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

Sunday, June 2, 2013

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 Café 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.”

http://cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-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."

http://www.scribd.com/doc/41131059/crs-congressional-internal-memo-what-to-tell-your-constituents-regarding-obama-eligibility-questions .

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) (1^st 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

http://puzo1.blogspot.com

####

245 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 245 of 245 Newer› Newest»

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

(4) I did read the definition for "Citizen" from the Bouvier 1914 edition by Rawle. That definition also does not help you or show that I am wrong. Here is the definition:

“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.”

So what! Minor said the same in 1875.

“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.”

It is true that “citizens” are either “native-born” or naturalized. If “native-born,” they are either “natural-born citizens,” i.e., born in the United States to “citizen” parents under Minor, or just “citizens,” i.e., born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents under Wong Kim Ark. See also Bouvier 1856 edition for definition of “native,” Minor and its definition of “natural-born citizen,” and Wong Kim Ark and its definitions of “natural-born citizen” and “citizen” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment (said that a child born in the country to alien parents was as much a “citizen” as the “natural-born child” born in the country to “citizen” parents). We saw from the 1856 definition of “native” that there are two types: those born in the country to “citizen” parents and those born in the country to alien parents. From Minor and Wong Kim Ark we know that only the former are “natural-born citizens.” Hence, Rawle’s statement, “native citizen may fill any office,” needs to be read and understood in the context of what Bouvier said about a “native” in 1856 and what Minor and Wong Kim Ark said in 1875 and 1898, respectively, about a “natural-born citizen” and a “citizen.” Considering and understanding that context, Rawle’s statement should therefore read: “Native citizens, who are natural-born citizens, may fill any office, including those of president and vice-president.”

This understanding is consistent with how Rawle himself defines a “native, native Citizen” in the same 1914 edition:

“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).

In defining the “native, native Citizen” in 1914, Rawle cites to Blackstone, but follows with a reference to a “natural-born subject.” But in providing a different definition of the same clause, he gives “those born in a country, of parents who are citizens,” which Minor informs is the definition of a “natural-born citizen.” For that Minor definition, he cites Morse, who put forth the law of nations/Vattel definition of the clause which is the same definition that Minor gave. Note Rawle also gives historical examples (the French Extradition treaty and extradition act) which demonstrates that originally a “native” meant the same thing as a “natural-born born,” which is what Vattel, Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus (1814), and Justice Daniels in Dred Scott (1857) also said.

(5) Finally, as I have told the anti-constitutionalists (the Obots) over and over, a “citizen of the United States” is found in Article I, Article II, the Fourteenth Amendment, and many Acts of Congress (Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, 1855 and many that followed). See also Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty Fourth, and Twenty Sixth Amendments. For your search of a “born citizen,” you may consult Alexander Hamilton and Jack Maskell, to name just a few.
So, I do not see anything that you have presented concerning the Bouvier/Rawle 1856 and 1914 definitions as contradicting me or otherwise demonstrating that my position on the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is incorrect.; July 2, 2013 at 1:30 AM
Anonymous said...: The 1772 British Nationality Act "That all Persons born...out[side] of...Great Britain, whose Fathers were...entitled 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"

Notice the order and intent; first: "shall and may be adjudged and taken to be,..."

That is not a statement of positive law enactment but a statement of fact that must be recognized by all authorities regardless of their prior concepts. It says that children of subjects, regardless of a non-British place of birth, are natural subjects also.
Next is is declaratory by the authority of the government, (-not just by natural law), but does not assert that those children are equal to natural born subjects because the law declares it to so.
It does not say: "as if he and they had been and were equal to natural born subjects.

Rather, it asserts that in fact they are actual natural born subjects, (and must be treated as such)and are equal in all regards to their domestically born brethren. "as if he and they had been and were born in this Kingdom"

The place of birth is irrelevant to natural membership in both nature and in human societies, and national citizenship or subject-ship is nothing other than natural membership. It is pure jus sanguinis. Jus soli is not a part of the formula of natural membership or natural citizenship.; July 2, 2013 at 1:52 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: h2ooflife said:

(http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/) has left a new comment on your post "The Fallacies of Congressional Legislative Attorne...":

Bailey quoted: "the 1856 definition [of native] by Rawle:

"Natives who are citizens are the children of citizens, and [or] of aliens who at the time of their birth were residing within the United States."

Statements like that are never followed by any sort of proof, and that's because there is none. There is only a blind unquestioning presumption, -which may be due to having been born and raised in one of the four states that allowed jus soli citizenship along side the natural citizenship of 98% of its inhabitants.

What that blind presumption fails to grasp is that the national government had never allowed jus soli citizenship because it results in dual-citizenship which was anathema to the fundamental values of sole allegiance to one country with no conflicting secondary nationality.

"Native:

Persons born within the United States...may be classed into those who are citizens, and those who are not."

His thinking was that of a simpleton.

Just as persons can be classified as native born or foreign born, -as citizen or foreigner, so also, citizens can be classified as naturalized, native born, or natural born, -as American born or as foreigner born, -as citizens by nature or citizens by law, -as citizens at birth, from birth, upon birth, -or citizens by birth.

A few hours ago I finished a new exposition on that topic: “Citizens-at-birth” Are Ineligible to be President
http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/07/01/citizens-at-birth/

"Natural citizens are Americans in the absence of the law of nations, the 14th Amendment; the Wong Kim Ark ruling; in the absence of all Congressional naturalization statutes ever passed and every Attorney General interpretation of law & SCOTUS holdings; in the absence of state law and colonial law and common law of England. And even in the absence of the United States Constitution."

Posted by h2ooflife to Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers at July 2, 2013 at 1:13 AM; July 2, 2013 at 1:59 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: h2ooflife said:

(http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/) has left a new comment on your post "The Fallacies of Congressional Legislative Attorne...":

Bouvier's "Persons born within the United States" who were not citizens were American Indians, itinerant gypsies, and foreign guests of the U.S. government, i.e., tourists and non-immigrant aliens(along with children of foreign diplomats).

Posted by h2ooflife to Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers at July 2, 2013 at 1:25 AM; July 2, 2013 at 2:01 AM
Anonymous said...: To write: “Native citizens may fill any office, including those of president and vice-president” would be an egregious example of intellectual laziness, or of an erroneous doctrinal belief supported by nothing but presumptions accepted as facts.
But presumptions are one thing, and facts are another. Native born natural citizens are not the same as native born naturalized citizens because parentage is paramount in nationality, and place of birth is always secondary.; July 2, 2013 at 2:05 AM
Frank Bailey said...: Mario Apuzzo said
Considering and understanding that context, Rawle’s statement should therefore read: “Native citizens, who are natural-born citizens, may fill any office, including those of president and vice-president.”

