Donate

Friday, February 20, 2015

What Do President Obama and Senator Cruz Have In Common? They Are Both Not Natural Born Citizens



What Do President Obama and Senator Cruz Have In Common?  They Are Both Not Natural Born 
                                                                  Citizens

                                                         By Mario Apuzzo, Esq. 
                                                             February 20, 2015




Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides:

No person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office, who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States.” 

This constitutional provision raises two questions:  who are the “citizens” of the United States?; and who are the “natural born citizens” of the United States?  Let us examine these questions.   

Members of nations that are politically constituted as republics are called citizens. 

Citizens can be either citizens from the moment of birth or after birth.

Persons who are citizens from the moment of birth are automatically made so by either their birth circumstances alone or by some law that grants them that birth status without which they would not be so recognized.  In the United States, the former are the “natural born citizens” of the United States and the latter are “citizens” of the United States “at birth.”   Those who are made citizens after birth are also made so by circumstances or by some law without which they would also not be citizens.  In the United States, these citizens are commonly called “naturalized” citizens of the United States, meaning they did not acquire their citizenship automatically at the moment of their birth, but rather after birth through circumstances (the original citizens of the United States who acquired that status by adhering to the American Revolution) or formal naturalization process.   

Thomas Jefferson in The Declaration of Independence wrote about “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” entitling the American people to “the separate but equal Station” “among the Powers of the Earth.”  To understand why he would have used these words which also leads us to an understanding of what a natural born citizen is, consider this passage regarding what Aristotle, the Stoics, Christian teaching, and modern thought said about natural law or natural right:

Aristotle  

It is in accordance with the general character of Aristotle’s philosophy that his teaching regarding natural right is much closer to the ordinary understanding of justice than is Plato’s [see Aristotle]. In his Rhetoric he speaks of “the law according to nature” as the unchangeable law common to all men, but it is not entirely certain that he takes that law to be more than something generally admitted and hence useful in forensic rhetoric. At least two of his three examples of natural law do not agree with what he himself regarded as naturally right (Rhetoric 1373b4-18). In the Nicomachean Ethics (1134bl8-1135a5) he speaks not, indeed, of natural law but of natural right. Natural right is that right which has everywhere the same power and does not owe its validity to human enactment. Aristotle does not give a single explicit example; but he seems to imply that such things as helping fellow citizens who are victims of misfortune resulting from the performance of a civic duty, and worshiping the gods by sacrifices, belong to natural right. If this interpretation is correct, natural right is that right which must be recognized by any political society if it is to last and which for this reason is everywhere in force. Natural right thus understood delineates the minimum conditions of political life, so much so that sound positive right occupies a higher rank than natural right. Natural right in this sense is indifferent to the difference among regimes, whereas positive right is relative to the type of regime—positive right is democratic, oligarchic, etc. (cf. Politics 1280a8-22). “Yet,” Aristotle concludes his laconic statement on natural right, “one regime alone is by nature the best everywhere.” This regime, “the most divine regime,” is a certain kind of kingship, the only regime that does not require any positive right (Politics 1284a4-15; 1288al5-29). The flooring and the ceiling, the minimum condition and the maximum possibility of political society, are natural and do not in any way depend on (positive) law.

Stoicism

Natural law becomes a philosophic theme for the first time in Stoicism. It there becomes the theme not primarily of moral or political philosophy but of physics (the science of the universe). The natural (or divine or eternal) law is identified with God, the highest god (fire, ether, or air), or his reason, i.e., with the ordering principle that pervades and thus governs the whole by molding eternal matter. Rational beings can know that law and knowingly comply with it insofar as it applies to their conduct. In this application natural law directs man toward his perfection, the perfection of a rational and social animal; it is “the guide of life and the teacher of the duties” (Cicero, On the Nature of the Gods I, 40); it is the dictate of reason regarding human life. Thus the virtuous life as choice worthy for its own sake comes to be understood as compliance with natural law—with a law, and hence as a life of obedience.

