivalent in “privileges and immunities” to Cuban and North Korean “citizens?” Of course, we do not need an answer to that question because the question itself is pregnant with the answer.

Second, a “red-haired cat” and a “red-haired dog” both share the same qualifiers, “red-haired.” They are also both animals. But can any sane person say with a straight face that a cat and a dog are the same thing? Again, we do not need an answer to this question, for the question itself suggests the answer.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

betuadollarucant has left a new comment on your post "Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natur...":

The paragraph on two parent citizenry is blatantly false: women born of the natural born were citizens - such status did not require marriage - and children born to them were also citizens whether born in wedlock of not; the bastard child was a citizen. The point it this: those born of an American mother, i.e., "natural born," anywhere in the world are citizens. The problem is that the Founders failed to define this word: "citizen."

Posted by betuadollarucant to Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers at June 16, 2013 at 1:55 PM

Fogbow Foggy said...

"... can you imagine telling the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers that, after they fought and won a bloody Revolution with England, that a “natural born Citizen” was the equivalent to an English “natural born subject?"

And yet, the "habeas corpus" in the Constitution was exactly the same as English common law. So was "trial by jury" and "ex post facto" and "due process". The Supreme Court has always used English common law to interpret various phrases in the Constitution. Ever hear of a case called Smith v. Alabama? Lynch v. Clarke?

The Framers also knew how to explicitly alter the definition of an English common law concept, as they did with the concept of "treason". In that case, they specifically worded the definition of treason so as to differentiate it from common law "treason" in England. But they didn't redefine the concept "natural born," which had been the law in the colonies for 175 years. That concept they decided to leave undisturbed, in its original meaning of "children of aliens born within the realm are natural born" subjects.

Meanwhile, Vattel was not a compilation of actual law at all, unlike Blackstone's Commentaries. There was no nation that followed the proposed laws in "Law of Nations". It was a book of legal philosophy only -- a statement of what Vattel thought the law should be if it comported with his conception of "natural law".

As always, your arguments are so lame they need both crutches and a wheelchair; none of them can stand on their own. Bubbles the Poodle may have an alternative analysis, however.

dick head said...

i cannot find natural born subject in article 2 or 14th amendment fogblow

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Poor foggy, all foggy. He thinks that habeus corpus, trial by jury, ex post facto, and due process are creations of the English common law.

Poor foggy, wants Smith v. Alabama, that had to do with a state’s police powers and its right to regulate operation of railroads within its borders, and Lynch v. Clarke, a state case that had to do with inheritance of real property in the State of New York, to control on the definition of a constitutional “natural born citizen.” And he does all that while denying the controlling effect of the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) which dealt directly with the issue of who were the “citizens” and the “natural-born citizens” during the Founding and under the Constitution. One has got to be pretty foggy to come to such conclusions.

I guess Founder and Chief Justice John Marshall did not get your “treason” and Vattel memo before he wrote in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814), citing and quoting Vattel at Section 212 of The Law of Nations:

“Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or indigenes [having equivalent meaning to "natural-born citizens”] are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’”

Too bad for you, foggy boy, that the great Founder and Chief Justice, in defining who were American citizens, relied upon Vattel and not Blackstone.

Foggy, the way that you are going on here looks like you cannot even keep up with little Bubbles. You better call in some reinforcements from Fogbow to give you some cover.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Poor foggy, he tells us that Vattel “was not a compilation of actual law at all, unlike Blackstone’s Commentaries.” He says that no nation followed the “law of nations,” because it was only a book of legal philosophy.

Too bad for foggy that Justice Scalia does not agree with his take on the law of nations and Vattel. Here is just one example, and there are countless, which proves foggy wrong. In Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004), Justice Scalia, concurring said: “That portion of the general common law known as the law of nations was understood to refer to the accepted practices of nations in their dealings with one another (treatment of ambassadors, immunity of foreign sovereigns from suit, etc.) and with actors on the high seas hostile to all nations and beyond all their territorial jurisdictions (pirates).”) (emphasis added).” Id. At 749.

So, Justice Scalia tells us that the law of nations was our “general common law.” Wow, now think about Minor telling us that a “natural-born citizen” was defined under the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution. And we know that by the definition that the Court gave, a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens,” that common law could not have been the English common law. But we do know that that common law to which Minor referred was actually the law of nations which provide that exact definition. In Vattel’s Section 212 of The Law of Nations we find the exact definition that the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor as the definition of a “natural-born citizen;” “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

It looks like foggy better get those Fogbow reinforcements.

js said...

Part I

Omission is a lie. Foggy is good at it.
Foggy said “Well, whaddya know! Wong Kim Ark DID say that Mr. Wong was "natural born" after all, huh?”
The “whole quote” he used a part of (say “out of context”) to come to that conclusion in US V WKA;
" It thus clearly appears that, by the law of England for the last three centuries, beginning before the settlement of this country and continuing to the present day, aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign, and therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless the child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born.”

That part, " …were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign… " flips the meaning of the "natural born subject” on its ears. When we apply with full understanding of what the 14th amendment was created for, its perspective comes clearly into focus, because the 14th amendment was not written to make the children of aliens traveling in the USA citizens of this country, its primary purpose was to insure that the southern states that formed the confederacy could not deny the children of the ex slaves citizenship, because that is what they were doing, intentionally and lawfully under the Constitution. We also must note that the PEOPLE of the United States are “sovereign”, not its Government, or its President or Congress or Judicial Branch.
The mention of NBC in this quote from US v WKA doesn’t demonstrate the courts conclusion that WKA was eligible to be POTUS. It topically compared it to the nature of “subject to the KING”, and ignored completely any difference between the “KING” and the British Monarchy, and what a Citizen in the Constitutional Republic was. The WKA case ignored the most basic element, which it identified (“the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution”), yet didn't pursue. It also ignored the entire case law under English Common Law that it specifically identified that detailed who could, and who could not be a Natural Born Subject, or a naturalized subject (which is also omitted in foggys false claims). The statement was never meant to define the context meaning of the term NBC as it was used in the Constitution, but was only a reference to a fundamental principle of the common law, that being, children born to aliens not naturalized were considered natural born SUBJECTS.
Calvin makes it clear that the children of enemies, born of those within the realm who were not Christian, were not Subjects of, but enemies to, the King;
“Calvin's case, 7 Coke, 17: " All Infidels are in Law perpetui inimici perpetual enemies (for the Law presumes not that they will be converted, that being remota potentia, a remote possibility) for between them, as with the devils, whose subjects they be, and the Christian, there is perpetual hostility, and can be no peace;

js said...

Part II


This is as much a part of English Common Law as anything that Foggy quoted. It demonstrates the mindset of the English Common Law that turns foggy’s claims upside down, as any non Christian, IAW Calvins case, is in perpetual hostility with the King, and there can be no peace, so any child born to any alien who was not Christian, was not a natural born subject of the king at anytime. Such a practice would be the antithesis of the US Constitution, but Foggy doesn’t care about the WHOLE truth, he only uses those parts that make him think he can fool the simple minded, and he uses them out of context to turn the truth, into a lie. The use of the comparison to demonstrate a fundamental principal was not a declaration that English Common Law was the ruling authority of what a Natural Born Citizen was, because if it were, then the United States would be a theocracy, and any alien not Christian, or a member of the specific denomination of the states religion, would not be a citizen, but instead would be considered an enemy of the United States. The idea is repugnant to our Constitution, and must be absolutely rejected.
The 14th Amendment was never meant to measure the meaning of natural born CITIZEN for the qualification to hold the Office of POTUS, this is demonstrated by the failure of the writers of the 14th Amendment to mention the term Natural Born Citizen. The claims Foggy makes would essentially make it possible for the King of England to get an American Visitor pregnant, and then send her to the United States, and upon birth, that child could be reared with the intent of the Kings child becoming POTUS. This possibility is in direct opposition to what the Founding Fathers put the term natural born citizen into the US Constitution, to prevent that very thing from happening.
Without any purpose to evaluate the Natural Born Citizenship clause, as to the direct qualification for a person to become POTUS, it can safely be assumed that the use of the term in the WKA case was solely to demonstrate a point under the 14th amendment, and not to describe any parallel or establish any ruling as to that qualification. Taken in context, the term natural born citizen as it was used in this case which determined that WKA was qualified as a “citizen” under the 14th Amendment was not an express statement as to WKA’s qualification to become POTUS.
It doesn’t apply. Case over, WKA did not make any claims that the meaning of the term NBC, as used in its original context, applied to anything the court used in its ruling. It merely used it as an observance and it did not explain the most obvious point about the term in the case. They underlined that with the statement “The Constitution nowhere defines the meaning of these words, either by way of inclusion or of exclusion, except insofar as this is done by the affirmative declaration that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." In this as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution”
Without that discussion “the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution”, nobody can claim that the term was defined as was intended by the “framers of the Constitution”. It merely states, “The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law”. Simply put, to understand, but not to define, because that must be done elsewhere, in the writings of the Founding Fathers, in order to know THEIR meaning and intent.

MichaelN said...

Part 1 of 2

Fogbow Foggy said...

"Every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject unless ....(blah, blah, entire passage below)."

Well, whaddya know! Wong Kim Ark DID say that Mr. Wong was "natural born" after all, huh?

Wrong again traitor.

Here, I will show you how you are all mixed-up using all of what was said.

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

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


This quote completely agrees with what I have pointed-out about the US Supreme Court decisions and holdings that native-birth has never been accepted as sufficient to make a natural born citizen.

The conclusion in what you quoted, is based on the preceding facts (which you omitted), and which are merely a re-wording of the English law which simply and clearly held that native-birth was not sufficient to make a natural born subject and that native-born children to non-subject parents "are no subjects", because they would be "not born under the ligeance of a subject".

The re-wording of the English rule doesn't change it's meaning.

To the English, "aliens, while residing in the dominions possessed by the Crown of England, were within the allegiance, the obedience, the faith or loyalty, the protection, the power, the jurisdiction of the English Sovereign" were in fact subjects by local ligeance.

Basically, the parents of a "child of an ambassador or other diplomatic agent of a foreign State or of an alien enemy in hostile occupation of the place where the child was born." were not subjects, according to the English law, which was being referred to in the quote you posted.

Because they were not subjects, their native-born children could not be subjects.

It doesn't matter if they were butchers, bakers or candle-stick makers, the point is that those classes of people were NOT SUBJECTS.

What you quoted was a re-wording of the English "same rule" which was based on benchmark English law case known as Calvin's case.

(cont'd next post)

MichaelN said...

Part 2 of 2

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

"And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum, neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King."

"This word ligeance is well expressed by divers several names or synonymia which we find in our books. Sometime it is called the obedience or obeysance of the subject to the King,"

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

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=c...html&Itemid=27

The "same rule" was that the English required a subject father to make a native-born child a natural born subject and that native birth was rejected as sufficient to make a natural born subject, and for this "same rule" to continue to prevail in the US, then a native-born child in US would need to be born to a US citizen father to be a US natural born citizen.

The US didn't and still doesn't embrace aliens as citizens/subjects like the English did, in US they must naturalize by due process to become citizens, renounce all other allegiances and swear an oath of allegiance to the US.

This is where you get all mixed up and make a fool of yourself.

Fogbow Foggy said...

"... , can you imagine telling the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers that, after they fought and won a bloody Revolution with England, that a “natural born Citizen” was the equivalent to an English “natural born subject?"

This is so cool. This is a major development. We now have three great sources of the law:

(1) Legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President.

(2) Court decisions (also known as case law) going back to the founding of the Republic.

(3) Mario Apuzzo's imagination.

Awesome.

Tell you what, Mario. I guess you think it's OK to call Reality Check a liar. I think I'll do you the same courtesy, but not on your blog. No, here you're nothing but a winner; the only winner in the birther movement, because of what you've managed to accomplish.

Congratulations. I'll keep you posted.

Fogbow Foggy said...

"Too bad for foggy that Justice Scalia does not agree with his take on the law of nations and Vattel. Here is just one example, and there are countless, which proves foggy wrong. In Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain, 542 U.S. 692 (2004) ..."

He didn't mention Vattel. He's talking about actual international law, not Vattel's work of legal philosophy.

Here's what he thinks is the law of natural born citizenship, from the oral arguments in Tuan Anh Nguyen v. INS:

___________________________________

Justice Scalia: … I mean, isn’t it clear that the natural born requirement in the Constitution was intended explicitly to exclude some Englishmen who had come here and spent some time here and then went back and raised their families in England?

They did not want that.

They wanted natural born Americans.

[Ms.]. Davis: Yes, by the same token…

Justice Scalia: That is jus soli, isn’t it?

[Ms.] Davis: By the same token, one could say that the provision would apply now to ensure that Congress can’t apply suspect classifications to keep certain individuals from aspiring to those offices.

Justice Scalia: Well, maybe. I’m just referring to the meaning of natural born within the Constitution.

I don’t think you’re disagreeing.

It requires jus soli, doesn’t it?
___________________________________

Justice Scalia agrees with me.

Justice Ginsburg, too. In the same case.
___________________________________

Justice Ginsburg: ... My grandson was born in Paris of U.S. citizen parents. I had never considered him a naturalized citizen of the United States ...

Justice Ginsburg: There is a debate over whether my grandson is a natural born citizen. I think he is.
__________________________________

Just what I said: Jus soli for those born in the U.S. (Scalia); jus sanguinis according to statute for those born outside the U.S. (Ginsburg).

'Course, Sotomayor and Kagan will probably agree with you that President Obama wasn't eligible and lacked the legal ability to appoint them to the court.

By gum, you win AGAIN!!

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Foggy,

Your “actual international law” v. Vattel and the law of nations argument is not only wrong, but actually proves one of my points regarding Wong Kim Ark. First, you are wrong because the law of nations was a body of law that controlled affairs among nations during the Founding. The Continental Congress, numerous Founders, and early Attorney Generals all deemed it part of the laws of the United States and binding upon all. It was not called international law. That term came into use later. Second, your argument proves my point that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark, in rejecting “international law” as applicable to understanding the Fourteenth Amendment, was not rejecting the law of nations as applicable to understanding Article II and the “natural born Citizen” clause.

Justice Scalia said that to be a “natural born citizen” “requires jus soli.” In other words, being born in the country is necessary to be a “natural born Citizen.” I have argued the same thing all along. Justice Scalia did not tell us what is sufficient to be a “natural born Citizen.” As you know, I have argued that being born in the country to parents who were “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth are both sufficient and necessary conditions to be a “natural born Citizen.”

So, foggy, you have proven nothing. Try again.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

You quote Wong Kim Ark thus:

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

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

This quote does not prove your point that a “natural born Citizen” is defined under the English common law rather than as I contend under American national common law which had its source in the law of nations.

What Justice Gray is talking about is what occurred in the English colonies and continued in the states. The states had selectively adopted the English common law until abrogated by the state legislatures. The English common law would therefore have continued to have application in the states up to the time the Constitution was passed. Also, as Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 demonstrates, any state citizen was only a “Citizen of the United States,” not a “natural born Citizen,” who was defined under American national common law and not under the English common law. When Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and those that followed, a state citizen no longer automatically became a “citizen of the United States.” No longer could states naturalize anyone as “citizens” after birth. Under this new citizenship scheme, the states could continue to make state citizens at birth, but those “citizens’ were not automatically “citizens of the United States.” Now, only if a person satisfied Acts of Congress could they take on the national character of being a “citizen of the United States.” And only if they satisfied the conditions spelled out in American national common law could they be a “natural born Citizen.” Those necessary and sufficient conditions were being born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.

So, Justice Gray used the early state experience only as a means to define what “subject to the jurisdiction” meant. He did not use it to change the definition of a “natural born Citizen” which had already been confirmed by Minor which decision Wong cited and quoted on that exact definition.

I hate so say it again, foggy, but you will have to try again.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Reality Check continues on his blog with the typical Obot whining and pettiness, encapsulated in arrogance and haughtiness.

(1) I came to his blog to defend myself against the recent misstatements that he makes about me. But he does not have the courage to come to my blog and defend himself. He simply keeps posting to his own blog, expecting his peanut gallery to give him some back slaps. He has even banned me from his blog because he says that I called him a liar. Can you just imagine being offended at being called a liar in the Obama eligibility debate.

(2) Reality Check states at his blog that I never cited Minor v. Happersett in the Kerchner complaint on the issue of the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” I responded that he is ignorant about the legal process. A complaint is not the place an attorney cites legal cases to support his or her arguments. The cases are cited in legal briefs. I told him to check my Kerchner legal briefs and that he would find Minor cited and discussed there. He writes back, saying that I am a liar, because I cited 20 cases in the second amended complaint. But Professor Reality Check still does not get it. He does not understand that the 20 cases cited were not for the purpose of arguing the merits of the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” If fact, not one of those 20 cases goes to the issue of what is the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” Those cases were cited to provide the court will factual background information and to advise the court that other cases had been filed which had yet to reach the merits of the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” But Reality Check just does not get it.

(3) I posted on Reality Check’s blog my understanding of the meaning of the Minor v. Happersett (1875) U.S. Supreme Court decision. This is how he responds: “RC: And you cannot find a single article published after the Minor decision that supports that claim can you?” Just imagine, Reality Check is a university professor and he needs articles published after the Minor decision to enable him to understand what the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court so plainly said in Minor which is:

“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 v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875). I guess Reality Check will also need articles published after those articles to help him understand what those articles say.

In short, what we have in Reality Check is an individual who is so full of himself, but for no good reason, for he makes little sense in what he has ever said.

Fogbow Foggy said...

"So, foggy, you have proven nothing. Try again."

I'm not TRYING to prove anything to you. I'll NEVER try to prove anything to you, Mario Apuzzo. I gave up trying to reason with birthers four years ago. They're not susceptible to facts, law, logic or reality.