But that is not what Rawle said. It is because of such intellectually dishonest arguments that no one takes you seriously, especially judges. Could you point me to where Chester Arthur's and Barack Obama's naturalization papers might be found? Could you tell me where the Court ruled Wong Kim Ark was not a natural born citizen but instead naturalized?

There are only two kinds of citizens. Pick one or the other. Those are your choices. Not liking that reality does not give you the right to create your own.; July 2, 2013 at 6:58 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Frank Bailey,

You did not address anything that I said in my discussion of the 1919 Bouvier Dictionary other than say that the one statement is not what Rawle said. I explained how Rawle’s statement has to be read in light of what the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor and Wong Kim Ark said and also what he himself wrote in that same 1919 dictionary when defining “native, native citizen” (“Those born in a country, of parents who are citizens”).

Your statement about Chester Arthur’s naturalization papers shows how ignorant you are of how derivative citizenship worked. Arthur’s father was a British subject. He married a U.S. citizen which made her a British subject also. So, Arthur was born in 1829, in the U.S. to alien parents. He became a “citizen of the United States” after his birth under the Naturalization Act of 1855 upon the naturalization of his British father which occurred in 1843 when Arthur was 14 years old and dwelling in the United States. See the James McClure citizenship case (decided by the James Madison Administration in 1814 that applied the 1802 Naturalization Act which had similar pertinent language as the 1855 Act and which ruled that McClure, born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785, to a British father became a “citizen of the United States” after birth upon the naturalization of his British father when McClure was still a minor and dwelling in the United States). Arthur’s father’s naturalization also made his wife a U.S. citizen again. Arthur’s naturalization, like that of his mother, happened by operation of law and automatically. Minor children like Arthur would not have needed any further naturalization so there would not be any naturalization papers existing from that time period. But that there are no naturalization papers does not mean that such minor children, like Arthur, were not naturalized upon the naturalization of their fathers. The same process applied to alien women who married U.S. citizen husbands. They became “citizens of the United States” upon marriage without having to take out any naturalization papers. Their marriage certificate was their proof of U.S. citizenship.

If Obama was born in Hawaii and born “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” he does not need any naturalization papers, for he would be a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the 14th Amendment. Not being born to “citizen” parents, he would not be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Wong was born in the U.S. to alien parents. He was therefore born with alienage and not within the full allegiance of the United States. He therefore needed to be naturalized. Wong Kim Ark held that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” at birth. The Court naturalized Wong at birth under the 14th Amendment just like Lord Coke (Parliament refused to do it) naturalized Calvin at birth to be an English “natural born subject” under natural law. Judicial naturalization at birth does not generate any naturalization papers. So it would be pretty dumb for you to look for any.

And if you want more evidence of your intellectual dishonesty, are you not the one who denies what Minor plainly says about a “natural-born citizen” and adds words to both the 14th Amendment and Wong Kim Ark which do not there exist, like just conveniently inserting the “natural born Citizen” clause there. I could give you a whole list of your pathetic dishonesties, but that will suffice.

Yes, there are only two kinds of citizens, but they are “natural born Citizens” and “citizens of the United States.” And your little argument about Obama not being a naturalized citizen proving he is a “natural born Citizen” is really asinine. You do not even realize that through such an invalid argument, you are attempting to prove an affirmative conclusion (that Obama is a “natural born Citizen”) through a negative premise (that Obama is not a naturalized citizen). Anyone with basic knowledge of logic will tell you that such an argument is invalid.

So, it looks like the intellectual dishonesty is all yours.; July 2, 2013 at 8:25 PM
Unknown said...: the natives or nbcs are the same and i think even your average indifferent/dense american could figure out that children of illegals, aliens and foreign tourists who happened to be born in us are not us natives. Natives to me are those people whose ancestors have been here a long time (like native americans) and all the venus and minor courts required is that parents be citizens to be considered a native.; July 3, 2013 at 5:06 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of II

Here is how Justice Story defined a “native” or “natural born citizen” in 1830 and how the word “native” (not to be later confounded with “natural born Citizen”) came to take on a new meaning through Wong Kim Ark. One of the questions the U.S. Supreme Court faced in Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830), was whether Ann Scott (upon marriage became Ann Shanks), born in South Carolina before the Declaration of Independence to Thomas Scott, a “native” of South Carolina, was born a British subject or American citizen. Thomas Scott adhered to the American Revolution which made him a “citizen” of South Carolina and eventually under the Constitution a “citizen of the United States.” Justice Story adopted the jus sanguinis majority opinion of Inglis, which he said settled the question of “alienage, growing out of the American Revolution.” (In Inglis, Justice Story in dissent had adopted the English common law jus soli rule which he abandoned in Shanks.) Justice Story provided the same Vattelian Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen” without citing Vattel, stating:

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

Id. at 245. Justice Story added that this conclusion was admitted in the parties’ pleadings.

Justice Johnson in dissent said that Ann Shanks “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). Justice Johnson said that it was imperative that the appellants demonstrate on what ground they could escape from the operation of his leading maxim. Like the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875), Justice Johnson said that Ann Shanks was a “native born citizen” and a “citizen.” He did not say that she was just a “citizen” which is what U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) said Wong was and no more.

So, the majority of the Court, led by Justice Story, and Justice Johnson in dissent, both said that if a child was born in a country to a father who was a citizen of that country, the child took on at the moment of birth the citizenship of the father. Under these circumstances, the child became a citizen at the time of the child’s birth. This child was a “natural born citizen” under the Constitution. This was the rule stated by Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations and confirmed by Chief Justice Marshall in The Venus, Justice Daniels in Dred Scott, the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor, and both the majority and dissent in Wong Kim Ark. These decisions also confirm that “father” means “parents.”

If a child was born in a country to a father who was not a citizen of that country, the child took on the citizenship of the father and was therefore alien born. The child became a citizen of that country, at the time the father became a citizen of that country by naturalization after his birth, provided that at the time of the father’s naturalization the child was still a minor and part of the father’s family (Congress in its naturalization acts used “dwelling in the United States”). If the father did not naturalize during the child’s minority, then the child upon reaching adulthood would have to naturalize on his or her own. Under either one of these circumstances, the child became a citizen of that country after the child’s birth through naturalization after birth. This rule followed from what Vattel wrote in Sections 213 to 215 of The Law of Nations. This child, while recognized as a “citizen of the United States” under the Constitution, was not a “natural born citizen.”