Inversely, the content of natural law is the whole of virtue. The virtuous life as the Stoics understood it is, however, not identical with the life of moral virtue (as distinguished from the life of contemplation), for one of the four cardinal virtues is wisdom that is above all theoretical wisdom; the virtuous man is the wise man or the philosopher. One is tempted to say that the Stoics treat the study of philosophy as if it were a moral virtue, i.e., as something which could be demanded from most men. Justice, another of the four virtues, consists primarily in doing what is by nature right. The foundation of right is man’s natural inclination to love his fellow men, not merely his fellow citizens: there is a natural society comprising all men (as well as all gods). The inclination toward the universal society is perfectly compatible with the equally natural inclination toward political society, which is of necessity a particular society. The unchangeable and universally valid natural law—a part of which determines natural right, i.e., that with which justice, in contradistinction to wisdom, courage, and temperance, is concerned—is the ground of all positive law; positive laws contradicting natural law are not valid.

It is sometimes asserted that the Stoics differ from Plato and Aristotle by being egalitarians. Differing from Aristotle (but not from Plato), they denied that there are slaves by nature; but this does not prove that according to them all men are by nature equal in the decisive respect, i.e., as regards the possibility of becoming wise or virtuous (Cicero, On the Ends of the Good and Bad Things iv, 56). The peculiarity of the Stoics, in contradistinction to Plato and Aristotle, that explains why the Stoics were the first philosophers to assert unambiguously the existence of natural law would seem to be the fact that they teach in a much less ambiguous way than Plato, to say nothing of Aristotle, the existence of a divine providence that supplies divine sanctions for the compliance or noncompliance with the requirements of virtue. (Cf. Cicero, Laws II, 15-17; Republic III, 33-34.)

The Stoic natural law teaching is the basic stratum of the natural law tradition. It affected Roman law to some extent. With important modifications it became an ingredient of the Christian doctrine.

Christian teaching

The Christian natural law teaching reached its theoretical perfection in the work of Thomas Aquinas [see Aquinas]. It goes without saying that in the Christian version, Stoic corporealism (“materialism”) is abandoned. While natural law retains its status as rational, it is treated within the context of Christian (revealed) theology. The precise context within which Thomas treats natural law is that of the principles of human action; these principles are intrinsic (the virtues or vices) or extrinsic; the extrinsic principle moving men toward the good is God, who instructs men by law and assists them by his grace. Natural law is clearly distinguished from the eternal law—God himself or the principle of his governance of all creatures —on the one hand, and the divine law, i.e., the positive law contained in the Bible, on the other. The eternal law is the ground of the natural law, and natural law must be supplemented by the divine law if man is to reach eternal felicity and if no evil is to remain unpunished. All creatures participate in the eternal law insofar as they possess, by virtue of divine providence, inclinations toward their proper acts and ends. Rational beings participate in divine providence in a more excellent manner because they can exercise some providence for themselves; they can know the ends toward which they are by nature inclined as good and direct themselves toward them. Man is by nature inclined toward a variety of ends which possess a natural order; they ascend from self-preservation and procreation via life in society toward knowledge of God. Natural law directs men’s action toward those ends by commands and prohibitions.

Differently stated, as a rational being man is by nature inclined toward acting according to reason; acting according to reason is acting virtuously; natural law prescribes, therefore, the acts of virtue. Man by nature possesses knowledge of the first principles of natural law, which are universally valid or unchangeable. Owing to the contingent character of human actions, however, those conclusions from the principles which are somewhat remote possess neither the evidence nor the universality of the principles themselves; this fact alone would require that natural law be supplemented by human law. A human law that disagrees with natural law does not have the force of law (Summa theologica I, 2, 90 ff.). All moral precepts of the Old Testament (as distinguished from its ceremonial and judicial precepts) can be reduced to the Decalogue; they belong to the natural law. This is true in the strictest sense of the precepts of the Second Table of the Decalogue, i.e., the seven commandments which order men’s relations among themselves (Exodus 20.12-17). The precepts in question are intelligible as self-evident even to the people and are at the same time valid without exception; compliance with them does not require the habit of virtue (Summa theologica I, 2, 100).

A sufficient sanction is supplied by divine punishment for transgressions of the natural law, but it is not entirely clear whether human reason can establish the fact of such punishment; Thomas surely rejects the Gnostic assertion that God does not punish and the assertion of certain Islamic Aristotelians that the only divine punishment is the loss of eternal felicity. He does say that sin is considered by the theologians chiefly insofar as it is an offense against God, whereas the moral philosophers consider sin chiefly insofar as it is opposed to reason. These thoughts could lead to the view of some later writers that natural law strictly understood is natural reason itself, i.e., natural law does not command and forbid but only “indicates”; natural law thus understood would be possible even if there were no God (cf. Suárez, Tractatus de legibus ac de Deo legislatore n, 6, sec. 3; Grotius,De jure belli ac pads, Prolegomena, sec. 11; Hobbes, Leviathan, chapter 15-end; Locke, Treatises of Civil Government n, sec. 6; Leibniz, Théodicée, sec. 183).