I mean, you have printed and read the opinion in Minor dozens of times where the court says of people who are jus soli only, that "For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts." A person with a working brain -- even a non-lawyer -- would clearly understand that the court did not rule that jus soli is not enough for natural born citizenship. But you resolutely stick to your fictional version of Minor, just as you stick to your fictional version of WKA.

Why would I even try to prove anything to someone who can't even understand a court that says "We're not ruling on that issue," much less the difference between dicta and holding?

Here's a friendly word of advice, Mario. Reality Check isn't really a professor. He was misidentified by the birthers. I know you won't believe that, but it's true. You can stop calling him a professor.

Oh, wait. I forgot. Once a birther makes up his mind, he's impervious to the truth. Never mind. Go ahead and call him a professor. That gives us some good laughs.

js said...

Poor Foggy. His mind is adrift in the I think I told you so ocean, on a ship named "Destined to Sink" that has holes all over the bottom.

He sits there confident that he will make it to shore though.

But we just point at the holes, and he keeps insisting they don't exist.

Funny how liberal minds do that. It must be contagious. There is no doubt that the truth will win out, and Mario and others who have put their sacred honor on the line to defend our Constitution and Republic from the corruption within will be vindicated.

People like foggy make lousy citizens. They jump on board any boat with a pretty sound. Most of them are named peat and repeat, but foggy insists he isn't one of them, as he chugs off into the sunset...err....sinks like lead in an ocean of dignity...

Fogbow Foggy said...

Oh, oh, oh, that's so rich!

Mario put his sacred honor on the line to protect the Republic!

What a hero! What a great American!

Is there a statue of him on the National Mall yet?

Hey wait! If he's such a hero, why can't he understand when a court says in simple language, "We're not deciding that issue in this case?" Is he dense?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Foggy,

I of III

You said:

“I mean, you have printed and read the opinion in Minor dozens of times where the court says of people who are jus soli only, that ‘For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts.’ A person with a working brain -- even a non-lawyer -- would clearly understand that the court did not rule that jus soli is not enough for natural born citizenship. But you resolutely stick to your fictional version of Minor, just as you stick to your fictional version of WKA.”

The one lacking a “working brain” is you, foggy. I will lay out Minor and Wong Kim Ark again for you and I hope you do not need articles (and more articles) like Reality Check to be able to understand what you read:

Minor said:

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

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875). Let us analyze what the Court said:

(1) The Constitution does not define a “natural-born citizen.” This necessarily means that the Fourteenth Amendment does not define a “natural-born citizen.”

(2) The definition of a “natural born Citizen” is found at common law. The Framers were familiar with this common law and so they relied upon it for their definition of a “natural-born citizen.” The Court used the word “nomenclature.” The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defined “nomenclature” as: “n 1: NAME, DESIGNATION 2: a systems of names used in a science or art.” So, the Court’s reference to nomenclature means that it was telling us that the Framers were familiar with that common law’s use of names and designations. We know that under American national common law the names or designations used for membership in a nation were “citizen” and “natural-born citizen” and that under the English common law the names or designations used for such membership were “subject” and “natural-born subject.”

(3) The Court then gave a definition of a “natural-born citizen” which is a paraphrase of the definition of that clause found in Emer de Vattel, Section 212 of his The Law of Nations where he defined the “natural-born citizens” as: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Emer de Vattel, Section 212, The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-119.htm. This is a clear definition of the clause “natural-born citizen.”

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of III

(4) The Court said: “These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” What is critical to understand in this statement is that the Court gave us language of exclusion. In other words, at common law, any person who was not “born in a country, of parents who were its citizens,” were neither “citizens” nor “natural-born citizens,” but rather “aliens or foreigners.” This is critically important to understand, for it explains what Congress’s role was under its naturalization powers. Congress through that power could take any such child who would normally be born an alien at common law and make that child a “citizen,” either at birth or after birth. But Congress could not make that child a “natural-born citizen,” for only a person meeting the constitutional common law definition of a “natural-born citizen” and therefore not needing Congress’s naturalization laws could be a “natural-born citizen.” This explains why any person who does not meet this common law definition of a “natural-born citizen,” but some other such as that of the Fourteenth Amendment or an Act of Congress can at best be a “citizen” at birth, but not a “natural-born citizen.”

(5) The Court added: “Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents.” The Court did not cite to any decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court or any other court in referring to “some authorities.” Hence, the court was probably referring to commentators who had argued that simply being born “within the jurisdiction,” regardless of the citizenship of one’s parents, automatically made one a “citizen” from the moment of birth. The Court said that these other authorities considered these children “citizens.” Earlier in the paragraph the Court had distinguished “citizens” from “natural-born citizens,” stating that the parents were “citizens” and their children born in the country to them were not only “citizens” like them, but also “natural-born citizens.” The Court was looking to the Fourteenth Amendment when it said “children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents.” Hence, the Court told us that these “authorities” contended that these children born in the United States to alien parents were contending that they were “citizens of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. But with the Court saying that these “authorities” only claimed that these children were “citizens” under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court did not see the issue as raising any question of whether these children were “natural-born citizens.”

(6) The Court added: “As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” The Court told us that “doubts” had been expressed over the years about whether these children born in the country to alien parents were “citizens” under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court did not express any doubts about whether those children were “natural-born citizens,” for they could not be given that they did not satisfy the definition of those “citizens” which the Court gave us and which it said was part of “the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar.” The Court was also clear that there had never been any doubts about what class of persons were “natural-born citizens.” But it said that there were doubts about whether the class of persons who were born in the United States to alien parents were “citizens” under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of III

(7) Finally, the Court said that “[f]or 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.” Virginia Minor met the definition of a “natural-born citizen.” Hence, she was both a “citizen,” like her parents, and a “natural-born citizen.” There was no need for the Court to answer the Fourteenth Amendment question that it left open. So, there nothing in the Minor decision that can be interpreted to mean that the Court did not decide whether jus soli is or is not enough for natural born citizenship. The Court did not leave open any questions about who were or could be the “natural-born citizens.” Rather, it only left open the question of who could be “citizens” under the Fourteenth Amendment.

(8) U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898 answered the single question before it, i.e., Fourteenth Amendment question left open by Minor. In answering that single question, Wong Kim Ark had no need to change nor did it change the “natural-born citizen” definition confirmed by Minor. The Government in Wong Kim Ark argued that since Wong was not born in the United States to “citizen” parents, he was not a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Government’s argument was consistent with what the U.S. Supreme Court had said in dicta in The Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1872). The Court rejected that citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment was constrained by the definition of a “natural-born citizen” which the Court said existed under “international law.” It said that there was no uniform “international law” rule in effect when the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified. The Court did not make any reference to any such “international law” rule not being in effect when the original Constitution was ratified with its “natural born Citizen” clause. Relying upon the English common law jus soli tradition that prevailed in the English colonies and the states through the time of the ratification of the Constitution, the Court saw no problem in creating another class of citizen at birth by birth in the United States. The Court distinguished this other “citizen” from a “natural-born citizen,” telling us that by virtue of being born in the country, this child born to alien parents was as much a “citizen” as the “natural born citizen” child born to “citizen” parents. So, Wong Kim Ark held that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. In doing so, it did not criticize or alter Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” which it actually cited and quoted favorably in its decision. Since the original American national common law definition of a “natural-born citizen” has never been changed by any constitutional amendment or by the U.S. Supreme Court, it still prevails today as the supreme law of the land.

So when all is said and done, foggy, you are again wrong on both Minor and Wong Kim Ark. But you can keep trying

Fogbow Foggy said...

"So when all is said and done, foggy, you are again wrong on both Minor and Wong Kim Ark. But you can keep trying"

When all is said and done? But you never do get to the point where all is said, much less done, know what I mean?

You've written hundreds of thousands, maybe as many as a million words about this, if you add up lawsuits, CAAFLOG, Amazon.com, this blog, and dozens of other sites. And you show no signs of slowing down. I make a couple of cracks, and it takes you three long posts to respond, none of which I even bothered to read. OK, I read the last sentence. That's the money quote; always in the last sentence.

All is not said, Mario. I know you can say a LOT more than you have. A LOT more.

But you managed to convince no judges who've read or heard your arguments. Do birthers even know that there's such a thing as an attorney who WINS lawsuits?

Hey Mario, why haven't you told your sycophants about your great triumph on Prof. Kuck's show last week? You can download or listen to the audio here.

You're not ashamed of how frenetic you sounded, or how you contradicted yourself about five times, are you? I thought it was a minor triumph for you. You sure had him and Rocky going for a minute there. I mean, there you were, on the radio, putting your sacred honor on the line for our Constitution and Republic against the corruption within, know what I mean?

Do you have so many wins like that that you don't even bother telling people about them any more? What's up with that?

Fogbow Foggy said...

You know, I think you're dead wrong about the Framers trying to make the qualifications for President very restrictive, like you seem to think.

Back in those days, women couldn't vote. But did they say "natural born male citizen"? No, they did not. There were free blacks in those days, too. Did they say "natural born white citizens"? No, they did not. In those days, only landowners could vote. Did they say "natural born landowning citizens"? No, they did not. And they certainly didn't say "natural born white male landowning citizen," did they now?

They left the job open to women, to blacks, to people who don't own land ... to all sorts of people who couldn't even vote back then.

Then think about the age 35 - resident for 14 years thingy. OK, let's say, for the sake of argument, that a child was born in the U.S. of naturalized Korean citizen parents, just like in your fantasy. When the child is six months old, the family moves to North Korea.

The kid grows up a communist. Her whole mindset is communist. She has no idea what freedom means, or justice. She doesn't speak any English. She's not white, or male, or a landowner. She's pretty much the antithesis of what you'd think a president might be.

But her parents have told her she's an American citizen. So at the age of 21, she manages to escape North Korea and returns to the U.S. There are places in L.A. and Orange County, California where there are so many Koreans the shops all have Korean signs. She tries to learn some English, but she's already an adult, so she manages only some broken phrases. She mostly hangs with the other Koreans, and she works in a laundry. She has no idea about American culture. She can't afford a TV or a computer. But when she's 35 years old, she's been resident in the U.S. for 14 years; only 40% of her life.

But there's Mario Apuzzo, telling her she's eligible to be President. And she is! Boy, those Framers were being really, really inclusive, to let her be eligible, huh?

Then here comes President Obama. He's spent all but four years of his life in large American cities: Honolulu, Los Angeles, New York, Chicago, Washington, D.C. He's a sophisticated urbanite and teaches Constitutional law at one of the top five law schools in this great land of ours. He's not white, but he's a male and he's a landowner. He's more American than you are. He speaks much better English than you do. I listened to that radio show twice; you're not very articulate. You haven't lived in widely separated areas of America. You have a lot less experience of America than he has.

I think you're full of crap, whining about how restrictive the qualifications for President are, because you "imagine" that after fighting the Revolution, they only wanted a small, small, very small portion of the population to be eligible for the Presidency.

Maybe that's why you lost every single case and every single appeal you had on this issue, ya think?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Foggy,

I think you are off your rocker!

Your "North Korean" citizen v. Obama citizen example is so stupid. We can make up examples which show that persons who are naturalized to be citizens after birth are more American than “natural born Citizens.” That does not make them eligible to be President. I hope for your sake that you did not really believe that you were making some kind of a good argument.

Your repeating the court thingy does not get you any points, for it is your reasoning that counts, not what somebody else said without any explanation.

For the Obots’ and Fogbow’s sake, I hope that you can do better than that. That was a real poor performance!

You have informed me that you do not have the mental capacity to read more than the conclusion, so I made this comment real easy for you.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Foggy,

I am back. I figured that I would break up my information as not to overload you.

You said: “I think you're full of crap, whining about how restrictive the qualifications for President are, because you "imagine" that after fighting the Revolution, they only wanted a small, small, very small portion of the population to be eligible for the Presidency.”

I did not make up the historical record. It tells us why the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers wanted the “natural born Citizen” clause for the unique and all-powerful singular, civil and military offices of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. It’s allegiance, stupid!

Also, you really have a warped sense of things, thinking that the “natural born Citizens” are a “small, small, very small portion of the population.” The fact is that the “natural born Citizens” represent the greatest percentage of U.S. citizens. The small percentages are those U.S. citizens who are not “natural born Citizens” whom the Constitution calls “Citizens of the United States.”

dick head said...

we can all read minor which clearly says a NBC was never in doubt but citizens were and we can all read the 14th amendment which says being born in US (jus soli) and subject to the jurisdiction thereof makes one a citizen of the US, not a natural born citizen of the US. We also can all read article 2 which says the last time a "citizen of the US" was eligible was "at time of adoption of this Constitution". Maybe fogblow can have the lying fraud in white house fudge another BC saying he was born in sept, 1787. I am starting to think some of the obots are just dense and not total liars like the obamuslim

bdwilcox said...

Part 1 of 2

Mario,

Smoggy wrote: I think we should ignore the fact that "natural born subject" was a term of art learned by every lawyer trained in the English common law for more than 175 years in the colonies, ever since Calvin's Case.

Let's pretend that all 35 of the legally trained minds at the Constitutional Convention decided to reject the definition of "natural born subject" that's in Blackstone's Commentaries. Let's pretend they ignored English common law for just this one phrase in the Constitution.

Here's how it went down: John Jay said "natural born citizen" in his letter to George Washington, Washington brought it up in the convention, and all the trained lawyers pretended they'd never heard the phrase before, so they did some research into Roman maxims and utterly ignored the English common law they'd been taught and which was published in Blackstone's ten years before the Revolution.

Or even better, let's pretend that Vattel's definition of natural born citizen was adopted by the Framers, even though it directly contradicted the English common law definition, and even though the Framers included many, many other English common law concepts in the Constitution without alteration.

Because the "natural born citizen" clause was so important, according Bubbles the Poodle's plans for building the Titanic, that they decided to ditch the meaning of the phrase from English common law, and adopt the meaning some Swiss dude wrote -- a totally different meaning than they'd been trained to understand, and which directly contradicted English common law. Also, they took this major step and debated this incredibly important change in the common law without any recorded discussion.

By god, you win AGAIN, Mario. Good work!

What Vattel wrote wasn't based on any English statute or any other country's statute. It contradicted English common law. What country's common law was Vattel describing, and why did the Framers decide to adopt some other country's common law for just this one phrase?

bdwilcox said...

Part 2 of 2

Ironically, that's pretty much what they did and they recorded it. In the same Virginia Constitutional Ratifying Convention where George Mason stated plainly: "The common law of England is not the common law of these states.", James Madison declares this:

Mr. Chairman, permit me to make a few observations, which may place this part in a more favorable light than the gentleman placed it in yesterday. It may be proper to remark that the organization of the general government for the United States was, in all its parts, very difficult. There was a peculiar difficulty in that of the executive. Every thing incident to it must have participated in that difficulty. That mode which was judged most expedient was adopted, till experience should point out one more eligible. This part was also attended with difficulties. It claims the indulgence of a fair and liberal interpretation. I will not deny that, according to my view of the subject, a more accurate attention might place it in terms which would exclude some of the objections now made to it. But if We take a liberal construction, I think we shall find nothing dangerous or inadmissible in it. In compositions of this kind, it is difficult to avoid technical terms which have the same meaning. An attention to this may satisfy gentlemen that precision was not so easily obtained as may be imagined. I will illustrate this by one thing in the Constitution. There is a general power to provide courts to try felonies and piracies committed on the high seas. Piracy is a word which may be considered as a term of the law of nations. Felony is a word unknown to the law of nations, and is to be found in the British laws, and from thence adopted in the laws of these states. It was thought dishonorable to have recourse to that standard. A technical term of the law of nations is therefore used, that we should find ourselves authorized to introduce it into the laws of the United States. The first question which I shall consider is, whether the subjects of its cognizance be proper subjects of a federal jurisdiction. The second will be, whether the provisions respecting it be consistent with safety and propriety, will answer the purposes intended, and suit local circumstances.

bdwilcox said...

Mario,

I'm also curious whether Smoggy thinks that Dred Scott was Sanford's property. Dred Scott lost in the Supreme Court and that decision of the court has never been overturned. I guess by his twisted logic, Dred Scott was Sanford's property simply because the Supreme Court said so. I wonder if he would have told Dred Scott to be a good little slave and go home with his master because he lost his case and the court said he was another man's property?

Also, for anyone wondering who Smoggy is, you can read about his sterling character here. Being mocked and ridiculed by the likes of him should be an honor of the highest order.

h2ooflife said...

Fogbow wrote: "But they didn't redefine the concept "natural born," which had been the law in the colonies for 175 years." There's two huge problems with that statement. First is that it is backed by no natural principle, no logic, and no record. But worse is the fact that no such term nor concept existed as "natural born". Anyone who thinks that those words as well as the addition of the word "citizen" constitute a term is mistaken. They are no more a "term" than is "beautiful red-haired woman". Is "beautiful red-haired" a term? No.

The word "born" serves no purpose except to differentiate alien-born natural subjects from subject-born natural subjects. In the United States it serves the same purpose by differentiating alien-born natural citizens from citizen-born natural citizens.

Everyone is ignorant of the fundamental American truth about citizenship. The fundamental truth is that all citizens are natural citizens by a pretense or fiction of law known as the doctrine of citizenship equivalency, thereby making all citizens equal. Because of the unwavering adherence to that doctrine, the U.S. government cannot strip citizenship from a natural-ized citizen for any crime whatsoever unless it can be shown that the oath of Allegiance was taken dishonestly.
If that can't be proven then a naturalized foreigner is seen as identically American as one born of American parents. A natural American can't ever be stripped of his citizenship because it's not something that he possesses. It's something that he is by nature.