Continued . . .; July 3, 2013 at 7:41 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

This rule was adopted by Congress in its Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855.

Wong Kim Ark, in how it interpreted and applied the Fourteenth Amendment, changed this rule. In Wong Kim Ark, Wong was born in the United States to Chinese alien parents. Wong’s Chinese parents could not naturalize because U.S.-Chinese treaties and Congressional Acts prohibited it. Justice Gray, who was appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Chester Arthur, who himself was born in the United States to alien parents and therefore not a “natural born Citizen,” ruled that Wong, born in the United States to alien parents, was a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment which said that any child born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” was a “citizen of the United States.” (It did not say born in the United States and “not subject to any foreign power” like the Civil Rights Act of 1866 had.) So with this new rule, Wong did not have to naturalize after birth, if ever he could under future laws, for the Court ruled that he was automatically a “citizen” from the moment of birth. By this ruling, the Court did not amend the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” which was neither the express nor unexpressed purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment or even an issue before the Court. Rather, the Court increased the class of persons who Congress considered could be “citizens of the United States” from the moment of birth, which up to that point extended only to children born in the United States and “not subject to any foreign power” (which Wong did not meet because being born to Chinese parents, he was born a subject of China) and children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents (which Wong did not meet because he was born in the United States).

While the Wong Court held that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth under the new Fourteenth Amendment, it did not hold that he was a “natural born citizen.” Under the Wong Kim Ark ruling, Wong is considered a “native” or “native-born” citizen of the United States, not because he was a “natural born Citizen,” but only because he was born in the United States and at the time of his birth he was a “citizen.” But he is not considered a “natural born Citizen” and cannot be because, while being born in the United States, he was not born to “citizen” parents.; July 3, 2013 at 7:46 AM
js said...: None of the 13 states had any authority to overrule the powers of the Federal Government as established under the Constitution. Therefor, it is accurate to say, that the intent that the founding fathers had, as to the meaning of the term natural born citizen, was and remains the law of the land, regardless of any law or case that the states recognized.

This is established as agreed upon by all of states representatives when the constitution was signed, leaving any states definition of what that term meant moot. It doesn't make any difference as to the effect of any legislation, the Constitution itself is the rule of law, and as a Republic, all states are bound to observe its authority, and guaranteed that with the signatory as "We, The People". Just because a few cases got it wrong, does not change the Constitution. Those cases do not supersede the already agreed upon fact of what an NBC is.

A natural born citizen, as used in the Constitution, was a latch to prevent the influence of foreigners in the highest office in this nation. To accept that the children born to foreign agents in this nation who are not citizens themselves, could ever meet that measure to qualify for POTUS would be a direct contradiction of the purpose that we know it was established to do.; July 3, 2013 at 8:08 AM
js said...: Taken into consideration, the founding fathers excluded American Indians that held loyalty to their own tribes/peoples/heritage, from being citizens, even though the Indians were in fact the actual natives of this land, it must be a guidepost to what they thought that an NBC was.

The fact that the founding fathers never intended for just birth in the USA (the nation’s physical, not political jurisdiction) to be the basis for citizenship, and that is no better demonstrated than in the way they dealt with the Indian tribes, whose presence actually overlapped the boundaries of all States at the time of the Revolution. We can’t consider the application any differently when we deal with other foreigners who are present within the borders of the United States.

The Indians and their children were excluded from becoming POTUS because, even if their children were born within the confines of the USA, they were NOT citizens, but members of a foreign nation.

It was not until 1924, after every Indian Nation had been defeated, that Indians, born in the US, were made actual citizens of the US.

The consideration that the Indian nations, having full autonomy from the US Government in their own Laws and self rule, just as every other nation in the world, were excluded from citizenship demonstrates that the theory that aliens who bear children within the physical boundaries of the USA were neither automatic citizens, nor natural born citizens, of the US at the time the founding fathers established the NBC requirement. That fact is inclusive to before and after the 14th Amendment had been added to the Constitution.; July 3, 2013 at 9:31 AM
Anonymous said...: The logic inherent in the Native American status vis a vi U.S. citizenship is unarguable. And its twin sister relationship of children of foreign guests of the nation falls under that same logic. The children of neither group were born subject to the central government because they, through their non-American fathers, were subject to another sovereign power, -one separate and apart from the United States, and potentially hostile to them.
What nails that obvious truth is the fact that the United States never accepted, from the beginning, dual citizenship. It was all or nothing. Full allegiance to one or full allegiance to another. No straddling the fence, -no half in and half out, -no political half-breeds, -no 50-50 citizenship.
That means that all such children were not naturalized at birth by the federal government even if they were by one of the State governments that allowed jus soli citizenship for sons of its immigrants.
That disparity had no impact on anyone's life unless they choose to run for the office of President or VP. Only then did State jus soli citizenship become revealed as constitutionally inadequate for those offices.
"All persons born in the U.S., other than children of diplomats, are eligible to the office of President," is NOT how the Constitution framed eligibility.
It first bars all persons and then makes allowance for two exceptions, the first of which is NOT native-born (naturalized-at-birth) children of foreigners.

Js: "the intent that the founding fathers had, as to the meaning of the term natural born citizen, was and remains the law of the land, regardless of any law or case that the states recognized."
Did I miss a reply to my challenge to show that nbc as a term existed prior to its inscribing in the Constitution? I continue to argue that it did not. No State Constitution used it, I claim. Prove me wrong.; July 3, 2013 at 2:34 PM
Anonymous said...: I'm always irritated by those who claim that jus soli was the law of the land except for the case of children of diplomats and enemies in hostile occupation, because they never elucidate any principle by which they qualify for exception.

But in the old English writings that do, it is always explained to be so because they are not born subject to the authority of the King since they are subject to a foreign sovereign, yet the obamatrons never ever bring up that fact since it applies also and equally to children of foreign guests.
It is a principle written in stone yet they pretend it doesn't exist because it explodes the American bastardization of the Wong ruling which applied solely to a son of foreign immigrants, and not to "non-immigrant aliens" who remain fully subject to their own government with no subject to that of Washington other than limits on the length of stay and right to work.
Subjection of municipal, State and federal law is not 14th Amendment subjection to the full authority of the national government which citizens are subject to. All foreigners, including Ambassadors, are subject to all of those laws also. Those with diplomatic immunity are just exempt from prosecution for violating them, but are still obligated and expected to obey them.
Obama, like the son of Sitting Bull, was not born subject to U.S. jurisdiction over citizens because the father was not. That being the case, he is not a 14th Amendment citizen, and thus is not a U.S. citizen at all unless naturalized as an adult since, within the U.S., nationality is conveyed from the head of the "family", which was his father, not his American mother.; July 3, 2013 at 2:51 PM
Anonymous said...: A few questions that illustrate the bastardization of the English language and its effect on the correct interpretation of the
U.S. Constitution's presidential eligibility clause:

Was Obama born a citizen of Hawaii?
Was Obama a native-born citizen of Hawaii?
Was Obama a native of Hawaii?
Was Obama a native Hawaiian?
Was Obama a natural Hawaiian native?