Thomas treats natural right (as distinguished from natural law) in his discussion of justice as a special virtue (Summa theologica n, 2, 57). Therein he is confronted with the task of reconciling with the Aristotelian teaching the Roman law distinction between ius naturale and ius gentium, according to which natural right deals only with things common to all animals (like procreation and the raising of offspring), whereas the ius gentium is particularly human. The Roman law distinction might seem to reflect early conventionalist teaching (cf. Democritus, fr. 278). Thomas’ reconciliation apparently paved the way for the conception of “the state of nature” as a status antedating human society. (Cf. Suárez, Tractatus II, 18, sec. 4.)

The Thomistic natural law teaching, which is the classic form of natural law teaching, was already contested in the Middle Ages on various grounds. According to Duns Scotus, only the commandment to love God—or, rather, the prohibition against hating God—belongs to natural law in the strictest sense. According to Marsilius of Padua, natural right as Aristotle meant it is that part of positive right which is recognized and observed everywhere (divine worship, honoring of parents, raising of offspring, etc.); it can only metaphorically be called natural right [See Marsilius of Padua]. The dictates of right reason regarding the things to be done (i.e., natural law in the Thomistic sense), on the other hand, are not as such universally valid because they are not universally known and observed.

Modern developments

Natural law acquired its greatest visible power in modern times: in both the American and the French revolutions, solemn state papers appealed to natural law. The change in effectiveness was connected with a substantive change; modern natural law differs essentially from premodern natural law. Premodern natural law continued to be powerful; but it was adapted to modern natural law, with varying degrees of awareness of what was involved in that adaptation. The most striking characteristics of modern natural law are these: (1) Natural law is treated independently, i.e., no longer in the context of theology or of positive law. Special chairs for natural law were established in some Protestant countries; treatises on natural law took on the form of codes of natural law. The independent treatment of natural law was made possible by the belief that natural law can be treated “geometrically,” i.e., that the conclusions possess the same certainty as the principles. (2) Natural law became more and more natural public law; Hobbes’s doctrine of sovereignty, Locke’s doctrine of “no taxation without representation,” and Rousseau’s doctrine of the general will are not simply political but legal doctrines. They belong to natural public law; they do not declare what the best political order is, which by its nature is not realizable except under very favorable conditions, but they state the conditions of legitimacy which obtain regardless of place and time. (3) Natural law by itself is supposed to be at home in the state of nature, i.e., a state antedating civil society. (4) In the modern development “natural law” is replaced by “the rights of man”; the emphasis shifts from man’s duties to his rights. (5) Whereas premodern natural law was on the whole “conservative,” modern natural law is essentially “revolutionary.” The radical difference between modern and premodern natural law appears most clearly if one studies the still remembered great modern natural law teachers rather than the university professors who as a rule rest satisfied with compromises.

The principles informing modern natural law were established by two thinkers who were not themselves natural law teachers, Machiavelli and Descartes. According to Machiavelli, the traditional political doctrines take their bearings by how men should live and thus culminate in the description of imaginary commonwealths (“Utopias”), which are useless in practice; one ought to start from how men do live. Descartes begins his revolution with the universal doubt, which leads to the discovery of the Ego and its “ideas” as the absolute basis of knowledge and to a mathematical-mechanical account of the universe as a mere object of man’s knowledge and exploitation.

Modern natural law as originated by Hobbes did not start, as traditional natural law did, from the hierarchic order of man’s natural ends, but rather from the lowest of those ends (self-preservation) that could be thought to be more effective than the higher ends [See Hobbes]. (A civil society ultimately based on nothing but the right of self preservation would not be Utopian.) Man is still asserted to be the rational animal, but his natural sociality is denied. Man is not by nature ordered toward society, but he orders himself toward it prompted by mere calculation. This view in itself is very old, but now it is animated by the concern for a natural-right basis of civil society. The desire for self-preservation has the character of a passion rather than of a natural inclination; the fact that it is the most powerful passion makes it the sufficient basis of all rights and duties. Natural law, which dictates men’s duties, is derived from the natural right of self-preservation. The right is absolute, while all duties are conditional. Since men are equal with regard to the desire for self-preservation as well as with regard to the power of killing others, all men are by nature equal. There is no natural hierarchy of men, so that the sovereign to whom all must submit for the sake of peace and ultimately of the self-preservation of each is understood as a “person,” i.e., as the representative or agent, of each; the primacy of the individual—of any individual—and of his natural right remain intact (cf. Leviathan, chapter 21).