The Oath of Allegiance and Renunciation transforms a foreigner into an American just as baptism buries one's old self in the grave symbolized by water and transforms one in resurrection into a new creation in Christ. So also is the transformation from a foreigner into an American citizen. The old citizenship is severed like an umbilical cord to the mother country. Then the new citizen lives as a Freeman of America.
But when it came to the presidency it was necessary to split the hair of our national pretense by which all citizens are equal, and single out only those who were born being citizens by inherited political nature. They were born natural citizens by birth, -not by law or oath or automatic naturalization upon birth.
It's easily shown that the word "natural" does not modify the word "born" but modifies the word "citizen". There's an advanced internet search option which returns exact word matches, -only it gives returns for "natural citizen(s).
I copied and transcribed the "google books" scans that I found of ancient American law writings that reveal that the only term in use was "natural citizen" (as I've written over a thousand times). Along with that corroboration for what only I was asserting, the writings also corroborated the fiction of law which was called citizenship equivalency.
And the context of the writing was the history of the constitutional travesty by which corporations were deemed by the SCOTUS to be persons and U.S. citizens, i.e., artificial citizens, or technical citizens.
If you would like to experience wandering into the unknown land of the truth, you can peruse what I've transcribed and high-lighted and saved in pdf format. I haven't molded it into any kind of exposition yet, but it kind of does that itself since my selections (and added personal exposition) were very discriminating for the sake of condensation. It's an amazing and disheartening read to see that major crimes against the Constitution began long ago. The pertinent portions being on page two with the Harvard Vest Pocket Lawyer.

http://h2ooflife.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/natural-citizen-in-u-s-jurisprudence.pdf

h2ooflife said...

"Jus soli for those born in the U.S. (Scalia); jus sanguinis according to statute for those born outside the U.S. (Ginsburg)." Ignorance and more ignorance.
A natural principle cannot be harnessed to an artificial policy anymore than a natural body can be made into a cyborg by harnassing it to mechanical parts. What one is by birth is determined by natural principle. Where one is born is irrelevant to nature. Membership by birth location is purely an artificial, imposed, man-made rule that has no connection to nature. The two cannot be conglomerated or wed into a single unified principle because they are from opposite worlds. One is from the natural world and the other is from the legal world. They don't overlap nor combine. Here's an analogy:
Think of a meteor heading straight for earth at 40,000 miles per hour. It's impact is due to its velocity and trajectory. That is the equivalent to natural membership by birth. But there is another force working along with it, and that is earth gravity. It's the equivalent to tradition or human law of jus soli. One born within the borders of their parents' nation have an added reason by which they also are members, but that is not the primary reason, nor the determinant reason. The determinant reason is one's inherited membership/ citizenship. It is universally the reason that one is a natural member of their parents' country and nation, just as velocity and trajectory are the determinant reasons for the meteor's collision with earth. Even without gravity (jus soli) it will still hit the earth. And even without jus soli, one born of citizens is still a citizen because nature is the determinant, not a man-made rule about man-made borders. AN

h2ooflife said...

" 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. "

The persons about whom there were doubts were not children of citizens. They were children of aliens, and the doubt was not over whether or not they were natural citizens but whether or not they were even citizens at all. You'll see in that paragraph that the words "natural born" do not appear.

"But there's Mario Apuzzo, telling her she's eligible to be President. And she is! Boy, those Framers were being really, really inclusive, to let her be eligible, huh?"

Your ignorance of history is showing. Naturalized citizens were assumed to be fully American if they had renounced their homeland government and sworn with God as their witness, on penalty of loss of citizenship, to defend the Constitution and to bear arms, true faith and allegiance to the United States (only men could take that oath and be naturalized..discrimination!!!). Such men did not abandon their new homeland in the era of the Constitution's adoption since they were in America to flee from Europe, so the North Korea hypothetical would be ridiculous from the perspective of 1788.
As for being inclusionary, you mistake the eligibility clause for the 14th Amendment (ALL PERSONS...) but the eligibility clause reads: NO PERSON except... So it first bars everyone, and then makes two exceptions.

So you are both wrong. It is more inclusive than just natural citizens born within the every-changing State & national borders, -and more EXclusive than ALL CITIZENS born within them.
The one distinguishing natural feature required for eligibility for the presidency was being the son of an American father. (the mother would automatically be American via marriage to an American).

Fogbow Foggy said...

"Your "North Korean" citizen v. Obama citizen example is so stupid."

... says the man whose hypotheticals feature Bubbles the Poodle. Yeah, I should have called my hypothetical Korean American natural born citizen lady Bubbles; then you wouldn't think she was so stupid.

"Your repeating the court thingy does not get you any points, for it is your reasoning that counts, not what somebody else said without any explanation."

See, this is how we know you're really a terrible, terrible lawyer. Any competent lawyer knows that you haven't won a legal argument until you've persuaded a court to agree with you. Legal briefs are supposed to be persuasive writings. Oral arguments are supposed to be persuasive too; but you're totally unable to persuade any court that you're right.

When I was practicing, I won more criminal trials than I lost, mostly because I picked and chose which cases to try. But it's not easy to get a Not Guilty verdict in the best of circumstances, so when I did lose, even though I still thought I was right and my client was innocent, I didn't go around pretending that I'd really won, and telling my client, "It's not what the jury says, it's my reasoning that counts, not whether you're going to prison or not, so I really won your case after all."

That's just puerile, chump. On the other hand, since I knew that I won more cases than I lost, it didn't cost my ego anything to say, "Yeah, I lost that one. I tried like hell, but the jury made its own decision and it went against my client."

You, on the other hand, have never won a single birther case. So I can see how your fragile little ego would need to pretend that you'd won them after all.

Still, a lawyer's job is not to say "It's my reasoning that counts". A lawyer's job is to persuade a court to rule in your favor, something you are wholly unable to do.

I mean, I'm not arguing with your logical examples in this blog post, even if they do feature Bubbles. You're arguing from wrong premises, but no skin off my nose.

It's just that I learned that kind of logic from the time I was 11 years old making "well-formed formulas" in the ancient children's game WFF'N PROOF. I'm playing that with my kids today, with my copy that was published in 1962.

But the time you get through law school, you're supposed to know just a few somewhat more sophisticated techniques of rhetorical persuasion than teaching grown adults how to play WFF'N PROOF with Bubbles the Poodle. It's sad that you never quite progressed beyond that level, or you might be able to do what real lawyers do someday.

Anyway, today is the day I'm going to call you a liar in public, but not here on your blog, and not on Fogbow. Have you guessed yet what's going to happen today? I've given you a lot of hints already!

js said...

froggy said "You know, I think you're dead wrong about the Framers trying to make the qualifications for President very restrictive, like you seem to think. "

John Jay wrote in a letter to George Washington dated 25 Jul 1787:

"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. "

Dang, such willful denial froggy. It is a situation that I framed before, you think, and that's the whole problem. This issue isn't wrapped around I think, you think, or anyones think. Its about documentable facts that, when taken in context, prove without a shadow of a doubt that you are not much more than a bump on a liberal log.

js said...



Froggy says "Then here comes President Obama..."

I keep pointing out, rather correctly, how much you love to omit information, which is very relevant to the issue you are making expressions about.

Did you notice how froggy jumps on the worship wagon for the "One"? He doesn't even try to hide the fact that he holds the Fraud in Chief in high respect.

It would be wise that we note a few attributes of the "One" which froggy forgot to list!!

(From the Obama File)

1. Barack Obama was born of Marxists; mentored by a communist writer and activist during his formative years; spent his college days hanging around radical activists; worked as a radical community organizer, learning the radical tactics of the communist, Alinsky; attended a radical church; was introduced to Chicago politics by a communist in the home of two communists; and today lends his political skill to the international goals of radical activists. He had radicals working on his campaign and has them in his administration. The simple fact is, since the age of 12, the people closest to Obama have been active, radical Marxists and/or members of the Communist Party USA. (From the Obama File)

2. Obama quote: "So let me say this as clearly as I can -- the United States is not and will never be at war with Islam." Unfortunately, Islam is at war with the United States. So the question needs to be asked, is Obama going to vigorously defend America, or be Islam's lawyer? So far, it doesn't look good. And for all you folks that parrot the "it's a fringe, Islam is the religion of peace" nonsense -- the "peaceful" Muslims could shut down the "radical fringe" Muslims in a heartbeat -- if they wanted to.

3. One of the questions that the court must decide is whether a person governed by the laws of Great Britain at the time of their birth could be considered a "natural born" citizen of the United States as required by Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5, of the U. S. Constitution.

And there are many other equally troubling questions. Questions that remain unanswered by any United States court -- and Obama's spending a ton of money to make sure it stays that way.

_____ ______ _____

So the real fact, the whole truth, is that the foundation of The United States of America, that being a free country, where liberty and justice prevail, is an antithesis of who the "One" is.

js said...

Remembering the words of the founding fathers, who put the NBC clause into the Constitution for a reason, we must weigh the purpose they stated and compare that to the "One", in order to bring a clear picture of what we face here.

"From his early teens onward, Obama desperately wanted to be black. In "Dreams," he writes, "I was trying to raise myself to be a black man in America, and beyond the given of my appearance, no one around me seemed to know exactly what that meant." He claims that, "I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of twelve or thirteen, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites." -- and this -- "...never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself..." " (re; Obama File)

To make a serious point, the founding fathers wanted the NBC clause in the Constitution to insure that foreign influence was not a factor in the control and execution of the powers in the Executive Office, that the values that Americans hold are properly represented in our Head of State. The racism we have struggled with as a nation is a strong part of the "One", as he demonstrates his hatred of whites and those who hold similar beliefs that they hold, including blacks.

This can be more polarized than in the written words of the "One". He set aside punishment for the New Panthers, and adheres the vision of a Black man in Africa spawned under the influence of anti American muslims that promote Socialism, Communism, and Marxism, which are polar opposites of what America has stood for 2+ centuries.

Its obvious that people like Froggy have an ulterior agenda, the likes of which put people like Hitler into power. Trying to debate this issue with someone of his mindset is like Stalin arguing with Ghandi about the meaning of Truth.

Fogbow Foggy said...

Foggy rebuts Apuzzo on Prof. Charles Kuck's Immigration Hour:

America's Web Radio

Frank Bailey said...

bdwilcox wrote:

I'm also curious whether Smoggy thinks that Dred Scott was Sanford's property. Dred Scott lost in the Supreme Court and that decision of the court has never been overturned. I guess by his twisted logic, Dred Scott was Sanford's property simply because the Supreme Court said so. I wonder if he would have told Dred Scott to be a good little slave and go home with his master because he lost his case and the court said he was another man's property?

That was exactly the case and it is why Scott v Sanford was such a horrific decision that it was overturned by the Thirteenth Amendment. Scott eventually obtained his freedom but only when his owner emancipated him a year or two after the decision. He died before the Civil War.

ajt said...

A different way...

Mario, here's a different way of talking about 'jus soli' and jus sanguinis' that I find helpful in simplifying the 'original intent' and which might(??) inform the Obama 'eligibility truthers' and Obama 'birthers'

- - - - - - - - - -

Four Requirements:
To be ‘… eligible to the Office of the President’


Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5

Part 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 the President;

Part 2 –

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.


Part 1 reveals the 'original intent' of “… except a natural born Citizen…”

It is obvious—natural born means born on (U.S.) soil, because it definitely did NOT mean born on foreign soil.

It is obvious—born by the union of two (2) married parents
(Married??? In 1787??? Yes… married… obviously!!!).

It is obvious—parents who are both U.S. Citizens before a child is born on U.S. soil.


(1) Born with U.S. Citizen Parents
(2) Born on U.S. Soil
(3) Live 35 Years
(4) Reside on U.S. Soil 14 Years


The four 1787 perpetual original intent requirements to be eligible to be POTUS are:

1. Birth –
First is to be born a natural born Citizen

2. Parents and soil –
Second is to be born with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents on U.S. soil.

3. Live the required years –
Third is to (be born and) live for at least 35 years,

4. Reside on U.S. soil the required years –
Fourth is to (be born and live and) reside at least 14 years on U.S. soil.

Notice the obvious.

The four eligibility requirements are birth – soil – age – residence.

1. Birth with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents.
2. Birth on U.S. soil.
3. Attatin the required age of 35 years.
4. Attain the required residence on U.S. soil of14 years.

To be ‘… eligible to the Office of the President; ….’ requires two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents for birth and U.S. soil for birth day and U.S. soil for residence years.

BOTH parts are the necessary requirements to be “… eligible to the Office of the President.

Part 1 –

- Birth to two (2) married U.S. Citizens
- Birth on U.S.soil

That is the natural law order (natural law order = birth from the union of 2 on soil somewhere) and the natural law basis for the positive law of part 2.

Positive law = 'attain' and 'reside'

Part 2 –

- Attain the age of 35
- Reside 14 years on U.S. soil

Both parts, birth AND soil, give the 'original intent' to the positive law word ‘eligible’ in Clause 5.


Read more here -
>> http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/2013/06/an-original-intent-conversation-4.html

- - - - - - - - - -

Mario, with the recent comments of Justice Antonin Scalia, maybe Justice Scalia should read your blog and become better informed about the 'original intent' of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 and the perpetual words 'natural born Citizen' and the temporary words '... or a Citizen.'

Art

Bill Bryan said...

___________________________________
js says:

John Jay wrote in a letter to George Washington dated 25 Jul 1787:

"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

"Dang, such willful denial froggy."

__________________________________

What? I don't deny that. Listen to my appearance on Prof. Kuck's show this morning. The archive will be posted here in a few hours.

I'M the one who told Prof. Kuck about Jay's letter. Did you hear Mario telling Prof. Kuck about Jay's letter on the show last week? Why didn't he mention Jay's letter? What was Mario hiding?

The question isn't whether Jay wrote that letter, the question is whether he intended a different definition of the term "natural born" than he was trained to understand as a lawyer who was taught English common law, and if he did intend a different meaning, why didn't he tell George Washington what he really meant?

Jeez, js, you really need to work on your reading comprehension.

Bill Bryan said...

Posting under my real name now. I don't mind which one you use.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

h2ooflife,

As I have written many times, you and I disagree on the definition of a “natural born Citizen” in this respect. You say that it is a product of only natural law. Hence, you say that it matters not where the child is born or what the mother’s citizenship is. You do concede that under the old law, the citizenship of the mother followed that of her husband. But since women took on their own citizenship after the Cable Act of 1922, you take the position that the mother’s citizenship no longer matters.

I argue that a “natural born Citizen” is a product of both natural law and positive law. Under natural law, the citizenship of both parents is required. If the citizenship of the mother no longer follows that of her husband, which is the case since the Cable Act of 1922, then we do not just ignore the mother’s citizenship as you do. She still has to be a “citizen” like she was when her citizenship followed that of her husband. The difference is that the mother has to qualify for citizenship on her own rather than just become a “citizen” upon marriage to a U.S. “citizen” which was the case under the old law. And under positive law, the place of birth is also necessary.

My definition and understanding is consistent with how our nation has always defined a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. See Vattel (Section 212-217), The Venus (Chief Justice John Marshall concurring), Inglis (majority opinion), Shanks (majority opinion), Dred Scott (Justice Daniels concurring), Minor (unanimous U.S. Supreme Court), and Wong Kim Ark (both majority and dissenting opinions).

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Foggy,

I still say that you are off your rocker!

Your analogy to how you lost a criminal case you accepted it is absurd. Here, we are talking about the “natural born Citizen” issue which has been a point of contention throughout U.S history. We need a resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court and you inject your lost criminal case into it, arguing that we should treat the “natural born Citizen” issue the same as you treated your losses in court. Now that is “puerile, chump.”

I never said that I won any birther cases. The only thing that I said is that the issue of the “natural born Citizen” clause and Obama’s eligibility thereunder is still an open matter.

As far as my logical examples go, they are so simple as you say, but yet you fail to understand them. And, as I have demonstrated in this article on the Jack Maskell fallacies, the only one who engages in invalid arguments and starts with false premises is you and those of like mind.
So do tell us about where and how you called me a liar in some other place. Where did it happen? What happened? Please share with us any links so that we can examine what you said about me.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Foggy/Bill Bryan,

I did not get all comments here in order and so I did not know that you had already posted here the link to your Professor Charles Kuck Immigration Hour radio show. I will listen and tell you what I think.

I'll say this now regarding your comment posted here about the Jay letter. Your point is asinine. There are many things that I did not say during the show. There is a ton of evidence that supports my position. Do you really expect me to say it all during that short amount of time?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Reality Check is still going at it at his blog. Here is his latest one:

“Mario Appuzo said: I have already shown Mario’s statement was untruthful and that he cited 20 cases (without citing Minor) in a complaint in the aforementioned case. I will allow Mario to post to answer the following question: Could he please point me to the brief he filed in the Kerchener v Obama case [...]

Could he please point me to the brief he filed in the Kerchener v Obama case before Judge Simandle where he cited Minor v Happersett?”