Was Obama born a citizen of the United States?
Was Obama a native-born citizen of the United States?
Was Obama a native of America?
Was Obama a natural American native?
Was Obama a natural born American citizen?

Was Obama born "Black"? If "yes", then was Obama also born Negro? Was Obama born "White"? Was Obama born Caucasian?
Was he born as a natural Caucasian or a natural Negro? Was Obama born as a Kenyan Negro or an American Caucasian? Was he born as a natural American or a natural Kenyan? Was Obama born as both or as neither? Can one be considered naturally both ?
Can one be a natural Negro AND a natural Caucasian? Can one be born as a natural American citizen and also as a natural Kenyan citizen? Reason supplies the answer.

Being a citizen does not make one a native. Being native-born does not alone make one a citizen. One can be native-born without being a native. One can be foreign-born without being a foreigner. One can be a citizen and native-born and not be a natural American because natural born Americans are born of American parents, -not
foreigners.
One American parent does not a natural American make because hybrids are not natural in the animal realm nor the political realm.

A child of two different nations is not a 100% natural member of either nation. Such children are
50-50 combo, hybrid, cross-breed, dual-citizens by law, and not natural citizens by nature. Only natural citizens are eligible
to be the U.S. President.; July 3, 2013 at 3:20 PM
Anonymous said...: Citizenship involves three things: 1. Obligation or Responsibility; 2. Rights & Privileges; and 3. Protection
Only males of clans, tribes, countries and nations are related to all three. Females are exempt from the major and foundational obligation of citizenship, -which is national defense.
They, along with children, the elderly and unable, are an exempted class which has an over-size share of protection while the males have an over-size share of responsibility.
It is for that reason that American women for a century and a quarter did not possess full citizenship, the consequence

of not bearing full responsibility. They were not fully subject to the full jurisdiction that a government can require of its citizens which extends to measures needed for national survival, including military conscription.
Women, wives, daughters, mothers, and sisters were never, and never will be, subject to military conscription because it is they that the men of the nation wish to protect to the maximum. As such, naturalization was not available to foreign women because they could not and were not required to bear the full responsibility of citizenship.
They could not take the oath of Allegiance & Renunciation because it requires men to swear to BEAR ARMS for the defense of the United States. That could not be required of women any more than it could be required of children. The only foreign women who might have been allowed naturalization were widows who were mothers of native-born
American children. Allowing them to naturalize would automatically make their foreigner-born children derivative U.S. citizens.

See "Bearing Arms, True Faith & Allegiance" at obama--nation.com; July 3, 2013 at 4:13 PM
js said...: someone said;

"Did I miss a reply to my challenge to show that nbc as a term existed prior to its inscribing in the Constitution? I continue to argue that it did not. No State Constitution used it, I claim. Prove me wrong."

absolutely...you just looked the other way...its the intent that bites you in the butt...ignorance is shared by many; July 3, 2013 at 11:23 PM
Unknown said...: speaking of the native americans or really any country for that matter, why would someone from another tribe or nation be allowed in most powerful position in country? That is the whole point of the NBC clause, to prevent a foreigner from gaining command of our army and causing mischief in our govt. Obama screws us every chance he gets.; July 4, 2013 at 12:35 AM
Anonymous said...: Here's a quote of interest re Vattel:

On June 27-28, 1787, for over three hours, Luther Martin, Maryland’s Attorney General and delegate, objected vehemently on the floor of the Constitutional Convention.
"The first principle of government is founded on the natural right of the individuals, and in perfect equality.
~We must treat as free states with each other upon the same terms of equality that men originally formed themselves into societies. Vattel, Rutherford, and Locke are united in support of this position, that states, as to each other, are in a state of nature.
I have traveled with the most respectable authorities in support of principles [Vattel being one of them], all tending to prove the equality of independent states."

A Founder’s Case Against A ‘National’ Government By Ronald Martin on June 20, 2013
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/06/a-founders-case-against-a-national-government/#.Ucqb2djTCVo

The influence of Vattel within the Constitutional Convention is important to note because of the pertinence for his reference to natural national membership by inheritance rather than by birth within the King's borders.; July 4, 2013 at 12:58 AM
Anonymous said...: from 3 years ago: The draft Constitution of Kenya
http://www.standardmedia.co.ke/downloads/draft.constitution.pdf

Ch. 3, pp. 18-20
CHAPTER THREE;
CITIZENSHIP
Citizenship by birth
14.
(1) A person is a citizen by birth if on the day of the person’s birth, whether or not the person is born in Kenya, either the mother or father of the person is a citizen.
(2) Clause (1) applies equally to a person born before the effective date, whether or not the person was born in Kenya, if either the mother or father of the person is or was a citizen.

Kenya is a jus sanguinis nation, unlike some of the former colonies of Great Britain still under feudal influence. The U.S. was also until the bamboozling brought on by the 180% change of policy put into effect after the Wong opinion. Now the entire U.S. nationality framework is warped by the false illusion that Wong changed things regarding natural citizens when it changed nothing as is evident in statutes dealing with Americans born abroad.; July 4, 2013 at 3:53 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: There is no denying that the Constitution significantly distinguishes between different types of “citizens.” A plain reading of its text demonstrates that it created the “natural born Citizens” and the “Citizens of the United States.” The latter includes two types, the “Born Citizens” (who are not “natural born Citizens”) and the “After Born Citizens.”

One might question how could there be “natural born Citizens” and “born Citizens” as two separate and distinct types. The answer is simple. The Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers told us so when they wrote “natural born Citizen,” rather than “born Citizen.” Given what they wrote, there has to be “born Citizen” who are not “natural born Citizen.” If this were not the case, why add the qualifier “natural” to the words “born Citizen?” The question is pregnant with the answer which is that there is a difference between the two. And that difference rests on how a “born Citizen” is made.

Our constitutional and legislative history, which enriches our understanding of the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” confirms this reality. “Natural born Citizens” are made by constitutional American national common law which defines them as children born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. “Born Citizens,” who are not “natural born Citizens,” are made by the Fourteenth Amendment (born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”) and Acts of Congress (same as the Fourteenth Amendment and also born out of the United States to one or two U.S. “citizen” parents). And “After Born Citizens” are made by Acts of Congress and treaties (persons born out of the United States to non-U.S. “citizen” parents who satisfy Congress’s naturalization laws or treaties which render such persons “citizens of the United States” after their birth).