The doctrine of Locke may be described as the peak of modern natural law [See Locke]. At first glance it appears to be a compromise between the traditional and the Hobbesian doctrines. Agreeing with Hobbes, Locke denies that the natural law is imprinted in the minds of men, that it can be known from the consent of mankind, and that it can be known from men’s natural inclination. His deduction of natural law is generally admitted to be confusing—not to say confused—which does not prove, however, that Locke himself was confused. It seems to be safest to understand his doctrine as a profound modification of the Hobbesian doctrine.

It is certain that, unlike Hobbes, Locke sees the crucially important consequence of the natural right of self-preservation in the natural right of property, i.e., of acquiring property, a natural right that within civil society becomes the natural right of unlimited acquisition. Property is rightfully acquired primarily by labor; in civil society, however, labor ceases to be the title to property while remaining the source of all value. Locke’s natural law doctrine is the original form of capitalist theory.

Rousseau too starts from the Hobbesian premise [See Rousseau]. Hobbes asserted that the natural right to judge the means of self-preservation is the necessary consequence of the right of self-preservation itself and belongs, as does the fundamental right, equally to all men, wise or foolish. But Rousseau demands that the natural right to judge the means of self-preservation be preserved as an institution within civil society. Every person subject to the laws must as a natural right have a say in the making of the laws by being a member of the sovereign, i.e., of the legislative assembly. The corrective to folly is to be found above all in the character of the laws in general, both in origin and in content: all subject to the laws determine what all must or may not do. The justice or rationality of the laws is thereby guaranteed in the only way compatible with the freedom and equality of all. In the society established in accordance with natural right, there is no longer a need or a possibility of appealing from positive law to natural right, because the members or rulers of that society are not supposed to be just men.

Rousseau further differed from Hobbes by realizing that if man is by nature asocial, he is by nature arational; questioning the traditional view that man is the rational animal, he found the peculiarity of man in his perfectibility or, more generally stated, his malleability. This led to the conclusions that the human race is what we wish to make it and that human nature cannot supply us with guidance as to how man and human society ought to be.

Kant drew the decisive conclusion from Rousseau’s epoch-making innovations: the Ought cannot be derived from the Is, from human nature; the moral law is neither a natural law nor a derivative of natural law [See Kant]. The criterion of the moral law is its form alone, the form of rationality, i.e., the form of universality.

At about the same time that Kant, sympathizing with the French Revolution, radicalized the most radical form of modern natural right and thus transformed natural right and natural law into a law and a right which are rational but no longer natural, Burke, opposing the French Revolution and its theoretical basis, which is a certain version of modern natural right, returned to premodern natural law [See Burke]. In doing so, he made thematic the conservatism which was implicit to some extent in premodern natural law. Therewith he profoundly modified the premodern teaching and prepared decisively the transition from the natural “rights of man” to the prescriptive “rights of Englishmen,” from natural law to “the historical school.”

Leo Strauss, "Natural Law.International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences. 1968. Encyclopedia.com. 20 Feb. 2015, at http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/natural_law.aspx

In this explanation we can see the power, whether real or imagined, ascribed to natural law as the common law of all men, as the source for providing the minimum and maximum human conditions, in contradistinction to positive law which was established by societies in order to satisfy their own particular needs that may pertain only to that society. We can see how natural law evolved into that philosophy to be adopted by man to guarantee his or her “natural right of self-preservation.” 
  
With these principles of natural law in mind, let us now examine what birth circumstances make one a natural born citizen.  In other words, under natural law what means or mechanism makes one a natural born citizen?  The long-time settled definition of a natural born citizen, based on common or universal consent of nations, is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.  Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 211 to 217 (1758) (1797).  Vattel explains that the law of nations is the law of nature applied to the affairs of nations.  Under that law of nations, he defines the “citizens” as “the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.”  Section 212.  He also explains that the virtue of love of country, which is necessary for the preservation, survival, and perpetuation of that country, is naturally given to our “native country” by its “natives, or natural-born citizens, [who] are those born in the country of parents who are citizens.”  Section 211 to 212.  (In Section 122, he also explains the duty that one has to defend one’s adopted country “with his utmost efforts.”) 