Here is my response:

“The heart and soul of plaintiffs’ action is the question of whether President Barack H. Obama (“Obama”) is an Article II “natural born Citizen” which, having satisfied the other eligibility requirements, would make him eligible to be the President and Commander in Chief of the United States. Neither the Fourteenth Amendment, nor any U.S. Supreme Court decision, nor any Act of Congress has changed the original common law definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” (to be distinguished from a “citizen of the United States”) which is that the natives or indigenes or “natural born citizens” are those children “born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” E. de Vattel, The Law of Nations, bk 1, c. 19, sec. 212 (1758) (1759 first English translation); The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (Marshall, C.J., concurring) (cites Vattel’s definition of natural born citizens); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (same definition without citing Vattel); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (same definition without citing Vattel); Ex parte Reynolds, 1879, 5 Dill., 394, 402 (same definition and cites Vattel); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (same definition and cites Vattel); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (only declared under the Fourteenth Amendment a child born on U.S. soil to foreign parents and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States a “citizen of the United States” and not an Article II “natural born Citizen” and Fuller, C.J, dissenting confirming Vattel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” ); Keith v. U.S., 8 Okla. 446; 58 P. 507 (Okla. 1899) (common law rule that the offspring of free persons followed the condition of the father was applied to determine the citizenship status of a child born to a white father, a citizen of the United States, and half-breed Indian mother, with the court not even mentioning the Fourteenth Amendment as being applicable probably because of the Indian status of the child ); Rep. John Bingham (in the House on March 9, 1866, in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was the precursor to the Fourteenth Amendment: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [S 61 Bill], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen. . . . ” Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Session, 1291 (1866)); Sen Jacob Howard (the framer who co-wrote the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause stating in 1866 that the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment excluded persons born in the United States who were foreigners, aliens, or who belonged to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers. Congressional Globe, 39th Congress, 1st Session, May 30, 1866, p.2895, 2nd col.)) Plaintiffs are requesting that the Court enforce the United States Constitution, the supreme law of the land, and not allow Obama to amend the Constitution by usurpation. U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2; George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796.
Kerchner v. Obama, Brief of Plaintiff, pp. 1-3, filed in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Civil Action No. 1:09-cv-00253, before Hon. Jerome B. Simandle.

Reality Check, what has gotten into you? Are you feeling well?

Fogbow Foggy said...

Mr. Apuzzo said:

I will listen [to my appearance on Immigration Hour] and tell you what I think.
__________________________________

Fair enough. The archive hasn't been posted yet. However, I know from past experience that you will proclaim that I lost the argument and you won it. That's what you do.

On the other hand, the reason you were invited on the show is that Prof. Kuck's producer, Dave, is a birther. Prof. Kuck tells me that at the end of the show today, Dave acknowledged that I am right and you are wrong about the fake imaginary "born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizens" rule. I exposed your mendacity to such an extent that poor Dave is back to claiming that President Obama wasn't born in the U.S.

So while you will still claim to have bested me using logic based on your dishonest interpretations of Minor and WKA, in human terms I won, in that I got both Prof. Kuck and his birther producer Dave to agree with me.

Friday morning bright and early I'm flying out to L.A. to spend a fun weekend with about 16 other members of my Fogbow forum. Several of them are lawyers, of course. If I had messed up today, I'd be hearing about it all weekend, as you might imagine. Instead, my people seem to think I did a very good job on the radio today. You won't agree, but I don't seek approval from you.

Reality Check also has a new post up about my performance and how I rebutted your silly arguments from last week. I haven't read it yet, but if you're going to write about what I said on the show, you might want to read what he has to say first, and include a rebuttal in your explanation of why you bested me; then you can claim another victory over both of us.

You really are racking up those victories right and left. It doesn't get any better than that, does it?

Fogbow Foggy said...

Mr. Apuzzo says:

I'll say this now regarding your comment posted here about the Jay letter. Your point is asinine.
____________________________________

Of course what you really mean is that js's point was asinine. He accused me of being "in denial" about Jay's letter to Washington. I was just pointing out that I embrace that letter. I do think that letter was the reason that "natural born citizen" ended up in the Constitution. I'm not hiding from that and I'm not denying it.

All I'm saying about that letter is that if Jay meant to convey a meaning of that phrase "natural born" that conflicted with his education and training as a lawyer versed in the English common law, he failed to say so.

The common law concept of "natural born subject" was law in the Colonies almost from their inception, and it always meant jus soli alone. If Jay wanted the phrase to mean anything more than that, he certainly had the opportunity and ability to say "by the way, when I say 'natural born citizen,' I don't mean the term 'natural born' to mean what it means in English common law; I mean it to require both jus soli and jus sanguinis".

He never said any such thing.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Foggy,

I of II

Since we do not have any evidence of what John Jay may have said about the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” it does not matter what he could have said about it. What is important is that he used the term as a requirement for anyone aspiring to be the Commander in Chief of the Military and that then-General George Washington thanked him for the “hint.” The Committee on Detail had originally proposed that the President must be merely a “citizen” as well as a resident for 21 years. After Jay’s letter, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without explanation of which we are aware. The Convention accepted the change without documented debate. Han, William. "Beyond Presidential Eligibility: The Natural Born Citizen Clause as a Source of Birthright Citizenship", Drake Law Review, Vol. 58, No. 2, 462–463 (2010). So, the Constitutional Convention delegates took out “citizen” and put in “natural born citizen” for the eligibility requirement for the unique and all-powerful, singular civil and military offices of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. They did not do the same for future members of the collegial House and Senate. The question then becomes what did the clause mean?

The historical record is replete with evidence that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause into presidential and commander eligibility requirements so as to keep out of those singular offices monarchical and foreign influence. Given the needs of safety in those offices and national security, one can reasonably conclude that they sought to do that to the greatest degree possible.

Beyond that we also know that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers were persons guided by the rule of law. It only makes sense that they would have defined the clause under some body of law. What you are in denial of is that we had a Revolution which created a new civil society and new relationships between the people and its government. The new civil society was no longer bound to the King under his notions of broad allegiance. As part of that new relationship and under the Constitution, our federal system was created. The states, so as not to revert to a state of nature, still operated under selected parts of the English common law, but only if not repugnant to republican principles and only until abrogated by state legislatures. But the central government operated under a completely different set of rules. Those rules came from the “Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties.” Article III. The laws of the United States included “the Laws of Nations.” Article I, Section 8, Clause 10. The English common law did not provide any rules of decision for the new national government. As James Madison explained in The Federalist No. 42 and repeated in his June 20, 1788 speech during the Virginia Ratifying Convention, state laws, which selectively followed he English common law, were varied in their content and did not provide any certainty and uniformity which was needed on the national level, and in any event, the English common law and statutory laws were considered a “dishonorable and illegitimate guide” for defining terms in the Constitution. Many Founders and Framers echoed Madison’s sentiment on whether the English common law had any application on the national level. St. George Tucker allowed for its application, but only if any Congressional statute or the law of nations did not fill the void.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

We know that the law of nations defined who were the “citizens” and “natural-born citizens” of a nation. We also know that Congress asserted its naturalization powers as early as 1790, followed with more such laws in 1795, 1802, and 1855, which laws were all consistent with the law of nations (based on jus sanguinis for persons born either in and out of the United States) and which abrogated any English common law, state law, and jus soli on the national level. The simple conclusion to be drawn from this reality is that the “natural born Citizen” clause could only be defined by the law of nations, which was a law of vastly broad and lasting application, a law that specifically used the clause “natural-born citizen,” a law which the Founding generation saw as binding on the nation, and a law to which the Founding generation looked to resolve the many problems the new nation faced in the world, and not the English common law which only applied selectively in the states until abrogated, did not use the clause “natural born Citizen,” and which in any event was considered to be a “dishonorable and illegitimate guide” for defining terms in the Constitution.

Once we arrive at the conclusion that the law of nations provided the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” the next question is how did that law define the clause. We find our answer in Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212-217
(London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758), where he said that 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. Vattel was the Founders favorite writer on the law of nations. Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” was accepted by The Venus (Chief Justice John Marshall concurring), Inglis (majority opinion), Shanks (majority opinion), Dred Scott (Justice Daniels concurring), Minor (unanimous U.S. Supreme Court), and Wong Kim Ark (both majority and dissenting opinions), along with other state courts that I have previously cited.

dick head said...

bill bryan had to attend ethics classes (haha, a lot of good that will do a commie- atheist) and narcotics anonymous as a lawyer. At one time he was disbarred according to wnd article. orly, mario and larry klayman are only losing because politicians run this country and the judges are certainly not impartial. Obamao should be in prison for the forged draft card, stolen SS# and forged BC image on a govt website. The only reason the liar in chief gets away with it is because the demonmarxist party lets him. A husband on the real housewives of NJ show is facing prison time for a fraudulent application of a drivers license and yet the obamao gangsters literally get away with murder. btw, why does the shady lawyer bryan think the framers wanted a foreign citizen eligible for CiC? Does that really make any sense after reading John jays letter?

h2ooflife said...

"3. One of the questions that the court must decide is whether a person governed by the laws of Great Britain at the time of their birth could be considered a natural born citizen of the United States"

Another unanswered question with an obvious answer is: "Can one be born as a natural citizen of more than one nation?"
If one is so stupid as to answer "yes" then it would be clear that they have no concept of the fact that words have meaning and are not "flexible" enough to defy all logic.

"No Person except a natural born Citizen,..."
Translation: 1. No person except a citizen... 2. No citizen except a natural citizen... 3. No natural citizen except a born natural citizen...
Since all citizens are natural citizens under the American fiction of citizenship equivalency, John Jay suggested to General Washington that the presidency should not devolve on anyone who was not a natural BORN citizen, emphasizing the word "born" by underlining it.

That is irrefutable evidence that children of foreigners could not hold the position of Commander-in-Chief because they were not citizens by birth but by law. Nor were they natural citizens by birth but were only deemed to be natural citizens by the American legal fiction.
Birth has no connection to man-made borders in the animal world, insect world, microbiological world, nor the human world. Attaching any significance to place of birth and a person is an artificial abstract connection to his/her identify.
It is a legal criteria that does not exist in the realm of natural law. Citizens who are born being citizens are the only "natural citizens" who are eligible to be President.

Where they are born is not even a factor in their natural inheritance of citizenship because they are born being true natural citizens and not citizens by the doctrine of citizenship equivalency.

Citizens born beyond national borders are not natural citizens because of legal permission because law cannot create natural citizens. Natural citizens only result from natural transmission of national membership inherited from citizen parents.

Law cannot transmit natural citizenship. It can only recognize it and protect it from laws or policies that violate the unalienable right of citizenship of the children of citizens. That was the purpose behind the Naturalization Act of 1790.
It didn't "grant" citizenship to citizens born abroad. It enforced the protection of their natural citizenship, making it clear to all officials of all related offices at the State and national level that children of Americans are natural born citizens and eligible to serve as President as long as they reside in the United States for 14 years and are mature enough. Nothing in the Constitution provided that protection for them, and so it had to be put into a statute.
Those foreign born citizens were overlooked, just like the citizenship of the Vice-President which had to be addressed later in the 12th Amendment.

h2ooflife said...

Bill Bryan wrote: "The question isn't whether Jay wrote that letter, the question is whether he intended a different definition of the term "natural born" than he was trained to understand as a lawyer who was taught English common law,"

You are ignorant of history. There was no such term as "natural born". There were only subjects, born subjects (subject born) and if born of Englishman then born subjects were *natural* born subjects as opposed to legal born subjects. Nothing in common law ever used a term such as "he was a natural born".
So since the "term" did not exist, it naturally had no "definition".

What's most odious about your comment is this: "he was trained to understand as a lawyer". Lawyers were not and are not "trained". They are educated with knowledge, -not indoctrination, -except when it came to the Divine Right of Kings and the authority of the Crown over all subjects.

That was pure indoctrination, and it was totally rejected by the Americans upon the American Revolution.
It is incredibly ignorant to assume that they retained the British indoctrination as regards the most fundamental element of a free republic, -that being the basis of membership.
When the 13 colonies transformed into free republics their subjects also transformed into citizens. Citizens inherit their membership from parents while subjects are forced into subjecthood by being born within the King's domain.
So alluding to the brain-washing that the founding fathers supposedly suffered from regarding the supremacy of English common law is absurd. As if all of them were not steeped in natural rights philosophy that was treasonous to the Crown. They didn't all put their life and property on the line with the intent to retain the shackles of the Divine Right of Kings.

h2ooflife said...

Mario wrote: "Hence, you say that it matters not where the child is born or what the mother’s citizenship is."
That's incorrect. I've never ever said anything other than that the parents must be Americans. I don't have to say "two Americans" or "two citizens" because all Americans are citizens in the legal sense, and Americans is plural, not singular.
What I've said is that the father must be an American. That does not imply that the mother need not be. It merely emphasizes that nationality is inherited from the head of the family, and in all marriages that is recognized as being the husband.
The meaning of nbc does not change over time. It still means what it meant in 1787 even though positive law has changed.

You argue that a “natural born Citizen” is a product of both natural law and positive law, and yet that is impossible and cannot be explained by any form of reason that is based on the words themselves.
You erroneously cling to the belief that the words existed as some term of common law when in fact they did not exist at all. Not in Vattel (les naturels is not nbc) nor in English common law because citizens did not exist until the Revolution. Then those immersed in the newly implemented philosophy of independent sovereign citizenship ceased referring to natural subjects of the king and began to employ "natural citizens" of the free and sovereign republics of America.

You say our nation has always defined a “natural born Citizen" but that is inaccurate because nbc has never been defined, although the many cases you cite do describe the typical natural born citizen, but the foreign born natural citizen, like an extremely rare black sheep, is nevertheless also an nbc just as a black sheep is a natural sheep even though not the typical sheep. Describing the creature known as a sheep as being a four-legged herbivore with thick white wool is the equivalent to your limited definition of nbc. It is erroneous to add the feature of the wool being white, just as it's erroneous to add the common circumstance of being born in the nation where the parents live, which is almost always their own country.
You need to come to the knowledge of what a natural citizen is. Did you read the references I transcribed and uploaded as a pdf? Until you understand that, you will continue in your reasonably sounding but erroneous view that the word natural somehow includes an element of human law. It does not.
John Jay could not urge that the presidency not devolve on any but a natural citizen because all citizens are natural citizens by American citizenship doctrine, so in regard to that office, and nothing else in American life, he was forced to go beyond the fiction and describe what kind of natural citizen should be allowed that authority.
It must be one who was born as a natural citizen and not one made into a natural citizen via positive law or citizenship doctrine.
If the fiction did not exist then he could have and would have merely said that the Commander-in-Chief must be a natural citizen because those words mean just what they seem to mean, -being altered only by the fiction of citizenship equivalency.
This whole controversy exists because of that equivalency fiction which forced Jay to use words that could be confused with those in English law.
He also could not say the president should only be a born citizen because some states (like Virginia) had jus soli citizenship for children of its immigrants.

Those children, born of foreigners, could only be President if born before the Constitution was ratified. After that, only children of Americans could be President,-not children of foreigners even if born in America. Birth in America didn't matter, -not for alien-born citizens nor for natural born citizens. Parentage was everything.
Nothing else is natural. That can't be refuted by logic nor opinion. Positive law has no place in natural citizenship unless the citizen has never lived in the United States.

h2ooflife said...

"Rep. John Bingham in commenting on the Civil Rights Act of 1866 said: "[I] find no fault with the introductory clause which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen."

What a bloviating windbag, -inventing constitutional statements that did not even exist. It just goes to show how oblivious to the fundamental principle of citizenship the law makers of his day had become.

As for the original proposals regarding presidential eligibility, Hamilton had urged that it be limited to only those "born a citizen". It's reasonable to suspect that Jay learned of that suggestion and realized that some "born citizens" were such because of automatic naturalization upon birth in States that allowed jus soli citizenship, and not because of natural inheritance from an American father.

Mario wrote: "the law of nations, which...specifically used the clause “natural-born citizen,”

Wow. The first part of that comment was very respectable and insightful, but them you blew all respectability by making such a patently false claim. And that is true in two regards. First, The Law of Nations is / was not "the law of nations". NBC is found in neither the actual law of nations nor in Vattel's book, and yet you continue to falsely claim that it is.
You know full well the the French word "naturels" does not translate into natural born citizen, and that incorrect translation didn't even appear until a decade after the Constitution was written. Yet you pretend it was available, known, and followed as if it was written before the Constitution was authored. Why???
Because it supports your erroneous doctrine that melds into an unholy alliance the natural law principle of natural membership with the Royal law policy of jus soli. Jus soli is the bastard child of the Divine Right of Kings and has / had no place in a free republic except as a magnanimous gift, -not as an automatic right.

js said...

Bill Bryan said “why didn't he tell George Washington what he really meant"

"Permit me to hint, whether it would be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Commander in Chief of the American army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen. "

Your memory must be very poor. I went over that before. He did tell us what principal he meant that phrase to mean in this statement, as a condition of qualification to be POTUS.

In order to “provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners” (as cited in Jay’s letter), we must recognize certain characteristics of the term "Natural Born Citizen". Based on that principal, the meaning of NBC must be assumed to reject the “admission of Foreigners” to become the “Commander in Chief” of the American Army. It also recognized when it applied, at birth, so it is accurate to say that a natural born citizen does not hold any foreign allegiance at birth.

This would demand at the minimum that any child, who is born with an allegiance to any foreign nation, is not to be eligible to become POTUS. This is supported by John Jay without any question, and well defined to that end. This gives us a clear view of what the founding fathers understood the term NBC to mean. No foreigners can be admitted into the administration of our national government, and expressly, that the CIC of the US Military shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but an Natural Born Citizen.

These 2 affirmations are validated in the US Constitution. First in Art 1, Sect 2 and 3 “No person shall be a Representative/Senator who shall not have.....been nine years a citizen of the United States.” This demonstrates that no foreigner shall attain office, a basic check that allows those born with foreign allegiance, but who have since been US Citizens for 9 years. The Second, is the qualification to become POTUS, to which, it is a step with an additional requirement beyond Art 2, Sect’s 2 and 3, that the person be a “natural born” citizen instead of just a citizen for 9 years, but instead a child born without allegiance to any foreign nation.