This is the simple picture that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers envisioned when it comes to understanding who are American “citizens” and who among them is eligible to be President. Since the President must be a “natural born Citizen,” the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers told us that only a child who is born in the United States (or its jurisdictional equivalent) to parents who were U.S. “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth is so eligible.

A Happy Fourth of July to all my readers of my blog.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 4, 2013; July 4, 2013 at 2:18 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Below is a link to an interesting article written by Dr. Edwin Vieira, Jr. Ph.D., J.D. In the article, Dr. Vieira argues that since Barack Obama has never shown himself to be a "natural born Citizen," we can assume that he is not. He then puts forth different options (most of which he says are not realistic) that the nation can pursue to address Obama's occupying the Office of President de facto while not being constitutionally eligible to occupy it.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin255.htm; July 5, 2013 at 11:26 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: h2ooflife,

You correctly present us with the newest version of the Kenyan Constitution on the issue of citizenship which is:

Ch. 3, pp. 18-20
CHAPTER THREE;
CITIZENSHIP
Citizenship by birth
14.
(1) A person is a citizen by birth if on the day of the person’s birth, whether or not the person is born in Kenya, either the mother or father of the person is a citizen.
(2) Clause (1) applies equally to a person born before the effective date, whether or not the person was born in Kenya, if either the mother or father of the person is or was a citizen.

I have argued that it is clear from Kenya’s Constitution that Barack Obama is a citizen by birth of Kenya. Regardless of where he was born, since his father was British/Kenyan when Obama was born, that made Obama British under the British Nationality of 1948 and Kenyan, too, at age 2, when his and his father’s British citizenship converted to Kenyan citizenship, under the Kenya Independence Act of 1963 and Kenyan Constitution. Our own laws recognize Great Britain’s/Kenya’s claim to Obama’s allegiance and citizenship from the moment of his birth. After all, we declare children born in foreign nations to one or two U.S. “citizen” parents to be “citizens of the United States” at birth, also. The Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers would never have accepted someone born after the adoption of the Constitution a citizen of a foreign nation, like Obama, to be an Article II “natural born Citizen” and therefore eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.; July 5, 2013 at 8:11 PM
Anonymous said...: Mario, it's wrong to state that born citizens are created by the 14th Amendment. Born citizens existed before the constitutional United States as state citizens naturalized at birth in any of the four states that allowed "sons of the soil" State membership. But it was never federal citizenship until after the Wong court ruling.

The framers were well aware of state naturalized-at-birth citizenship, since several of them lived in those states, but they made it clear that those born citizens were not eligible to be President by added the word natural, -as in natural citizens, which naturalized-at-birth citizens were not regardless of being native-born citizens.

All of the confusion would have been avoided if they had added a hyphen between born and citizen; natural born-citizen. Without it, many falsely think that "natural" is meant to modify "born" instead of citizen (natural-born). The absence of such a hyphen is due to the fact that nbc is a combination of both citizenship terms. Both natural citizenship & citizenship at/from/upon/ or by birth. Since there are the two types of born citizens, only "natural" serves to distinguish between them since naturalized-at-birth citizens are "artificial" legal citizens by law and not nature.; July 6, 2013 at 2:11 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: H2ooflife,

You love to tell us that I am wrong, but yet you incorporate most of what I publish into your writings.

You are simply wrong in saying that the Fourteenth Amendment does not create born citizens. Read it. It does. It says “all persons born . . . in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” So, while at birth these covered persons are “citizens of the United States” and maintain that status unless voluntarily thrown off by expatriation, the status of being a born citizen of a state changes with change of domicile, with a new state citizenship being acquired with each change of domicile.

You take information which I have long argued and throw it into the mix to try to sound like you know what you are talking about. I have long said that state citizenship after the adoption of the U.S. constitution did not make one a national “citizen of the United States.” I have shown how this fact is evidence showing that we did not adopt the English common law that selectively prevailed only in the states as our basis for national citizenship. But that has nothing to do with whether the Fourteenth Amendment makes one a born citizen.

I have long argued that the word “natural” needs to be given meaning when added to “born citizen” and here you repeat it and also throw it into the mix. But again, there is no logical tie to your attempt to somehow connect it to your position that the Fourteenth Amendment does not create born citizens.

I have also long argued about the concept of naturalization at birth and you also throw that into the pot. Again, your borrowing from naturalization at birth does not help you either to prove that the Fourteenth Amendment does not create born citizens.

I have demonstrated that native-born citizens are not necessarily “natural born Citizen” and that too is in your writing.

Your point about there being no hyphen in “natural born Citizen” is nothing more than your own made-up creation and plainly wrong. I have an essay on this which I hope to publish soon. For now suffice it to say that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers did not use any hyphen in their clause because one never existed in the historical sources to which they looked for the clause and not until the 1797 English translation of Emer de Vattel, which came after they wrote the clause in 1787. Significant in this connection is also that William Blackstone wrote in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, “natural-born subject,” not “natural born subject.” For a full discussion of these and other rich historical sources that provided the Founding generation with the “natural born citizen” clause and its meaning, see my brief filed in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, accessed at http://www.scribd.com/doc/83104811/Kerchner-Laudenslager-v-Obama-Ballot-Challenge-Brief-on-Behalf-of-Objectors-Filed-28Feb2012, in the 2012 ballot challenge, Kerchner and Laudenslager v. Obama. Hence, as we can see, the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers had plenty of rich sources from which they would have gotten not only the clause “natural born citizen,” but which would have also caused them not to hyphenate “natural born” in the clause.; July 6, 2013 at 1:59 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I want to share this information with my readers. Both Leo Donofrio and I maintain that Horace Binney, cited and quoted by Justice Gray twice in Wong Kim Ark, explained that there are “citizens” and then there are “natural born citizens.” John Woodman, who was formerly debating me at length on the meaning of a “natural born citizen,” wrote a piece saying that Leo and I were wrong. I reminded Woodman that he left out of his article the very important quote from Binney’s second edition of his essay quoted by Justice Gray. Here is Woodman’s response:

“Here’s the quote that Apuzzo claims I am nefariously hiding:
“The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law, or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute. The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.”