America had recently fought an independence war with Great Britain, which divided the loyalties of its own people.  So, the Framers knew firsthand how critical undivided loyalty and allegiance were to the future survival of their cause for liberty and the preservation of the new republic.  The Framers commanded that Presidents and Commanders of the Military born after the adoption of the Constitution be natural born citizens to assure that they would be born with those circumstances which would best assure that they would develop the virtue of love of country and thereby be free of monarchical and foreign influence in whatever form it may present itself.  The historical record demonstrates that, with the Office of President being a singular and all-powerful office both civilly and militarily, the Framers took extra measures to keep monarchical and foreign influence out of the Office of President.  Rather than relying upon Congress to elect the President, they gave that power to the Electoral College.  Unlike allowing “citizens” to serve in Congress, they required future Presidents to be “natural born citizens.”  They looked to the natural born citizen clause to assure that the President would in the future protect and preserve the constitutional Republic which they had built.  They sought to achieve this end by requiring that those future Presidents and Commanders be born with unity of citizenship and allegiance to the United States.  They looked upon the natural born citizen clause as a means to accomplish their end. 

Regardless of whether or not their value judgment is correct or how the modern world thinks about natural law, the Founding generation incorporated the universally binding natural law and law of nations definition of a natural born citizen into American common law and the Framers relied upon that common law when they drafted and adopted the Constitution.  Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (“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”); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) (cited and quoted Minor’s definition of a natural born citizen and its source as coming from the common law and held that a child born in the United States to alien parents, who were neither foreign ambassadors nor military invaders, was under principles laid down by colonial English common law born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore a “citizen” of the United States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment [not to be confused with an Article II natural born citizen]).  As we can see from this definition, a natural born citizen is a citizen from the moment of birth by virtue of his or her birth (a citizen “by birth”) and nothing more, by the force of being born in the country of which both of his or her parents were member citizens at the time of his or her birth.  A natural born citizen needs no law in order to gain that status at birth, for he or she gains that birth status strictly by the circumstances of his or her birth, just like a natural or biological child of certain parents gains that status simply by being born to those parents as opposed to an adopted child of certain parents who gains that status by being adopted by those parents by the grace of a particular law.  As applied to the United States, a natural born citizen of the United States is a child born or reputed born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth.   Having been incorporated into the Constitution, this definition of a natural born citizen is the law of the land until amended by constitutional amendment or re-interpreted by a U.S. Supreme Court decision.  

A simpler way to look at the meaning of an Article II natural born citizen is to consider that under the law of nations, only a child who was born in a country to parents who were citizens of that country were "true" natural born citizens. This law of nations definition was incorporated into American common law. 

All other citizens who may be so made "at birth" under the positive laws of a nation may be citizens "at birth," and even considered by some as natural born citizens, but they are not "true" natural born citizens. In this connection, consider the Naturalization Act of 1790 which said that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents "shall be considered as natural born citizens," which the Naturalization Act of 1795 changed to "shall be considered as citizens of the United States." Notice how the First Congress said that those citizens "at birth" shall be considered as natural born citizens, but since they were not true natural born citizens, the Third Congress said that they shall be considered only as citizens of the United States. Consider further that with the Naturalization Act of 1802, as interpreted, Congress treated those same children (born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents who in 1790 were considered as natural born citizens and in 1795 were considered as citizens of the United States “at birth”) as aliens and in need of naturalization after birth. Surely, if those same children were true natural born citizens, neither Congress nor those who interpreted its naturalization act would have conclude that they were aliens. 

In this same connection, today the Fourteenth Amendment and naturalization Acts of Congress make children born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof “citizens” of the United States “at birth.” Other naturalization Acts of Congress make children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents also “citizens” of the United States “at birth.” Of these children, those who do not meet the original common law definition of a true natural born citizen, are “citizens” of the United States “at birth.” Some consider them to be natural born citizens, like the British, under colonial English common law and statutes, considered all children born as or made “subjects,” “natural-born subjects.” But they are not true natural born citizens under the more demanding and strict American common law and hence constitutional requirement. 