It can’t be argued that the additional phrase “NBC” to qualify for POTUS would be equal to that which is established in the first part above, otherwise, there would be no difference in the language that they used to be qualified for that office. It demands a condition at birth that rejects any foreign influence, which also demands that a child born with dual citizenship is rejected for qualification to be POTUS because he/she is BORN with an allegiance to a foreign power.

End game. All the gibberish you put out about SCOTUS rulings that contradict this may be standing law, but it is JUDICIAL ERROR.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

It is a well-established rule of constitutional and statutory construction that in interpreting those texts, any interpretation that leads to absurd results is inadmissible.

Wong Kim Ark, construing the Fourteenth Amendment and relying upon the colonial English common law to do so, held that any child born in the United States and subject to the laws of the United States is a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth. The Obots say this holding also says that such children are “natural born Citizens.”

The Obot argument fails on text alone. The clauses “natural born Citizen” and “citizen of the United States” are constitutional and statutory terms of art. Wong Kim Ark did not hold that Wong was a "natural born Citizen." Rather, it ruled he was a "citizen of the United States" under the Fourteenth Amendment.

But the Obot argument also fails based on the above-referenced rule of constitutional construction. When the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett in 1875 defined a “natural-born citizen,” it did not say that having a child be subject to the laws of the United States at the time of the child’s birth in the United States had anything to do with making one a “natural-born citizen.” In fact, no previous U.S. Supreme Court which had addressed the meaning of a “natural-born citizen” ever mentioned anything about the child being subject to the laws of the United States at the moment of his or her birth in the United States as being any kind of requirement for being a “natural born Citizen.”

The Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers said “natural born Citizen,” not “citizen” or even “born Citizen.” So the word “natural” must have some special meaning. But the Fourteenth Amendment says that the child must be “born” in the United States.” It does not say that he must be “natural born” in the United States. So, has the “natural born Citizen” clause because of the Fourteenth Amendment in effect disappeared from the constitutional landscape? Are we to conclude that the Fourteenth Amendment is to be interpreted so as to read the “natural born Citizen” clause out of the Constitution? Of course, such a reading of the amendment is absurd.

Following the Obot logic, we would have to conclude that a “citizen” or “born Citizen” is not subject to the laws of the United States, but a “natural born Citizen” is. After all, being subject to the laws must add something or else it is an obligation without any compensating right. Given the Obot position on the amendment, what else could it add than to elevate a “citizen,” or “born Citizen,” to a “natural born Citizen,” for we are told that the amendment defines a “natural born Citizen.” Or are we to conclude that “citizens,” “born Citizens,” and “natural born Citizens” are all subject to the laws of the United States. But then would that not make all three types of “citizens” the same thing? But the Framers specifically removed “citizen” and added “natural born Citizen” for Presidential eligibility. So, they must have seen an important difference between the phrases. But the Obot position gives no importance to each one of these types of citizens, for as far as they are concerned, they are all subject to the laws of the United States at the moment of their birth in the United States and therefore all “natural born Citizens.”

As all this demonstrates that the Obot reading of the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark produces absurd results. Their interpretation must therefore be rejected.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

h2ooflife,

You deny Vattel as the most direct source upon which the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers relied for their definition of a “natural born Citizen.” I believe you deny Vattel’s proper role in American history because Vattel includes in his definition (1) “born in the country” (2) “of parents who are citizens.” It is the “born in the country” that irks you. Before you also objected to Vattel’s use of the word “parents” in the plural, saying that the mother had no role in creating a “natural born citizen.” Now you have changed your position which is unintelligible, saying that provided the father is a citizen the mother somehow just goes along for the ride.

Your point about the clause “natural born citizen” not being in the Vattel English translation until 1797 is silly. The first English translation of Vattel was in 1759. In any event, many Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers were well versed in French. They read many books written in French. During the Founding, “naturels” (French) was translated into “natural born” and the whole world knew that “citoyens” (French) meant “citizens,” ergo “natural born citizen.” The early English translations of Vattel said “native, or indigenes.” But “indigenes” (French) meant “natives,” occurring naturally, “born in a country,” and coming into being from parents (especially the biological father) who belonged to that country. Hence, it also meant “natural-born citizen.”

The 1797 anonymous English translator of The Law of Nations, who lived at the time of the Founding, knew that the U.S. Constitution used the clause “natural born Citizen” and would have known from where that generation got its definition of that clause. He had to conclude that the Founding generation got their definition of “natural born citizen” from Vattel, for he inserted that very clause into Vattel’s English translation. By doing so he made sure to correct the English translation so as to reflect from where the founding generation got its definition of the clause. He therefore provided the correct translation and said “natives, or natural-born citizens.” He added “natural-born citizen” to give the technical name to those who were natives or indigenes to a nation, i.e., those born in a country to parents belonging to that nation. So by adding “natural-born citizen,” the translator gave a technical name to a description that was provided by the words “native” and “indigenes.” The many U.S. Supreme Court cases that I have cited also credit Vattel for the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” These cases use “indigenes” (Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus) or “natural born citizen” (all the rest) interchangeably and provide Vattel’s definition of the clause, a definition that provides the cause an effect factors needed to create a “natural-born citizen.” I have an essay that I will be publishing on the 1797 English translation of Vattel and how it proves that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers got their meaning of the “natural born Citizen” clause from Vattel.

js said...

Found this at the Federalist Blog.

Its very interesting that this pops up in the US v. WKA decision, because when we start to recognize judicial error, documenting it to its origin is an essential step in its correction.

h2ooflife said...


Mario said to h2ooflife;
You deny Vattel as the most direct source upon which the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers relied for their definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

Actually, I deny that the phrase nbc even existed until it was of necessity created into order to prevent an alien-born born citizen from assuming the presidency, or from another perspective, to prevent a natural citizen by fiction of law from becoming President.
Vattel never invented nor used the phrase so it can't be ascribed to him as being the source of a definition of an English language phrase that didn't exist in French and also didn't exist in English until it was of necessity invented to describe the citizenship required of Presidents. I welcome your attempt to prove otherwise.

Mario wrote; "Before you also objected to Vattel’s use of the word “parents” in the plural, saying that the mother had no role in creating a “natural born citizen.” That is a mischaracterization. I simply pointed out that her citizenship was irrelevent because it was automatically the same as her husbands. They were one and indistinguishable in every way. But the father was the head of the family and nationality descended from him unless he was dead before his child's birth. Only then, if the mother was a foreigner who then returned to her own nation, did her foreign citizenship have significant relevance over that of her child.

"The first English translation of Vattel was in 1759", but in fact it did NOT contain the words natural born citizen. They first appeared on 1798.
Your dissection of Vattel's use of the words "les naturels" is fatally flawed on several fronts. If you truly sought the unbiased truth you would recognize them. First is that naturels is not singular but plural, hence it is synonymous with natives. What you fail to grasp is that there is no single English word that is synonymous with native although there was one in French. Hence one must invent a meaning, but an accurate version does not change the context of the word, yet the employment of the word "citizen" completely changes the context because citizenship is only related to Nations and not to the natural organism of "a country" which may or may not be organized into a nation. The natural members of country are "the natives or natural inhabitants" i.e., "les naturels or les indigenes". You falsely injected the word citizen where it is in fact not even found. You need to reexamine that error. Then it will dawn on you that you have misread and misinterpreted what Vattel said. You take presumptuous license with his words, bending them to your doctrine about him writing in stone an infallible and unchanging Definition, when all he was doing was pointing out who the natural members of countries and nations are from the perspective of life within a country or nation, contrasting them with foreigners, -not with citizens born over the border.

Fogbow Foggy said...

The archive of my show is up now. You can find it here.

Of course, I know you'll declare victory after listening.

However, the main difference between your version of the law and mine is that mine has been upheld by courts all across this great nation over the past four years, while yours has been uniformly rejected.

If that's a victory for you, you're more than welcome to it.

I'm flying to L.A. on Friday morning for the meetup with 16 or 18 members of my forum. We've become good friends in a way that no birthers ever have done. Why don't you have a barbecue at your house one day, Mario, like one of the lawyers in L.A. is doing Friday night, and see if you can get 16 birthers to show up? ;-)

'Course, I'd be taking a lot of grief from all the lawyers this weekend if I had mangled my performance on Prof. Kuck's show. Instead, the consensus seems to be that I did a good job cleaning up the sloppy mess you made on Prof. Kuck's floor.

Have a nice weekend and I'll look forward to reading your anal-ysis of how I lost the argument on Prof. Kuck's show.

Fogbow Foggy said...

js, your idea of "foreign allegiance at birth" is just laughably lame. A newborn baby doesn't have allegiance to any country. You might as well say a child has a religion at birth.

A newborn baby has allegiance to his mother's milk, and that's about the limit of his political and religious affiliations.

Allegiance at birth, my butt.

h2ooflife said...

"The 1797 anonymous English translator of The Law of Nations, ...knew that the U.S. Constitution used the clause “natural born Citizen” and would have known from where that generation got its definition of that clause."

How could they get a definition of a clause from Vattel when he never even used it? The founders were the ones that invented it, and not as a clause but as a phrase, meaning a string of words that describe something. I repeat; DESCRIBE something, -not define it. There was no need to define a clause because no clause existed. But the words did, and the meaning of those words are found in the words themselves, not in a French philosophy writing that described the natural members of a country who are also the natural citizens of the nation founded within the country.

"He therefore provided the correct translation and said “natives, or natural-born citizens.” He added “natural-born citizen” to give the technical name to those who were natives or indigenes to a nation,".
Before replying, I should point out your predilection to place a hyphen between "natural" and "born" as if natural modifies the word "born" when in fact it modifies the word "citizen" instead. I repeat, there is no such term as "natural-born" except as a counterpart to Cesarian section. There is only "born citizens" and "natural citizens", and when it comes to the office of the President, one must be both, hence the combination of the words.

Your erroneous understanding is the result of not comprehending the distinction between countries and nations. They are NOT interchangeable concepts. The people and nation of Kuwait still existed in exile even after having to abandon their country. You need to grasp that nations are one thing and countries are another. That fact is the reason why natives and citizens are also not interchangeable terms.
No country has citizens and no nation has natives. Only nations have citizens and only countries have natives. You are a native of America and a citizen of the United States.
You are not a native of the United States nor a citizen of America. If the U.S. government ceased to exist tomorrow, you would still be a native of America, just as the founders were natives of their home colonies, thus making them natural born subjects of the governments of those colonies, and after the Revolution, citizens of their founding republics.

Vattel was not attempting to establish a definition that would be adopted in the future for the U.S. presidency. You have no logical counter to the position that he was not assuming the authority to internationally establish a legal definition since he had no such authority and was only attempting to illuminate the essentially universal situation in which countries and nations are constituted.
Anyone could have made the same observation because it is self-evident. But no one would view such a description as a definition because definitions are MORE than descriptions since definitions always contain precise parameters that are inviolable while descriptions only contain some of the parameters.
It is about time you did a re-think about what Vattel actually wrote and what he did NOT write. And stop conflating citizen with native and country with nation, and "natural" with a combo of jus soli and jus sanguinis.
PS. I spent the afternoon writing a new exposition titled: Jus Soli & Jus Sanguinis Citizenship vs. Obama’s Legitimacy Its online at http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/06/19/jus-soli-jus-sanguinis-citizenship/ It illuminates both forms of citizenship and how they relate to "natural born citizen".

js said...

jus sanguinis
(Law) Law the principle that a person's nationality at birth is the same as that of his natural parents Compare jus soli
[Latin, literally: law of blood]

Honestly, the deep seated problems you have with the truth may trigger off that tingly feeling you get when you listen to the One read speeches of his teleprompter.

Nice to see you studied Alinsky's rules for radicals. Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

Got it. If you cant dazzle us with brilliance, baffle us with BS.

You suck at this Foggy.

The one thing for sure, the nature of your post demonstrates your inability to prove that the lie you push is the truth.

We handed you your butt in a hand basket. Why are you still here.

js said...

There goes foggy, gloating about himself.

Face it, SCOTUS has made a lot of mistakes, most of the really impact us substantially more than the government wants to let us believes.

Take the Dred Scott Case as an example. The Court ruled that people of African descent were not protected by the Constitution and they were not U.S. citizens. In one part of the opinion, Chief Justice Taney goes so far as to say blacks were never thought of as any more than possessions. That flies in the face of everything the US Constitution stands for, where all men are created equal.

Sorry sucker, you can gloat all you want but the whole truth is that while you are wallowing about in the mud with the backstabbers, liars and cheats that call themselves judges and lawyers and educated men, those left with honor and dignity hold the torch of Justice just like our forefathers did.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

h2ooflife,

Your response to what I have written about the 1797 Vattel English translation being solid evidence on the meaning that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers gave to the “natural born Citizen” clause makes little sense. You do not really address what I say. Rather, you go off on your way and just give us a lot of mixed up talk.

What is ironic is that the Obots for over 4 years have contended that because the clause “natural-born citizen” did not appear in Vattel’s treatise until the English translation of 1797, that there is no way that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers could have relied upon Vattel when they inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause into Constitution in 1787 and 1789. On the contrary, I have demonstrated that the fact that the anonymous translator inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause into Vattel’s treatise in 1797 proves that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers did, in fact, rely upon Vattel for their definition of a “natural born Citizen.”

h2ooflife said...

Is everyone here familiar with the Federalist Blog and its essay titled: What ‘Subject to the Jurisdiction Thereof’ Really Means

http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/
It cuttingly skins the monstrous holding of the Gray court in the Wong ruling. I've read devastating critiques of it before but this one is new to me, and highly revealing. It was written in 2006 so the dependence of the Obama camp on distorting the 14th Amendment didn't even factor into its authoring. If you haven't read it since then, it is very much worth a revisit as it knee-caps the opposition that relies on the Attorney General's bastardized interpretation of the bastardized court holding.

h2ooflife said...

Mario, I have demonstrated clearly and logically that what you claim about reliance on a translation that didn't exist is without any basis in fact or reason. My words were so clear that children could easily understand them, unless they approach them with a bigoted mind that rejects any truth that comes from outside of the closed system in which they reign as a king of jurisprudence.
You stoop so low as to openly belittle the obvious truth that I explained and which you are totally unable to address and refute but instead you devolve into characterizing the clear facts of the matter as making little sense, and as "a lot of mixed up talk".
In what crazy world is that a refutation? In what court on earth would such a refutation of evidence be tolerated except a closed-minded inflexible deflecting and dissimulating court? That is what you are petrified into since your subconscious will not allow you to contemplate any deviation from lock-step with your embraced doctrine. In your closed little world all contrary logic and facts be damned.
I gave you the indisputable facts and you did not refute a one of them because you cannot refute the truth with falsehoods and so you didn't even attempt to. Instead you resorted to a pathetically dishonest intellectual evasion via belittlement and reassertion of your own infallible view.
Since it is clear once again that your mind is as closed as a clam, and as inflexible as porcelain, I shall take my leave of your unacceptable pig-headedness.
He who is unable to question his own beliefs is one who is unteachable.

js said...

h2ooflife said "How could they get a definition of a clause from Vattel when he never even used it?"

Vattel never spoke English, so you are correct is that part that he would never use the term. However, his meaning was sufficient for the founding fathers to draw that definition, or do you suggest that none of them would have the ability to speak and understand French? Get real, stop the childish games.

This is from John Woodman It shows that the concept of a natural born citizen was not unfamiliar to English common law either, it was just applied with out the term.


In 1701, the English Parliament passed a law excluding, from public office, foreign-born persons of non-English parents:

...no person born out of the Kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a denizen), except such as are born of English parents, shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or a member of either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements or hereditaments from the Crown, to himself or to any other or others in trust for him; (Act of Settlement, 1701)

According to Cunningham's Law Dictionary (1764 and 1783 editions), foreigners -- even those who had become English subjects by denization or naturalization -- were ineligible to hold public office in England:

Foreigners, Though made denizens or naturalized here, are disabled to bear offices in the government, to be of the Privy council, members of Parliament, &c. by acts of settlement of the crown. (Cunningham, 1771, vol.2, p.82, under "Foreigner")

Status at birth: Natural born citizenship is conferred only at birth and cannot be acquired in later life [27]. Thus, the presidential natural born citizen provision, in the Constitution, pertains only to one's legal status at the time of one's birth.

The natural born citizen provision does not necessarily exclude all possible categories of foreigners from the presidency. It only excludes persons who were "foreigners" at birth.

When the Constitution was written, there were only two ways that a child could be a "foreigner" (a citizen or subject of a foreign country) at birth:
• by being born in a foreign country; or
• by being born of a parent who is a citizen or subject of a foreign country.

If you were born in the United States and both of your parents were exclusively U.S. citizens at the time of your birth, you were, without doubt, free of foreign influence at birth -- you were, without doubt, not a foreign citizen at birth and not under any foreign legal or political jurisdiction at birth. On the other hand, if you were born outside of the United States or if either one of your parents was not a U.S. citizen exclusively when you were born, you might have acquired foreign nationality, in addition to U.S. citizenship, at birth.

The only way to guarantee that the president does not acquire any foreign nationality at birth, is to require that the president be born in the United States, of parents who are both citizens of the United States exclusively.

Summary: On September 4, 1787, the Constitutional Convention adopted the presidential "natural born citizen" provision. The stated purpose of this provision was to exclude "foreigners" from the presidency. Since "natural born citizen" pertains only to one's status at the time of one's birth, the only "foreigners" that the provision could have possibly excluded were persons who were "foreigners" (foreign citizens or subjects) at birth.

James said...

"I'm flying to L.A. on Friday morning for the meetup with 16 or 18 members of my forum. We've become good friends in a way that no birthers ever have done. Why don't you have a barbecue at your house one day, Mario, like one of the lawyers in L.A. is doing Friday night, and see if you can get 16 birthers to show up?"