***

Does the first sentence support his position? I don’t think so. It is a statement that the right of citizenship does not “descend” from a father to his son. In other words, according to Binney, citizenship is not automatically transmitted in the common law solely by a built-in “jus sanguinis” (“right of blood”) principle. The second sentence explains this: It is either “incident to birth in the country” (again, this doesn’t support Apuzzo’s claim; it goes against it!). Or, “it is given personally by statute” — in the case of foreign-born children of US citizens overseas.

Neither of the sentences that I didn’t include are helpful to Apuzzo. In fact, both of them are actually harmful to his theory, because they both deny the operation in American law of any automatic principle to transmit citizenship by parentage!”

So here we have one of Woodman’s many flawed analysis on the meaning of a “natural born citizen” and this one regarding Binney’s Wong Kim Ark quote. What Binney was saying is that the “right of citizenship” is not inherited under the common law or common naturalization acts from parents. That is because those who first create a society are its first “citizens.” They do not become members of that society from inheriting that right from parents. Rather, they acquire that right by being born in the place which then they convert into a new society. By doing so, they are the first “citizens,” having acquired that status by being born in that place and making that place a new society. Binney also explained that someone can be made a citizen of that place by naturalization statutes, again not from just being born to any particular parents.

It can be argued that Binney was willing to extend citizenship status (“citizen” not “natural born citizen”) also to children born in the country to alien parents well after the society was initially created. Note that the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happesett (1875) said that the common law did not so provide and Wong Kim Ark allowed such citizenship but only under the Fourteenth Amendment. In any event, Binney explained that these children born in the country to aliens were only “citizens,” not “natural born citizens.” Most important, Binney explained that the children of “citizens” were the “natural born citizens.” As Binney confirmed, these do, indeed, inherit their special citizenship status by being born in the country to “citizen” parents. So when Binney said that “[t]he right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense, either by the common law, or under the common naturalization acts. It is incident to birth in the country, or it is given personally by statute,” he was only referring to one becoming a “citizen,” not to one becoming a “natural born citizen.” In fact, he told us how one became a “natural born citizen,” and that was by birth in the country to “citizen” parents.

So, John Woodman is again wrong.; July 6, 2013 at 9:30 PM
Anonymous said...: from: In a Strange Land: The Rights of Immigrants
http://www.wherevertheresafight.com/excerpts/in_a_strange_land_the_rights_of_immigrants

"They argued that a child's [natural] citizenship derives from the nationality of the parents, regardless of where the child is born.
In 1888 an attorney with the Department of Justice promoted the idea of bringing a test case to the Supreme Court to challenge birthright citizenship claims made by Chinese Americans.

~ Before the federal district court, government attorneys contended that birth in the United States did not automatically translate into allegiance to America, especially if immigrant parents did not instill in their children loyalty to the United States.

They argued that citizenship should be determined by descent, to protect the nation from "the rag-tag and bob tail of humanity, who happen to be deposited on our soil by the accident of birth, and whose education and political affiliations are entirely alien."
Although Judge William W. Morrow sympathized with the government's arguments (as a member of Congress, he had supported Chinese exclusion legislation), he ruled that Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen and ordered his release. Morrow explained that to accept the government's arguments would mean "denationalizing" thousands of people who had been born in the United States to immigrant parents. The government appealed to the Supreme Court.

It's a fool's errand to argue that the policy of the U.S. government was one of accepting jus soli citizenship as the law of the land when there was no law, -just tradition, and that tradition recognized jus sanguinis natural law citizenship by descent.; July 7, 2013 at 2:15 AM
Anonymous said...: Mario wrote: "the status of being a born citizen of a state changes with change of domicile,"

How exactly does moving to another state change which state you were born in, the one of which you were born a citizen?

I wrote: "Mario, it's wrong to state that born citizens are created by the 14th Amendment. Born citizens existed before the constitutional United States, -as state citizens" (under the Articles of Confederation).
All the 14th Amendment did and does is make declaratory that which previously was asserted by some but not by the federal government.
Its language is very unlike that of British statutes that use a plethora of words like: shall be henceforth and are declared and adjudged to be citizens by the authority of the ? -state, Parliament, the Crown, whatever.
That is the sort of language needed to "create" citizens. The word "are" is not a creation word. It's declaratory of what is declare to be so already. That's why I opposed the use of that particular word. Born citizenship in some states long pre-dated the 14th Amendment, but the Wong opinion made it nationwide. Also, it can be said that it "created" federal citizens of those born of immigrants on Federal land. So we are both correct.

Binney: “The right of citizenship never descends in the legal sense,"
What is true about those words is . As I've written in a dozen expositions, natural citizenship is NOT "in the legal sense" legal citizenship since it's purely a natural inherited relationship. Natural citizenship is simply natural membership, -as in every family. Adoption is not natural membership, -it's legal membership.

Binney: "those who first create a society are its first “citizens.” They do not become members of that society from inheriting that right from parents."
False! It would be true if using the word "nation" instead of "society". People create nations but do not create organic entities such as societies, to which one belongs by birth.; July 7, 2013 at 2:55 AM
Anonymous said...: Have you noticed the controversy in Venezuela regarding the new President who is even more ineligible than Obama since he was born in a neighboring nation to, I assume, parents who weren't Venezuelan? I wonder if anything will be done about it. The pattern seen with Obama isn't good.; July 7, 2013 at 2:59 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: h2ooflife,

You said:

"Binney: 'those who first create a society are its first “citizens.” They do not become members of that society from inheriting that right from parents.'"

Binney did not say that, I said it. And I said it so that we can have a proper understanding of what Binney said in his famous Wong Kim Ark quote.; July 7, 2013 at 1:28 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: h2ooflife,

You said:

“Mario wrote: ‘the status of being a born citizen of a state changes with change of domicile,’

How exactly does moving to another state change which state you were born in, the one of which you were born a citizen?”

For your sake, I hope that you are just playing and not being serious.

One is a citizen and domiciliary of the state in which one is born. When one moves from that state to another state with the purpose and intent of making that other state one’s new domicile, one becomes a state citizen and domiciliary of that other state. Moving from one state to another does not affect one’s status as a "natural born Citizen" or “citizen of the United States.” But it does have serious consequences which are based on one’s domicile. As an example of such consequences, rights and obligations connected to marriage, divorce, rearing of children, inheritance, property ownership, education, business operation, taxes, gun ownership, voting, and many more are affected.

So find the best state to live in and move there.; July 7, 2013 at 1:50 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Here is a little glimpse at the moral character and integrity of a typical Obot:

“It's just that it would take a huge amount of money for me to display the degree of dishonesty that Putzy [Mario Apuzzo] shows. If he's not doing for the money then why the hell would anyone compromise his/her integrity to this degree. It one thing to do this in private, but in public and professionally, really now Putzy.” –SueDB of Fogbow.