I'm afraid I have agree with Foggy on this. For the past 5 years, birthers have been unable to create a coordinated network and this has been major flaw. In addition, many birthers are driven by HATE and this is problem too.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

h2ooflife continues to spew nonsensical materials here regarding the 1797 English translation of Emer de Vattel's The Law of Nations.

As I will demonstrate in my up-coming essay, the anonymous English translator inserting the “natural-born citizen” clause into Vattel’s Section 212 of The Law of Nations in 1797, which he did only eight years after the Constitution was ratified in 1789, convincingly proves that the Founders’, Framers’, and Ratifiers’ source of the definition of the “natural-born citizen” clause was Emer de Vattel and the law of nations and not William Blackstone and the English common law.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

What is hilarious is that the Obots maintain that my position on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is frivolous and has long been discarded. But if my position is so frivolous and is contrary to “well-settled” law, how could we have such a statement from one of the Obots’ main researchers and writers on the subject:

“I didn’t come to the conclusion that the birther claims are doomed lightly. It took me many hundreds of hours of research to reach that conclusion.”

John Woodman,
http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/02/i-destroy-michaelns-rebuttal-to-the-open-letter-to-mario-apuzzo/#comment-809

So, it took Woodman “many hundreds of hours of research to reach that conclusion.” Incidentally, despite Woodman’s countless hours of research, he reached the wrong conclusion.

Frank Bailey said...

Mario Apuzzo said

So, it took Woodman “many hundreds of hours of research to reach that conclusion.” Incidentally, despite Woodman’s countless hours of research, he reached the wrong conclusion.

I believe Woodman is referring to the time he spent in total reviewing the all the Birther claims including the ones about the LFBC. That was the subject of his book and not the definition of NBC. He later spent quite a bit of time and wrote many excellent articles on the subject of the definition of natural born citizen.

Of course it is merely your opinion that Woodman is wrong. Unlike yours his opinion on NBC is the one the courts have upheld and the one that has been held by the vast majority of attorneys and historians who have ever written on the subject.

Most people would merely read the Wong Kim Ark decision and realize that the question has been settled since 1898. That is what Charles Kuck said the other day on his show.

js said...

Leo Donofrio did a TON of work on this. His site says that Woodman used a lot of his work. Guess its easy to twist and spin when you don't care about the truth.

4zoltan said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

I just listened to Professor Kuck's interviews of both you and Mr. Bryan.

http://www.americaswebradio.com/showpages/immigrationHour.php

In the Bryan interview, Professor Kuck says that jus soli is based on 'natural law" and jus sanguine is "actually a civil law creation".

@28:40

Later, Professor Kuck says "[w]hat the Supreme Court said in Minor is that we are not going to tell you what a natural born citizen as it pertains to whether both parents are born here or not."

Discussion of dicta begins at 41:00.

Professor Kuck says that the Minor case is dicta for the definition of NBC.

Any comments?

dick head said...

the minor case is dicta for NBC? 9supreme court justices were all in agreement that the common law definition "in the nomenclature of the Framers" of a NBC/ native is a child born in a country to parents who are its citizens and this was never in doubt. Chief justice John Marshall used the same definition in the Venus. Game, set, match.

Justin said...

I just noticed this. The Obots claim that natural born citizen means born a citizen (under any circumstances). Yet Black's defines natural born as "the term applying to the person who is born in the country where they are a citizen." If Black's is to be considered the definitive authority on terms of art this proves beyond all doubt the Obots are wrong. It also of course means that children born overseas to two citizen parents would be ineligible and the children born in the US to transient or illegal aliens would be eligible. How anyone could find that fair or proper is beyond me.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Justin,

I of II

Black's Law Dictionary does not even come close to being authoritative in defining a "natural born Citizen." Hence, 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 Fifth edition published in 1979 did not mention let alone define the clause “natural born citizen.” While Black’s finally got around to attempting to define a “natural born citizen” in the Sixth edition, it provides no primary sources that support its definition. Third, 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.” Fourth, while we are on dictionaries, 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?”

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

But Bouvier's dictionary is authoritative. John Bouvier, in his highly-renowned law dictionary, defined a “native” or “native citizen,” both under the English common law (giving Blackstone as the root source) and the American common law (giving Morse as the root source), thus:

“Native, Native Citizen. A natural-born subject. 1 Bla. Com. 366. Those born in a country, of parents who are citizens. Morse, Citizenship 12. See CITIZEN. There is no distinction between native born as used in the French Extradition treaty and natural born as used in the extradition act; 37 W.R. 269” (emphasis in the original).

2 John Bouvier, BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY AND CONCISE ENCYCLOPEDIA 2297 (3rd revision, 8th ed., by Francis Rawle, Kansas City, Mo., Vernon Law Book Co., St. Paul, Minn., West Pub., 1914. 3 vols).

This edition of Bouvier’s dictionary was published after the landmark citizenship case of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, which was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1898. Hence, editor Francis Rawle would have had the benefit of that decision when providing the definition of “native, native citizen.” We can readily see in Bouvier’s definitions how he gave one definition for the English common law and another for the American common law. Calling the citizen class “native” or “native citizen,” under the English common law he referred to a “natural born subject.” Under the American common law, like Vattel, he defined a “native born” to have the same meaning as a “natural-born citizen.” Bouvier, when providing the American common law definition, gave the same definition to “native” and “native citizen” that Vattel gave to “native’ and “natural-born citizen” in his Section 212 of The Law of Nations. Bouvier even said that there was no difference between “native born” and “natural born.” In other words, the word “native” and “natural-born citizen” had the same definition for both Vattel and Bouvier. And he defined both the “natives, or natural-born citizens” as “those born in a country, of parents who are citizens.” The only difference between Bouvier and Vattel is that Vattel used “born in the country” and Bouvier used “born in a country.” It should be noted that Minor, in its definition of a “natural-born citizen” used “born in a country.”

Bouvier’s dictionary has been recognized by our U.S. Supreme Court as one of the best dictionaries ever published in the United States on American law. The Samuel Roberts and John Bouvier works are critically important. They prove that we have been right about the correct American common law (not English common law) definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” from day one. And that American common law definition, as confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), is a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.

What is humorous is how the Obots rely on the definition of a "natural born Citizen" from Black's Law Dictionary, which is not authoritative, but they do not mention the definition of that clause provided by Bouvier's dictionary, which is authoritative.

4zoltan said...

Justin,

"How anyone could find that fair or proper is beyond me."

Chief Justice Fuller in his dissent of the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark agrees with

"Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

4zoltan,

Justice Gray did not even address Chief Justice Fuller's presidential eligibility comment other than to say that the Court was answering “the single question, stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parents of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicile and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States.” The Court answered the question affirmatively. So, the Court said that Wong became at the time of his birth a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. It did not say that he became at the time of his birth a “natural-born citizen” under the common law mentioned by Minor which the Court cited and quoted on that exact common law rule. Justice Gray therefore told Chief Justice Fuller that the majority was not holding that Wong was a "natural-born citizen" and therefore eligible to be President, but only a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment which had not repealed or amended Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause.

While Justice Gray was wrong in finding that the English common law after 1790 had any further application in the United States for defining national citizenship and in fudging his interpretation and application of the “subject to the jurisdiction” clause to arrive at his conclusion that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, at least Justice Gray had much better sense than did the New York Court in Lynch which went from granting Julia a piece of New York real estate through inheritance under state law to telling us that she was also potentially eligible to sit in the Office of President. If the Wong Court believed like the Lynch court believed of Julia, that it was making Wong a “natural-born citizen” and therefore eligible to be President, there was nothing preventing it from telling us as did Lynch, especially in light of Chief Justice Fuller raising the issue in his dissent.

While I am on this issue of whether Wong Kim Ark held Wong to be eligible to be President, the amicus brief in Wong Kim Ark that supported the Government’s position that Wong was not a “citizen” also raised the same presidential eligibility issue. But argument of counsel contained in his brief filed with the court is not the holding of the court.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:

“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen” (underlining “born” in the original).

Jay did not want the office of the Commander in Chief of the Military being held by anyone who was not a “natural born citizen.” Jay asked for a “strong check to the admission of Foreigners.” Jay asked for a “strong check.” This means that he wanted the greatest exclusion possible of “foreigners” from that special office. The Convention accepted Jay’s recommendation that the Commander’s office be held only by a “natural born citizen,” but only for those born after the adoption of the Constitution. For those born before that time, they could be just “Citizens of the United States.” Given Jay’s statement, a “foreigner” could not be a “natural born citizen.”

One way that Jay’s statement can be used to discover the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is to determine how Jay and the Founding generation defined a “foreigner.” If we know how they defined a “foreigner,” then we know that that person could not be a “natural born Citizen.” So how did Jay and the Framers define a “foreigner?” The answer to our question is provided by, among other sources, the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875), where the Court explained:

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

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875). Let us analyze what the Court said which can help us determine how the Framers defined a “foreigner.” The Court said that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is found at common law. The Framers were familiar with this common law and so they relied upon it for their definition of a “natural-born citizen.” The Court then said: “[I]t 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.” What is critical to understand in this statement is that the Court gave us language of exclusion. In other words, at common law, any person who was not “born in a country, of parents who were its citizens,” were neither “citizens” nor “natural-born citizens,” but rather “aliens or foreigners.”

Continue . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

There we have it said by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court. At common law, any child who was not born in the country to parents who were its “citizen” at the time of the child’s birth was a “foreigner.” And according to the Court, this is what the common law said with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution. So now we know that any child who was born in the country to alien parents, or out of the country to “citizen” parents, or out of the country to alien parents was not a “natural-born citizen,” but rather alien born and in need of naturalization. The Court told us that these children were “foreigners.” Hence, Jay did not consider them as “natural born citizens” which means that they were not eligible to be Commander in Chief of the Military.

We also know that Congress through its naturalization power could take any such child who was a “foreigner” at common law and make that child a “citizen,” either at birth or after birth. But Congress could not make that child a “natural-born citizen,” for only a person meeting the constitutional common law definition of a “natural-born citizen” and therefore not needing Congress’s naturalization laws could be a “natural-born citizen.” That our early Congresses felt bound by and therefore followed this exact constitutional common law rule is evidenced by the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, which all treated children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and in need of naturalization and children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents at first as “natural born citizens” (1790 Act), but then (1795 and after) only as “citizens of the United States.”

So, we have seen who the common law and therefore the Framers considered “foreigners.” These were children who were not born in the country to “citizen” parents. Hence, the only children who were “natural born citizens” under that common law were those born in the country to “citizen” parents. Of all the persons born after the adoption of the Constitution, these are the only persons to whom Jay would have entrusted the office of Commander in Chief of the Military.

Justin said...

I just used Black's because that's what an Obot used while arguing Cruz was eligible on Salon. I pointed out his own definition contradicted his assertion that NBC means CAB. Now if you combine Black's definition with the idea that to be granted US citizenship in 1789 you had to be born to a citizen father we get NBC meaning born in a country to citizen parents.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Justin,

I of III

The Obots and those of like mind do not have anything that supports their revisionist definition of a “natural born citizen,” i.e., any child who is a citizen at birth is a “natural born citizen.” Here is their game plan, and this list is not exhaustive:

They rely upon the colonial English common law and William Blackstone which our nation repudiated with the American Revolution on the national level, never became incorporated into our national law, and which had selective application only in the states;

They deny the authority of the law of nations and Emer de Vattel, both of which were highly influential in the founding and in constituting the new republic, denying that the law of nations became part of the laws of the United States and therefore part of our national common law, and denying that our U.S. Supreme Court specifically adopted as part of our national common law Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen” which is: “The native, or natural-born citizens,” are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens, ” in the following cases:

They deny the he James McClure citizenship case of 1811. Publius wrote in The Alexandria Herald on October 7, 1811: “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.”). The James Madison Administration ruled that McClure, who was born in South Carolina after the Revolution to a British father, was not a “natural born citizen,” but rather alien born who naturalized to become a “citizen of the United States” under the 1802 Naturalization Act when his British father naturalized and when McClure was dwelling in the United States. This is solid evidence that the early naturalization acts applied to children born in the United States and treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens.

The Venus (1814) (Chief Justice John Marshall) (“The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”);

Inglis (1830) (“2. If born after the 4th of July 1776, and before the 15th of September of the same year, when the British took possession of New York, his infancy incapacitated him from making any election for himself, and his election and character followed that of his father, subject to the right of disaffirmance in a reasonable time after the termination of his minority; which never having been done, he remains a British subject, and disabled from inheriting the land in question.” Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 120-27, 3 Pet. 99. (1830). If the the child was born in New York when it was a new state to alien parents, the Court declared the child an alien.);

Shanks (1830) (Justice Story stating: “If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country.” Justice Johnson, dissenting for other reasons, said that Ann Scott “was a native born citizen of South Carolina, daughter of a native born citizen of North Carolina,” and that her being a citizen of South Carolina at the moment of her birth was established by the “leading maxim[] of common law,” “proles sequitur sortem paternam,” which means “the offspring follows the condition of the father.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1091 (5th ed. 1979);

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of III

Dred Scott (1857) (Justice Daniels concurring) (“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”);

Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1883) (“Vattel says: ‘ Society not being able to subsist and perpetuate itself, but by the children of its citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to all their rights.’ B. 1, ch. 19, § 212.”);

Minor v. Happersett (1898) (nine U.S. Supreme Court Justices explaining: “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.”); and

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (“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,” citing and quoting Minor).

They deny the words of Founders, David Ramsay, St. George Tucker, Justice James Wilson, and others which show that they defined a “natural born citizen” as someone born to U.S. citizen parents.

They deny a plain reading of the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 which treated all children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and in need of naturalization.

They deny that the definition of a “natural-born citizen” as confirmed by all this history and case law excludes from that status any child born in the United States to one or two non-U.S. citizen parents.

They rely upon Lynch which is only a New York state case involving inheritance of real estate whose soundness outside the state inheritance area was questioned by Munro v. Merchant, 26 Barbour’s (New York Rep.) 400, 401, and Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356, 371 (1883) and eventually even overruled by the New York legislature in 1860 on the question of New York state citizenship.

They rely upon a tortured and dishonest reading of the Fourteenth Amendment with does not nor was it intended to define a “natural born citizen” and which does not even contain the words “natural born citizen” which we know is an Article II word of art.

They denying a plain reading of Minor v. Happersett (1875) in which the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court told us that a “natural-born citizen is not defined in the Fourteenth Amendment and clearly paraphrased Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen” and thereby confirmed the American national common law definition of a “natural-born citizen,” which is a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.

They rely upon a tortured and dishonest reading of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) which only construed the Fourteenth Amendment (which both Minor and Wong Kim Ark told us did not define a “natural-born citizen”) and not Article II and which held Wong to be a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth and not a “natural-born citizen” and on the contrary, specifically recognized the distinction between a “citizen of the United States” at birth and a “natural born citizen,” adding that only a child born in the county to citizen parents was the latter.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of III

They rely upon dictionaries which are not authoritative on the definition of a “natural born citizen” such as Blacks’s Law Dictionary which, while authoritative in general, only defined the clause for the first time in 1979, but deny the authority and the words of Bouvier’s Dictionary which explained just after the Wong Kim Ark decision was decided in 1989 that a “native, native citizen” under Blackstone and the English common law was a “natural-born subject,” but under Morse and American law was defined as “[t]hose born in a country, of parents who are citizens,” which was the definition of a “natural-born citizen.”

They deny that there is a constitutional distinction between a “natural-born citizen” and a “native born” citizen even though Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U. S. 163 (1964), said: “We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the ‘natural born’ citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1. . . . Distinctions between native-born and naturalized citizens in connection with foreign residence are drawn in the Constitution itself. Only a native-born may become President, Art. II, § 1.” Id. at 165.

They rely on Congressional Legislative Attorney, Jack Maskell, and his 2011 CRS memo’s argument that any person who is a citizen from the moment of birth, regardless of the citizenship of the parents, is a “natural born citizen,” even though as I have demonstrated in my essay above his argument is logically invalid. That all “natural born citizens” are citizens from birth does make all citizens from birth “natural born citizens.” We have also seen that even if Maskell’s argument is recast to present a valid argument such as that all citizens from birth are “natural born citizens” (the major premise) which makes anyone born a citizen a “natural born citizen,” the argument is unsound (false) because there is no historical or legal evidence which demonstrates that the argument’s major premise, all citizens from birth are “natural born citizens,” is true.

These Founders and this line of cases which carried forward from as early as 1814 Vattel and his definition of a “natural-born citizen” amply demonstrate that the clause’s definition comes from the law of nations as explained by Vattel in Section 212 of his The Law of Nations and not from Blackstone and the English common law. In fact, these authorities do not mention Blackstone or the English common law as defining a “natural-born citizen.”

As we can see, the Obots are entangled in a web of distortions, misstatements, lies, and denials, all buttressed with their arrogance, haughtiness, and snark. They do not speak one iota of truth on the question of what is a “natural born citizen,” which historical and legal evidence demonstrates is a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.

dick head said...

well said mario, you are a good american who has respect for the brave and wise men who founded our country.

Squeeky said...

Hi Mario Apuzzo, Esq.!!!

You will be happy to know that I just made a decision on your Motion For Injunctive Relief in Apuzzo v. Cruz!!!

Here is the link, and please feel free to post any of it here that you please.

http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/with-2020-foresight-the-once-and-future-apuzzo/

Squeeky Fromm
Artsy Fartsy Girl Reporter

PS: I denied your Motion.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Judge Squeeky Fromm,

I of III

With all due respect, your decision is poorly reasoned. Your reasoning suffers from misstatement of the law and logical shortcomings which are:

You state that Minor did not define or deal with children born inside the United States to alien parents. This is incorrect. Minor told us that at common law with which the Framers were familiar, such children were “aliens or foreigners.”