Note how SueDB admits that her loyalty is tied to the highest bidder and that she is a confirmed hypocrite.

Now we can understand why the despicable Obots are the anti-constitutionalists and the Birthers are the constitutionalists.; July 7, 2013 at 2:56 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: What strikes me as highly contradictory in the Obot position on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” is that they maintain that it is the colonial English common law rather than natural law and the law of nations which defines an Article II “natural born Citizen,” and that under that law the citizenship status of a child’s parents plays no role in defining a “natural born Citizen.” So, under their theory of what is a “natural born Citizen,” other than just giving birth to the child in the nation’s territory, they deny that parents, provided they are not foreign diplomats or military invaders, have any role in the matter. But yet, under that same English common law, a King can normally come into being only by being born from “blood royal,” i.e., from parents who are themselves royalty.

The Obots also tell us that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers followed the English common law when writing the Constitution.

So, we are to believe that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers knew that the King as such came from parents, but the President and Commander in Chief of the Military as such was to come only from the soil.; July 7, 2013 at 3:54 PM
Unknown said...: frank b asked where barrys naturalization papers are ( what a dumb argument btw) and many of us would like to know when are we going to see any legit past records or papers from this poser. Anyone who reads minor, jays letter, article 2, early nat acts and 14th know that a child of a alien is not a NBC. I was stunned after i saw the 2 forgerys and minor and i realized the game is rigged and corp media will not cover this. sue obot is living in a fantasy world or more likely just another obama shill; July 7, 2013 at 3:59 PM
Unknown said...: that is a good point by mario, queen elizabeth inherited the throne by virtue of the blood not by location of her birth. She is truly natural born. Children automatically inherit citizenship from parents, what could be more natural than that centurys old fact?; July 7, 2013 at 4:08 PM
Anonymous said...: If the Constitutional Convention followed English common law in an invisible and unwritten manner when it came to citizenship, (simply substituting "citizen" for "subject", -regardless of the fact that they are opposites in fundamental ways), then how exactly can a faithful obamatron explain how the author(s) of the Declaration of Independence also relied upon common law principles? How exactly are fundamental unalienable rights, including the right of Expatriation, and the rejection of the state church, not pure political poison to the values of the common law of England? One can ask the same regarding the Bill of Rights vs the Divine Right of Kings.

So aside from uncodified common law being relied upon in cases of civil disputes, how exactly does common law impact fundamental principles of state and federal governance when they embody opposite values? How can Natural Rights be conflated with despotic Royal law and Parliamentary decree?

Me thinks the all-native-born souls are natural citizens crowd need to do some rethinking. I know, that's asking too much. Who wants their bubble burst, -who wants to replace the sweet for the bitter, -who wants to grow up and face reality. Certainly not the likes of the Chris Mathews crowd.

But down the road they will be able to claim some major bragging rights; "We're the people who elected the man who destroyed the country." A proud achievement for any adherent to Cloward & Piven.; July 8, 2013 at 3:08 AM
Stranger said...: I say something of interest yesterday while looking at the 1940 Census page listing my grandparents. One of the last columns is something like "relation to head of household (or family) and it contains the words "head" or "spouse" or "child".

In patriarchal societies, as the U.S. was until the second half of the last century, membership and nationality always descended from the head alone. All other family members were secondary since the head provided the income for survival.
That being the case, Obama's mother did not contribute citizenship to him under U.S. statutes because they were written for births outside of the U.S., not domestic births. Those were assumed to be covered by the 14th Amendment, supposedly.
But in truth it only applies to children of immigrants, which Obama Sr. wasn't, thus leaving Jr. without U.S. citizenship of any form other than erroneous policy.
Since he allowed his provisional Kenya citizenship to expire,(along with the British commonwealth membership connected to it) the only legitimate citizenship he possesses may be Indonesian via adoption. No one can argue that we do not have an Indonesian President unless his Indonesian citizenship was also provisional, which it may have been since he wasn't adopted as a baby. If expired, then he's a genuine citizen of no nation at all.; July 8, 2013 at 3:28 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Despite the assistance that the Anti-Constitutionalists (the Obots) have received from some lower courts, they have lost the “natural born citizen” debate.

The Anti-Constitutionalists tell us that an Article II “natural born Citizen” has the same definition as a colonial English common law “natural born subject.” But they have failed to provide historical and legal evidence and logic and reason to support their position. The best that they can do, apart from their ridicule and snark, is tell us that the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong Kim Ark’s holding, and current Congressional Acts define a “natural born Citizen” when a plain reading of that amendment, case’s holding, and Acts demonstrates that they do no such thing. So the Anti-Constitutionalists' injection of the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong Kim Ark's holding, and Congressional Acts into the argument is nothing but a red herring.

On the other hand, the Constitutionalists (the Birthers) have provided a definition of a “natural born Citizen” with historical and legal evidence and reason and logic to support it. I have provided this evidence, reason, and logic. All this undeniable evidence demonstrates that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.; July 9, 2013 at 10:44 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Why do I say that the Fourteenth Amendment is a red herring when it comes to defining an Article II “natural born Citizen?” The Obots love to use the Fourteenth Amendment as their base of support in the “natural born Citizen” debate. The amendment provides them with a moral argument for their definition of a “natural born Citizen” which has a great appeal with the American public. That moral appeal is based on the history and purpose of the amendment. We cannot forget that Congress passed the amendment as part of its Reconstruction after the Civil War. It was to guarantee, among various things, the freed slaves citizenship through birth in the United States. The amendment was designed to put an end for good to the Dred Scott decision, which had denied freed blacks the right to U.S. citizenship. The amendment made sure that no state could abridge the privileges and immunities enjoyed by “citizens of the United States.” The amendment also introduced the concept of due process as the protector of life, liberty, and property from abusive state action, and obligated the states to extend equal protection of the laws to any person present within its jurisdiction. The Amendment came to be used as a primary tool to combat racism and discrimination, not only against blacks, but all people who suffered such illegal activities at the hands of any state. So the amendment is not only connected to citizenship, but it is also supposed to protect our freedom and secure many rights of the individual. With all that, the amendment packs a strong emotional punch. So, the Obots have found a great friend in the Fourteenth Amendment in their attempt to convince people that the amendment defines a “natural born Citizen.”