You state that the clause “natural born citizen” “was discussed at length in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.” This is false. Wong Kim Ark discussed at length an English “natural born subject.” Justice Swayne in Rhodes told us that neither a “citizen” nor a “natural born citizen” were defined by the English common law.

You quote Justice Gray’s “same rule” statement about the rule of the English common law continuing in the United States “to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.” This statement does not prove that a “natural born citizen” was defined under English common law and not under the law of nations. What this statement means is that through the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the states, which selectively adopted the English common law until abrogated by state legislatures, decided who were their citizens and that they to some undefined degree used the jus soli English common law rule to make that decision. These state citizens became “citizens of the United States” upon the adoption of the Constitution. But then in 1790, Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, followed by that of 1795, 1802, and 1855. After that, the states, to whatever degree they still applied the English common law, could no longer naturalize anyone after birth and their state citizens were no longer recognized as national citizens or what the Constitution called “citizens of the United States.” The only common law rule that Congress did not nor could abrogate was that of the law of nations/American national common law which the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers used to certainly and uniformly define a “natural born citizen.” And that definition was a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.

You state that “citizens at birth” to be the legal equivalent of natural born citizenship. But you, like Jack Maskell, beg the question that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born citizens.” Other than just assuming, also like Jack Maskell, that your statement is true, you fail to provide any evidence that your statement is true. Hence, that the Fourteenth Amendment or a Congressional Act might declare someone born either in the United States or out of it to be a “citizen at birth” does not prove that that person is a “natural born citizen.”

Regarding whether children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents are “natural-born citizens,” the Naturalization Act of 1790 does not help you because the 1795 Act, with the work of James Madison, repealed it and replaced “natural born citizen” with “citizen of the United States.” Despite your statement that Congress never did so, the 1795 Act shows that “Congress intended to limit the rights of foreign born citizens at birth to some quanta less than that of a natural born citizen.” Furthermore, Wong Kim Ark informed us that the Fourteenth Amendment “has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents, and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” So, Wong Kim Ark told us that children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents become “citizens at birth” under Congress’s naturalization powers. That means they are naturalized at birth. By your own argument, if they are naturalized, they cannot be “natural born citizens,” regardless of when they obtain their citizenship.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of III

Your American serviceman example does not help you. As I have always argued, under Vattel’s Section 217, a child born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents serving the defense of the United States (“the armies of the state”) is reputed born in the United States and therefore a “natural born citizen.” This rule makes John McCain a “natural born citizen” regardless of where in Panama he may have been born.

Your 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) example also fails. That Congress may choose to pass a statute acting upon “natural born citizens” does not make those persons naturalized citizens. Your point is absurd.

You engage in invalid logical argument, arguing: All "natural born citizens" are "citizens at birth," and since Ted Cruz is a "citizen at birth," he is a "natural born Citizen." This argument violates the rule of the undistributed middle. It is also fallacious for affirming the consequent. As I have already explained, Jack Maskell commits the same logical errors. And again when you argue: All “natural born citizens are not naturalized citizens. Since Ted Cruz is not a naturalized citizen, he is a “natural born citizen.” Do you not understand that you cannot arrive at an affirmative conclusion by way of one or even two negative premises?

You argue that “natural born citizens” are not naturalized citizens. Citizens “may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” You add that Cruz is a “born citizen” and not a naturalized citizen. You conclude that since he is “born a citizen” and not naturalized, he must be a “natural born citizen.” Your argument fails because you fail to understand how “born citizen” are made. “Born citizens” may be made by American national common law, by the Fourteenth Amendment, or by Acts of Congress. Per Minor, only the ones made by American common law are “natural born Citizens.” Those made by the Fourteenth Amendment and Acts of Congress are “citizens of the United States” at birth. So, as you can see, just being a “born citizen” or “citizen at birth” does not automatically make one a “natural born citizen.”

Your argument that since parentage is irrelevant for “citizens at birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment, therefore it must also be irrelevant for “natural born citizens” fails for at least two reasons. One, you beg the question that the Fourteenth Amendment defines a “natural born citizen.” You might say it, but you do not prove it. Second, as I have shown above, there are different types of “citizens at birth,” and that parentage might not be relevant to one type does not mean it is not relevant to another type (which is the “natural born citizen” type).

You argue that there is no sign of Vattel post Wong Kim Ark and therefore Vattel is dead. This is false. Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen,” being a paraphrase of Vattel’s Section 212, comes from Vattel. Wong Kim Ark did not disturb that definition nor did it have to to find that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor has any other decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. Hence, Vattel still lives and reigns after Wong Kim Ark and even to the present.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of III

You fail to understand this fundamental truth--that one becomes at once a “citizen at birth” and does not need naturalization does not mean that one was not naturalized. See Calvin’s Case (1608) which was decided in England in 1608. That case proves that being a “citizen at birth” can entail having been naturalized at birth which necessarily excludes one from being a true “natural born citizen.” You fail to understand this fundamental truth--that one becomes at once a “citizen at birth” and does not need naturalization does not mean that one was not naturalized. Calvin was born to Scottish parents in the country of Scotland, after 1603, the year in which the English throne under the Tudor dynasty descended to the Stuart King, James VI of Scotland, making him James I, King of both England and Scotland. Since Calvin was born after 1603, he was considered a postnati. The English Parliament for political and social reasons refused to naturalize the Scottish Calvin as an English “natural born subject” by statute. Since Parliament would not naturalize him by statute, it was decided by the King’s men that they would get the courts to do so by common law (judge made law). Lord Coke found that under natural law Calvin at birth, having been born in the King’s dominion (Scotland), owed natural allegiance to James as King of England and Scotland, by owing that allegiance to the natural body (as distinguished from his political body and the laws of England that came with it) of the King who reigned over both kingdoms. So because Calvin owed natural allegiance to the natural body of the King and that natural King also ruled over England, Lord Coke found that Calvin also owed allegiance to the King as King of England. So it did not matter that Calvin at birth was not bound by the laws of England. What mattered was that by natural law he was bound by natural allegiance to the King who also ruled over England. Lord Coke then, from the single circumstance of Calvin being born in the King’s dominion, naturalized Calvin at birth and ruled that he was a “natural born subject” of England. Calvin’s Scottish parents (the antenati) were eventually naturalized by statute as English subjects. Calvin’s case proves the fundamental rule that gaining subject status at birth under the English common law rather than a statute does not prove that one is a “natural born citizen,” for that status was gained through judicial naturalization at birth; See also Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 214 Naturalisation (1758) (correctly understanding Calvin’s Case said: “Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner”); Wong Kim Ark (said that persons who are born abroad to U.S “citizen” parents are naturalized by Congressional Acts; Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815(1971) (considers persons born abroad to U.S. citizen parents to be naturalized at birth; J. Black dissenting in Bellei also said: "All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependent on congressional enactment are forms of naturalization").

paraleaglenm said...

There are only two political conditions in which the national allegiance of a father has no bearing on the allegiance or citizenship of the child at birth:
1.Feudal Monarchy
2.Slaveholder’s property rights over the issue of his slaves

I want you to think about this as you read further, because the condition of property and subjection is clearly apparent in the above, while one would think rights of the father predominate in free societies, especially a constitutional republic in which the government is crafted to be ‘subject’ to the citizens, not the other way around.

And, then there is the United States, which is the only 'pure' jus soli birthright citizenship nation in the world.

Of course, the existence of an alien father introduces conflicts of dual nationality, but there are statutory provisions for that, jus soli however the dominant principle.

Congress can add a legislative history and definition of 'under the jurisdiction thereof' to 8 USC 1401 (the statutory mirror of the 14th Amendment as misinterpreted by Wong Kim Ark), but most congressmen follow judicial error as infallible.

I have discussed the issue with a couple congressmen who actually took the time to respond, but they rely solely on lower court judicial notice and error, their reliance on a 1608 English case . . . not one-hundred years of jus sanguinis that preceded Wong Kim Ark.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

js said...

The 14th Amendment uses the term jurisdiction; it does not provide or allow any exception, exclusion or limitation to that jurisdiction. It is a complete jurisdiction, unless the US Constitution indicates otherwise.

To that effect, any child born within the USA, who is, by birthright, subject to any other nation’s jurisdiction, does not qualify to be a US Citizen under the 14th Amendment. To attempt to argue that that jurisdiction is limited in scope is not substantiated under the US Constitution. The term Jurisdiction, as it is used, does not allow for partial, shared or limitations of any kind, but total jurisdiction, as it applied at the time of birth of the child.

This is how the children of slaves were protected after the Civil War. Their parents, who had no nationality, who were born in this country, and bore their child in this country, were denied citizenship by the confederate states, as were their children. The trigger of jurisdiction, not limited, nor partial nor shared with any other nation, gave citizenship to those children, and circumvented the States that refused to recognize citizenship for black men.

The Federal Government had no authority under the US Constitution to force any State to accept or award citizenship to any person that the States Republican form of government did not allow through the States own legislation. To create a law that awarded citizenship would usurp States Powers, and to change that Constitution, giving the Federal Government complete Jurisdiction over the award of citizenship, would remove existing States rights, penalizing all states, due to the bad acts of a few. Either Way, whatever their motivation, the words, specific and unwavering, demand a complete jurisdiction, as the Constitution does not allow for any exceptions to that Jurisdiction.

Any law that Congress passes, and is signed by the POTUS, that is in conflict with the US Constitution, is no law at all.

June 26, 2013 at 9:05 AM

h2ooflife said...

TITLE XXV CITIZENSHIP
SEC. 1999. Whereas the right of expatriation is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle this government has freely received emigrants from all nations, and invested them with the rights of citizenship; and whereas it is claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of foreign states, owing allegiance to the governments thereof; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of the public peace that this claim of foreign allegiance should be promptly and finally disavowed: Therefore any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of the Republic.

Here's more primal, original, inverted version: Whereas the right of NATURAL CITIZENSHIP is an inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; and whereas in the recognition of this principle this government has claimed that such American citizens, with their descendants, are subjects of no foreign states, -not owing allegiance to any other government; and whereas it is necessary to the maintenance of the public peace that their claim of singular American allegiance should be incontestably affirmed, therefore: Any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officer of the United States which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of NATURAL CITIZENSHIP, (regardless of location of birth) is declared inconsistent with the Fundamental Principles of the Republic.

h2ooflife said...

Mario wrote: "To that effect, any child born within the USA, who is, by birthright, subject to any other nation’s jurisdiction, does not qualify to be a US Citizen under the 14th Amendment."

That view is true by the authors' intent, but doesn't reflect the altered reality resulting from the Wong opinion. Because of the ambiguous wording of the amendment, for your statement to be unambiguously true it would have to have been worded thus: Only persons born in the United States,...,and subject ONLY to the United States, are citizens thereof...

But the word ONLY is missing, so it can't be asserted that it is present and controlling the meaning of the clause when it isn't, for better or worse.

The reason the founders despised the idea of dual citizenship was that it creates a situation in which a man actually IS subject to the fullest extent to two different nations, -which may prove to be an impossible situation if both nations decide to conscript such a citizen, -and even worse if they are enemies at war.
The Wong court's unspoken declaration was that immigrant fathers are fully subject to Washington, and through them, their children also since jurisdiction flows from the head of the family to its children. The side-effect was that thereafter immigrant males could be drafted.
If you were to read my lengthy exposition on the real meaning of jurisdiction, you would learn that only men were fully subject because only men were fully citizens. Women and children were a protected class. see "Bearing Arms, True Faith & Allegiance"
12 pages.

h2ooflife said...

"The English Parliament for political and social reasons refused to naturalize the Scottish Calvin as an English “natural born subject” by statute."

Your assumption that Calvin was naturalized at birth fails to recognize the complexity of such a case. It can be more logically argued that he was neither natural born nor naturalized at birth because by all circumstances except one, he was not an Englishman at all. Declaring him to be a natural born subject of the King is a devious machination of logic even though it is true, because that did not make him a natural born subject of England, the nation, since he was a natural born subject of Scotland, -a separate nation. Having one King of both did not unite the two into one united nation with one Parliament and court system and common law. To be English he needed to be naturalized by statute or edit.
The bastardization of language in that case is revealed by a reverse circumstance. If one English born were to seek from Scotland what Calvin sought from England, would he be a natural born Scot? Or a naturalized-at-birth Scot? No. He would be neither. Unnatural birth circumstances never result in natural membership in any country, but in his case, his Scottish birth was not unnatural or unusual.

Bellei also said: "All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependent on congressional enactment are forms of naturalization").
That is equally true of the Wong court's 14th Amendment since it's also a human enactment, even though it incorporates natural law.

But your point that naturalization at birth is a very real fact is vital to understanding the artificiality of human enacted citizenship.

h2ooflife said...

Mario wrote: "Per Minor, only the ones made by American common law are “natural born Citizens.”

The supposed "American common law" regarding citizenship did not exist. Citizenship was governed by natural law and state law or state constitutions. Ancillary issues (like inheritance) were a part of common law but State membership was not. That was determined by the rule of law or the rule of natural law that was incorporated as the governing principle of common law that was never codified.

States, as with the central government, didn't need to pass any law declaring that children of citizens were citizen also because that is self-evident and automatic, -not because of common law but because of natural law which common law followed.
Common law citizenship was actually just natural law membership that human law was patterned after, producing natural citizens of America by inheritance, jus sanguinis, -not needing the intervention nor permission of government.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


h2ooflife,

"To that effect, any child born within the USA, who is, by birthright, subject to any other nation’s jurisdiction, does not qualify to be a US Citizen under the 14th Amendment."

js made this statement, not me. I had to re-post js' comment because of the needed order of the comments.

js said...

Please explain exactly how Wong supersedes the Constitution...that just don't line up right.!!.

That statement is true by the US CONSTITUTION. It gives no exceptions, it shares jurisdiction with nobody, and that excludes anything not included in the Constitution. It is absolute jurisdiction at birth, nothing less, and nothing more. They made their point by not making exceptions or any other condition apply. They didn't need to make any other additions to what jurisdiction is.

What you are claiming is akin to saying that Congress does not have power to enforce this law, because the term power is not defined to the nth definition of power. The conditions of HOW they can enforce this law is set out in writing, in the amendment itself, which excludes other means without any question.

"The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

You don't have any other conditions establishing any exception, limitation, or splitting of jurisdiction. That indicates it is absolute Jurisdiction, and that the WONG case itself was a judicial error.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

h2ooflife,

The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor said that a "natural-born citizen" was defined under the common law the nomenclature of which the Framers were familiar. Wong Kim Ark agreed. Nomenclature can only mean "citizen" vs. "subject” and "natural born citizen" vs. "natural born subject." The Court then provided the definition of a "natural-born citizen," not of a “natural born subject,” for it said that a “natural-born citizen” was a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. Under that same common law, the Court also excluded persons from any type of citizenship who were not born in the country to “citizen” parents. There was not one word from the Court about the English common law defining U.S. national citizenship or providing the definition of a “citizen” or “natural-born citizen.” Since the common law to which the Court referred was not the English common law, it could only be American national common law.

I have always argued that that American national common law had its origins in the law of nations which has its origins in natural law.

js said...

So...another point on the "subject to the Jurisdiction" issue.

The war of 1812 eliminated the Kings claim upon US Citizens, who had been a Subject to the jurisdiction of the Crown prior to the Revolution. They were stopping US Ships, seizing those aboard, and drafting those individuals into military service, because they were still considered Subjects of the King.

It was agreed to by treaty, that those citizens who were in the US and patriots in the War were no longer perpetual Subject, owing allegiance to the crown for life.

It ended the imposition of forced allegiance on individuals, and instituted a new common law which required aliens in the US to renounce allegiance and fidelity to any foreign sovereign. This became a requirement for every state in the Union before any alien could own property, and an absolute requirement for citizenship.

By forcing citizenship on children of aliens in the USA, we place ourselves into the same situation that we fought against. Imposing citizenship upon the children of foreign nationals who give birth in our nation gives our federal government the power to draft those children into military service. This is the exact same door we closed in the War of 1812, morally it is wrong.

The definition itself, subject to the jurisdiction, as a condition at birth, excludes all children born to aliens within the USA. The natural jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign over that child is a international law. The foreign sovereign, whose citizens just happen to have been traveling when the child was born, hold absolute jurisdiction over the child.
--------------------------
In the year 1873 the United States Attorney General ruled the word “jurisdiction” under the Fourteenth Amendment to mean, which Justice Gray would recognize in Elk v.Wilkins years later:


The word “jurisdiction” must be understood to mean absolute and complete jurisdiction, such as the United States had over its citizens before the adoption of this amendment… Aliens, among whom are persons born here and naturalized abroad, dwelling or being in this country, are subject to the jurisdiction of the United States only to a limited extent. Political and military rights and duties do not pertain to them. (14 Op. Atty-Gen. 300.)



House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated, “The United States have not recognized a double allegiance. By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” There is no way in the world anyone can claim “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” affirms the feudal common law doctrine of birth citizenship to aliens because such doctrine by operation creates a “double allegiance” between separate nations.

(federalistblog.com)
___________________________

paraleaglenm said...

1) Did an obscure English case from 1608 involving allegiance changes when a Scottish king inherited the English throne?

NO

2) Does English common law, i.e., case law, have precedent value over U.S. legislated act?

NO

3) Did English parliamentary act recognize jus soli as the principle of natural born subjects?

NO. The 1772 British Nationality Act identified the allegiance of the father as British Subject.

4) Did U.S. legislated act (per Art 1 Sec 8) apply the jus soli?

NO. U.S. acts, from 1790 to 1855 were purely jus sanguinis.