The problem for the Obots is that while the amendment defines two classes of citizenship, federal and state, and has done great things for protecting life, liberty, and property, and the civil rights of all persons present on American territory, it has nothing to do with defining an Article II “natural born Citizen.” But that surely does not stop the Obots from using the amendment when it comes to providing us with a definition of a “natural born Citizen.” After all, how could they pass it up after all it has done for the betterment of American society? So the Obots will continue to tell the public how could anyone dare believe that a “natural born Citizen” is not defined by such an amendment which does so much to protect our American way of life. They even go as far as saying that anyone who would dare define a “natural born Citizen” any differently than how the amendment defines a “citizen of the United States” is even a racist.

But anyone who will just stop and read the amendment can readily see that it does not even mention the clause “natural born Citizen.” Rather, it mentions “citizen of the United States,” which citizenship status Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 tells us is no longer sufficient for one to be eligible to be President today. If one also looks further into the amendment, one will learn that it neither repealed nor amended Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause and therefore left that clause to be defined as it had always been defined under American national common law. And that definition is, as confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) and the majority and dissent in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.

So, when the Obots cite and quote the Fourteenth Amendment as their source for the definition of a “natural born Citizen,” tell them that the Fourteenth Amendment is a wonderful amendment, but it has nothing to do with defining an Article II “natural born Citizen.”; July 10, 2013 at 12:04 AM
Unknown said...: wka and the 14th have nothing to do with a NBC but the 14th does show that being born in US does not automatically make you NBC. If the obots were actually honest then they would try to make a citizen of the US eligible now in A2 instead of telling us 1+1 =3. Obamas records are either hidden or fake and i do not think he was a citizen of any kind with a fake social and forged draft card. It makes no sense that a real citizen would have a social that failed e verify and a lame forged selective service card. Add in the fudged BC image and his NBC problem as well. To believe all this is legit is to be residing in the land of make believe.; July 10, 2013 at 1:11 AM
thalightguy said...: 1. Why did the Dred Scott Court rule Children born within the U.S. to American Slaves could not be citizens?

2. Why were the Southern States allowed to be States to get the 13 Amendment ratified, but were denied State Hood when it was time to ratify the 14th Amendment?; July 10, 2013 at 6:55 PM
Anonymous said...: The founders and authors of the Constitution required that the President be a natural American, which means by birth to Americans -not foreigners who had become Americans, nor by native-birth to foreigners who had not become Americans.
Some have a deep desire that all native-born citizens be allowed to be President. But that's precisely what the framers prohibited with this language: "NO PERSON except a natural born citizen...shall be eligible to the office of the President,..."

Those who wish, hope and believe that that includes everyone born in America base that delusion on the assumption that the word "natural" has no literal meaning, -being just a part of a "term of art" transmogrified from the English system for determining who was a "natural born subject".

But the U.S. wasn't founded on the British model since it excluded the views of Natural Law and the unalienable Natural Rights of Man that spring from it, and instead focused to a large extent on the rights of the government, the aristocracy, the Crown, and the Church.

To demonstrate that the words the framers used are not some archaic legal "term of art" all one has to do is replace the word "citizen" with the word "Caucasian":

"NO PERSON except a natural born Caucasian shall be eligible to the office of President,"

That doesn't mean anyone with some Caucasian blood in his veins. It means one who is 100% Caucasian. Another similar example is that of being Chief of the Sioux nation. They had a rule that only a pure-blood member could be Chief. Would that include the son of George Custer if he were born on Sioux land? What about if his mother was a Sioux woman? Would that make him a 100% natural born Sioux? Not in a million years.

Similarly, being half white and half black would not make one a natural born Caucasian. The exact same logic applies to what a natural born citizen is. One is not half this and half that but is 100% American. He must be a "full-blood" member of his nation just as the Chief of the Sioux must be the same.

Merely being a legal member does not make one a natural member because one can become a legal member by adoption (natural-ization), including national adoption from birth. Being citizen-ized at birth by law does not make one a natural citizen because natural citizenship is not a gift of government. Government doesn't create it and cannot withdraw it because it pre-dates the government.

Obama, like all persons born of illegal and transient aliens, did not come into this world as a natural American any more than he came into this world as a natural Caucasian. His half-&-half nature makes him forever ineligible to be President of the United States. He was, in fact, born ineligible.; July 10, 2013 at 9:10 PM
thalightguy said...: I'll rephrase.

1. Why did the Dred Scott Court hold that children born within the U.S. to American Slaves could not be citizens?

2. The Southern States were acknowledged as part of the Union when they were needed to ratify the 13th Amendment; How then could it be Constitutional to force them to ratify the 14th Amendment before allowing them Representation?; July 10, 2013 at 10:15 PM
batazoid said...: If history has taught us anything since the birth of this nation, it has been the intrinsic value of adopting the most stringent definition of an Art. II §I Cl. 5 natural born Citizen as possible. I can find no better example of this definition than the one offered by John Bingham in the 1866 Civil Rights Act: 'A person born not subject to a foreign power.' I would further add at the risk of being redundant: 'A person born not subject to a foreign power, with one allegiance, and only one allegiance, and that allegiance is to support and abide by the US Constitution.'

FROM MY NOTES ON ENGLISH COMMON LAW:

William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, Volume II, edited by St. George Tucker, a Founder, published in 1803, especially Chapter 10:

"As to the qualifications of members to sit at this board: any natural born subject of England is capable of being a member of the privy council; taking the proper oaths for security of the government, and the test for security of the church. But, in order to prevent any persons under foreign attachments from insinuating themselves into this important trust, as happened in the reign of King William in many instances, it is enacted by the act of settlement, that no person born out of the dominions of the crown of England, unless born of English parents, even though naturalized by parliament, shall be capable of being of the privy."; April 2, 2015 at 12:15 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Appuzo,

Please review the proposition of Constitutional Law regarding the legal status of term of words 'U.S. (implicit) natural born Citizen as it was conceived and expressed by the Framers of the COTUS and 1st Congress then reconciled to date.

I do not seek to have you agree with it, but rather I am more interested in what you think might be wrong with the statutory interpretations I make of the usages of the term of words in the Statutory Construction of the COTUS and subsequent Acts.

http://goo.gl/4IzKlb http://goo.gl/4IzKlb

Resonses may be left at above sites if you decide to respond.; December 6, 2015 at 11:30 AM

«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 245 of 245 Newer› Newest»

Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers

Donate

Sunday, June 2, 2013

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

245 comments:

Bocca Della Verita ~ Mario Apuzzo Esq

Search This Blog

SCRIBD Links to Obtain Court Docs Filed

Useful Info, Docs, & Videos

Radio Interviews - Sampling

Print Media Announcements and Advertorials

Some Informative Websites & Forums

The Rules

Blog Archive

Followers

FEEDJIT Live Traffic Feed

SiteMeter