The Ark court, 7-2, reasoned and held in error that the 14th Amendment applied to alien parents who were subject to foreign nationality. Cf. Stateless freed slaves, the subject of the 14th Amendment reliance on the jus soli.

Note, that I use the short cite, 'Ark,' not 'Wong.'

There are only two political conditions in which the national allegiance of a father has no bearing on the allegiance or citizenship of the child at birth:

1.Feudal Monarchy
2.Slaveholder’s property rights over the issue of his slaves

One would think rights of the father, the family, predominate in free societies, especially a constitutional republic in which the government is crafted to be ‘subject’ to the citizens, not the other way around.

Unfortunately, because of Ark, that has changed, and to our detriment. The United States, which is the only 'pure' jus soli birthright citizenship nation in the world. Others in the Americas have copied this departure from reason, but conflicts abound now in nationality law, because of the foolishness of a court.

Congress, once educated, has the constitutional authority to overturn the Ark court and the damage it has caused.

js said...


"Congress, once educated, has the constitutional authority to overturn the Ark court and the damage it has caused"

Or, simply put, to correct judicial error.

h2ooflife said...

js wrote: " Imposing citizenship upon the children of foreign nationals who give birth in our nation gives our federal government the power to draft those children into military service."
U.S. citizenship is not "imposed" on anyone. Is winning the lottery something imposed on people, or something highly desired? The responsibility to defend one's homeland falls one the shoulders of the adult male members of a nation's society.
That responsibility is only recognized or imposed on those who grow up in American or those raised abroad who wish to not violate nation law regarding submission to the requirement to register with Selective Service. Not doing so does not put their American citizenship in jeopardy.

js wrote: "The natural jurisdiction of a foreign sovereign over that child is a international law. The foreign sovereign, whose citizens just happen to have been traveling when the child was born, hold absolute jurisdiction over the child."

The high court opinion regarding Mr. Wong (NOT Mr. Ark)did not cover children of foreign guests but only foreign immigrants permanently domiciled here, so while it imputed full federal jurisdiction over immigrant fathers (without saying so) it didn't reverse the U.S. policy toward the international law js recounted. That was done instead by the Attorney General, and has been the institutionalized erroneous law of the land ever since.
It could be reversed by any Attorney General or President without the intervention of Congress since it is merely a policy position, -not a SCOTUS holding.

h2ooflife said...

paraleagalnm wrote: "The United States, which is the only 'pure' jus soli birthright citizenship nation in the world. Others in the Americas have copied this departure from reason, but conflicts abound now in nationality law, because of the foolishness of a court."

The result of conflicts happening is not reason to not follow a policy beneficial to the nation, meaning that naturalizating-at-birth immigrants' American born & raised children is a necessary facet of American life, conflicts be damned. Unfortunately, the entire previous legal tradition of the nation was also damned by that holding.
There were conflicts with the British in 1812 over citizenship but we didn't change our national policy because of them.
The statement that the court's holding in the Wong case is the source of many conflicts may be true, or not, but is it the source of most conflicts? Or are they the result of the Attorney General's bastardization of that holding by extending it to cover children of foreign non-immigrants who remained fully subject to their own governments?
I would suspect the latter because such children, raised abroad, are not acculturated with any allegiance to the United States and yet are erroneously viewed as being citizens, providing all the benefits of that status though totally undeserved from any perspective.

h2ooflife said...

Mario wrote: "I have always argued that that American national common law had its origins in the law of nations which has its origins in natural law."

I have always argued that federal common law regarding citizenship did not ever exist, and I have yet to see evidence that the federal government felt compelled to recognize jus soli citizenship granted by individual States.
Just as some states today recognize homosexual marriage, the federal government did not, (until the Supreme Court just mandated that it do so) a similar conflict likely existed under the radar in 1789 unless such a citizen sought to become President. Only then would it be a contested issue since State citizenship was almost everything. As far as I'm aware, that never happened (no known alien-born citizen ever sought the Presidency).

I argue all the day long that American citizenship is not based on common law nor foreign law, nor written law, nor law of nations, but directly on natural law, -the law by which natural citizens come into being via birth to citizens. Just as natural citizens absolutely do exist, since we all are such, and the historical literature of court cases involving citizenship contains numerous uses of that natural designation, so it is self-evident that natural citizenship is not the result of any human law, nor any recognition of natural law that is contained in any legal or sociological writing. It is natural membership which is a status not dependent on government or law. It's only dependent on blood connection. Nothing more. All natural members are recognized as citizens. That is a primal right.
The heir to the throne is the firstborn of monarch parents whose right of primogeniture is via blood inheritance from royal parents, regardless of where he (or she) is born.

The place of birth has no impact on blood inheritance and the rights that come with it. Just ask the "untouchables" in India if it matters where they were born.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

h2ooflife,

I said: “I have always argued that that American national common law had its origins in the law of nations which has its origins in natural law. “

You said: “I have always argued that federal common law regarding citizenship did not ever exist.”

The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875), paraphrasing Vattel’s law of nations definition of a “natural-born citizen” without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, but rather to the only other common law which was American national common law, said:

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

Read it and weep.

js said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
h2ooflife said...

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

A few germane questions: "Where is 'elsewhere'"? Why is "elsewhere" never quoted? Please point me to "elsewhere" so I can study it. Or is "elsewhere" just a synonym for Vattel?

Where, prior to the writing of the Constitution, were the words "natural born citizen" ever used?

If they were never used, which I assume is the case, then they could not be a part of any national common law.
Please explain how a natural born citizen is any different from any other citizen except in regard to the presidency which didn't exist until it was created.
Prior to the combining of the three words natural+born+citizen in the Constitution, all citizens were regarded as natural citizens by the fundamental national fiction of law, but not all natural citizens were citizens by birth, so John Jay underlined the word "born" when he made his suggestion to Washington.

No one has any other explanation for him doing that. He was the first to cobbled those words together and I challenge everyone to prove otherwise. If they can't be found prior to his letter then my position will stand as the only possible explanation.

In pursuit of the truth, I welcome whatever facts can be found. Education is a good thing, and learning to accept the truth of a matter should come naturally to all who seek it, regardless of their erroneous prior beliefs.

h2ooflife said...

I've recently come across a corollary to natural citizenship, in California's relationship to water.
Today, every use of water is regulated, but some people have a right that is unregulatable. It's called a riparian right. It covers water on or beside one's property. "With statehood, California adopted the English common law familiar to the eastern seaboard; such law also included the riparian doctrine.
Riparian rights do not require permits, licenses, or government approval, but they apply only to the water which would naturally flow in the stream. [NATURAL CITIZENSHIP /NATIONAL MEMBERSHIP IS AKIN TO A NATURAL RIGHT TO USE WATER. IT SUPERSEDES THE AUTHORITY OF GOVERNMENT.]
~A fascinating history:

Water right law was set on a different course in 1849, when thousands of fortune seekers flocked to California following the discovery of gold. Water development proceeded on a scale never before witnessed in the United States as these “49ers” built extensive networks of flumes and waterways to work their claims [using] water transported far from the original river or stream.

The self-governing miners applied the same “finders-keepers” rule to water that they did to their mining claims. It belonged to the first miner to assert ownership.

To stake their water claims, the miners developed a system of “posting notice” which signaled the birth of today’s appropriative right system. It allowed others to divert available water from the same river or stream, but their rights existed within a hierarchy of priorities. This “first in time, first in right” principal became an important feature of modern water right law.

In 1850, as the 31st state, California adopt the common law of riparian rights. One year later, the Legislature recognized the appropriative right system as having the force of law.

Up to the early 1900’s appropriators – most of them miners and nonriparian farmers – had simply taken control of and used what water they wanted...with no formal permission required from any administrative or judicial body.

The Water Commission Act of 1914 created the agency that evolved into the State Board and granted it the authority to administer permits and licenses.

These post-1914 appropriative rights are governed by the aforementioned hierarchy of priorities developed by the 49ers.

js said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

h2ooflife,

I am happy to see that you are guided as the constitutionalists are by the pursuit of truth and not by the pursuit of a political agenda. Too bad the anti-constitutionalists, otherwise known as the Obots, cannot say the same.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

h2ooflife,

You asked what the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor meant by "elsewhere." It is plain to see from what the Court wrote that it meant the common law, for the Court told us so in simple and plain words. Given the definition of a "natural-born citizen" that the Court gave, that common law was not the English common law, but rather American national common law, which did define a "natural-born citizen" under ancient maxims--“proles sequitur sortem paternam (children follow the condition of the father) or “partus sequitur patrem” (children follow the condition of the father)--as a child born in a country to parents who were its "citizens" at the time of the child's birth.

paraleaglenm said...



@h2olife

1) Did an obscure English case from 1608 involving allegiance changes when a Scottish king inherited the English throne?

NO. So why do the courts keep on citing it? Because the courts are not only in error, but acting unconstitutionally.

2) Does English common law, i.e., case law, have precedent value over U.S. legislated act?

NO

3) Did English parliamentary act recognize jus soli as the principle of natural born subjects?

NO. The 1772 British Nationality Act identified the allegiance of the father as British Subject.

Here is that portion from the 1772 Act, British law thus being jus sanguinis -- "That all Persons born, or who hereafter shall be born, out of the Ligeance of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, whose Fathers were or shall be, by virtue of a Statute made in the Fourth Year of King George the Second, to explain a Clause in an Act made in the Seventh Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Anne, for naturalizing Foreign Protestants, which relates to the natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, intitled to all the Rights and Privileges of natural-born Subjects of the Crown of England or of Great Britain, shall and may be adjudged and taken to be, and are hereby declared and enacted to be, natural-born Subjects of the Crown of Great Britain, to all Intents, Constructions, and Purposes whatsoever, as if he and they had been and were born in this Kingdom"

4) Did U.S. legislated act (per Art 1 Sec 8) apply the jus soli?

NO. U.S. acts, from 1790 to 1855 were purely jus sanguinis. Start with the 1790 Act, then the 1795 Act . . . all children of aliens are the national allegiance of the father, unless the father naturalizes as a U.S. citizen prior to their coming to the age of majority. Wong Kim Ark ruled in violation of existing U.S. law, and misinterpreted the 14th Amendment, conflating it with the Calvin's Case.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

By now we should understand how Jack Maskell and his Obot followers, in interpreting the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” fail to comprehend the logical meaning of necessary and sufficient conditions and their importance at arriving at the correct definition of a "natural born Citizen." They find historical statements which say that one must be a born citizen in order to be President. This statement presents a necessary condition of being a “natural born Citizen” and by extension for presidential eligibility. But from that they erroneously conclude that one only has to be a born citizen to be a “natural born Citizen.” In other words, they treat that necessary condition as though it were a sufficient condition for one to be a “natural born Citizen.” The error of their logic can easily be seen if we consider the other Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 constitutional requirements which are at least 35 years of age and at least 14 years a resident of the United States.

Consistent with their logic, I guess that if Maskell and the Obots found some figure in history saying that one must be at least 35 years old to be president, the only thing one would have to do to show that one was eligible to be President is show that one was at least 35 years old. Well, we know how absurd that is given what Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 tells us are the presidential eligibility requirements. Well, like Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 has factors (both necessary and sufficient) which need to be met in order to be eligible to be President, so does the “natural born Citizen” clause has its own factors (necessary and sufficient) which also need to be satisfied in order to be a “natural born Citizen.” Being a born citizen is just one of the factors (necessary) to be a “natural born Citizen. This factor only goes to the temporal (time) requirement of the definition. The other factors (also necessary) are born in the country (place) to “citizen” parents (parentage).

So as we can see, Jack Maskell and the Obots only give us a small piece of the “natural born Citizen” puzzle (only one necessary factor). They leave out the other pieces (other necessary factors) which of course one cannot do when one is assembling and presenting a complete puzzle, which takes on its correct form only by putting together all the necessary pieces which all together are sufficient to give us the desired image.

I hope to be publishing a new essay soon which, with all other future essays, will continue to show the errors of the Jack Maskell and Obot position on the meaning of a "natural born Citizen."

Frank Bailey said...

Mario Apuzzo

You are really reaching to quote from Bouvier's aren't you? Then you claimed Bouvier's is "authoritative" and Black's Law is not? What a silly claim. If you look on Amazon the Ninth edition of Black's is ranked 6700 on the best seller list while Bouvier's is ranked over 2,000,000.

The definition of "native" you quoted is from the 1914 update by Francis Rawle. Did you check the 1856 definition? It is much more complete than the 1914 version by Rawle:

Native:

...4. - 2. Persons born within the United States, since the Revolution, may be classed into those who are citizens, and those who are not.

5. - 1st. Natives who are citizens are the children of citizens, and of aliens who at the time of their birth were residing within the United States.


I bet you didn't read the definition for "Citizen" from the 1914 edition did you? It said in part:

CITIZEN Its meaning must be gathered from the common law; U. S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 1G9 U. S. 649, IS Sup. Ct. 456, 42 L. Ed. 890.

Citizens are either native-born or naturalized. Native citizens may fill any office; naturalized citizens may be elected or appointed to any office under the constitution of the United States, except the offices of president and vice-president.


So where is "Born citizen" and your magic "Citizen of the United States"?

4zoltan said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

I know you were not associated with this case, but Mr. Voeltz someimes posts comments here.

The Florida Supreme Court has denied without comment the review of Voeltz v. Obama.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

4zoltan,

Would you care to inform us what specific issue(s) was (were) before the Florida Supreme Court in Voeltz v. Obama.

dick head said...

"citizen of the US" is right in 14th amendment and article 2 of US Constitution. A "citizen of the US" is plainly not eligible in article 2 and that would include a 14th amd "citizen" BORN or naturalized IN US and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Do not take mario's word for it though, you can find the magic "citizen of the US" in A2 and 14th but you will not find "natural born citizen" in 14th. the minor and venus courts did not include children of aliens as native or natural born, only children of citizens.

h2ooflife said...

The problem with the jus solists is that they embrace the: born within the jurisdiction part, while ignoring the: ~subject to the jurisdiction part. It's like a deliberate subconscious blocking mechanism needed to keep their preferred interpretation on top as king of the hill.

They profess that English jus soli common law prevailed across all the colonies & states when in fact only four colonies allowed "son of the soil" citizenship.
I just read that fact yesterday for the first time, here: (I think) Wong Kim Ark’s Ship Comes to Port - Justice Horace Gray’s Miscarriage of Justice
By William Buchanan Volume 22, Number 2
http://www.thesocialcontract.com/artman2/publish/tsc_22_2/tsc_22_2_buchanan.shtml
(I'm still reading it)

That means that the law of the land was jus sanguinis, and jus soli was only a secondary form of citizenship allowed for immigrants because their children would grow up to be Americans and also to entice more immigration. Virginia is the only one of those states I've seen identified so far.

"Stateless freed slaves, the subject of the 14th Amendment reliance on the jus soli."
It could be logically argued that jus soli only applied to the freed slaves alive when the amendment was passed. Afterward, children born to them were Americans by birth, by jus sanguinis, -not jus soli, because they were born to a father who was subject to the full jurisdiction of Washington.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Frank Bailey,

I of II

(1) I did not say that Black’s Law Dictionary is not authoritative. I said that Black’s Law Dictionary is not authoritative on the definition of a “natural born Citizen” a is Bouvier’s Dictionary because it only began mentioning the clause or its definition in 1979 whereas Bouvier’s gave a definition of the clause in 1914 which was not too long after the 1898 decision in Wong Kim Ark. Bouvier also includes a definition of a “natural-born citizen” in its 1856 definition of a “native.” Black’s Law Dictionary simply did not do any of the same things relative to a “natural-born citizen.”

(2) Your use of statistics regarding Black’s Law Dictionary is worthless, the unanswered question being “best seller” for what purpose? The focus of our discussion is “natural-born citizen,” not some popularity contest on some unrelated issue.

(3) I said that the definition of "native" that I quoted is from the 1914 update of Bouvier’s Dictionary by Francis Rawle. I did check the 1856 definition which does not change anything and which is not more complete as you allege. Here is the 1856 definition which you have reproduced for us:

“Native:

...4. - 2. Persons born within the United States, since the Revolution, may be classed into those who are citizens, and those who are not.

5. - 1st. Natives who are citizens are the children of citizens, and of aliens who at the time of their birth were residing within the United States.”

Let us analyze what is said here. The first thing that we have to realize is that Bouvier provided his definition of a “native” before the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decided Minor v. Happersett in 1875. Bouvier tells us that we can have persons born in the United States who are either citizens or who are not. Notice he tells us that these are different “classed” persons, depending on whether they are “citizens” or not. Hence, we can have persons born in the United States who are aliens. Note that Bouvier did not tell us who these U.S.-born persons who were alien were. Bouvier then tells us that of the ones who are born in the United States and who are “citizens,” those persons are either children born in the United States to “citizen” parents or children born in the United States to alien parents who were residing in the United States at the time of the child’s birth. Bouvier does not tell us anymore. He provides no citations for his definitions. To get a full understanding of what Bouvier really said, we need to turn to case law.

Children born in the United States to “citizen” parents were not only “citizens,” but also “natural-born citizens.” Minor v. Happersett (1875). Under Bouvier’s definition, children born in the United States to alien parents who were residing in the United States at the time of the child’s birth were called “citizens;” he never said they were “natural-born citizens.” Minor said that “some authorities” held the same view expressed by Bouvier (an “authority”) regarding the children born in the United States to alien parents, also telling us that these “authorities” said they were “citizens.” But Minor said that “there have been doubts” whether these “authorities” were correct, and left the question unanswered. The doubts were resolved in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which held such children to be “citizens,” not “natural born Citizens.” What Wong Kim Ark held is consistent with what Bouvier and Minor wrote about those children, i.e., they were just “citizens.”

Continued . . .

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 243   Newer› Newest»