Since the Framers used the original American common law definition of a natural born citizen which came from the law of nations, which definition became incorporated into the Constitution as part of the supreme law of the land, only a "true" natural born citizen may be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. And that true natural born citizen is only that child who is born or reputed born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth. 

Senator Ted Cruz was not born in the country of which both his parents were citizens at the time of his birth.  He was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen (Cuban) father.  He cannot be a natural born citizen of the United States because he was not born in the United States and also because he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father.  Rather, Senator Cruz’s birth circumstances qualify him under Canadian law to be a citizen at birth of Canada and under a naturalization Act of Congress as a “citizen” of the United States “at birth.”  He may also qualify as a citizen at birth under Cuban law through birth to a Cuban citizen.  These laws are positive internal or municipal laws of these nations and not universally binding upon nations as the natural law of nations. Under 8 U.S.C. 1401(g), a naturalization Act of Congress, Senator Ted Cruz is a “citizen” of the United States “at birth.”  He is made a citizen at birth not only by his birth circumstances, but rather because this naturalization Act of Congress makes him a citizen of the United States at birth.  Hence, he is a citizen only because Congress allows him to be one through one of its naturalization Acts, which it can change at any time it pleases.  (In the past, and specifically under the Naturalization Act of 1802, as interpreted, Congress has even denied altogether the status of a citizen of the United States to children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents.)  Additionally, the Constitution gives to Congress in matters of citizenship only the power to naturalize which does not include the power to make anyone a natural born citizen.  Congress has recognized this limitation on its power and therefor in its statutes calls persons it is naturalizing from the moment of birth only “citizens” of the United States “at birth” and not natural born citizens of the United States. Consider that the First Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790 said that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents “shall be considered as natural born citizens” which the Third Congress changed in the Naturalization Act of 1795 to “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”  Hence, at best under the very text of the statute, Senator Cruz is a “citizen” of the United States “at birth,” not a natural born citizen of the United States.  
  
Senator Ted Cruz is a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” by virtue of his birth circumstances and a naturalization act of Congress (a positive law), not by virtue of his birth circumstances alone.  At best, he is also a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” by the very text of the statute.  He is a “citizen” at birth of the United States, Canada, and maybe Cuba also.  But he is not an Article II natural born citizen which could not under U.S. law possibly allow one to be simultaneously a citizen at birth of other nations.  Renouncing his birthright Canadian citizenship as he has recently done does not nor can it retroactively change the birth circumstances with which he was born.   

Similarly, de facto President Barack Obama, was not born in the country of which both his parents were citizens at the time of his birth.  He was presumably born in the United States to a U.S. citizen mother, but to a non-U.S. citizen father (his father was a Citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies (CUKC) under the British Nationality Act 1948 which converted to a citizen of Kenya upon Kenya’s independence from Great Britain in 1963).  Not being born to a U.S. citizen father, he does not satisfy the common law definition of a natural born citizen.  He is, however, presumably a “citizen” of the United States “at birth,” by virtue of his birth circumstances, and the Fourteenth Amendment or 8 U.S.C. Section 1401(a) (laws which provide that “[a]ll persons born . . . in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States. . . ”), not by virtue of his birth circumstances alone or some law that constitutionally declares textually that he is a natural born citizen.  He is therefore also not an Article II natural born citizen. 

So, what do Mr. Obama and Mr. Cruz have in common?  They are both not born with unity of citizenship and allegiance to the United States and therefore not Article II natural born citizens.    Being neither a “natural born Citizen, [n]or a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” neither Obama nor Cruz are constitutionally eligible under Article II to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.
To review my examination of the numerous historical and legal sources that support my position on the meaning of a natural born citizen, see the many articles and comments that I have published at my blog, www.puzo1.blogspot.com
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
February 20, 2015
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Copyright © 2015
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved   

105 comments:

Teo Bear said...

The only thing Cruz and Obama have in common are their alien fathers.

It is a simple fact that Ted Cruz is a Citizen of the United States, no one denies this. He was made so by a statue of Congress. However, Congress has no authority to create a citizen of the United States except through naturalization. The fact that he was made a citizen at birth was a privilege extended to him by congress because of his American mother.

Obama on the other hand was born. Where is still a mater of debate because he will not allow anyone to see his records, and the records he has released raise serious questions. However, if he was born abroad his mother could not afford the privilege of extending her American citizenship to him because of the statue at the time she was too young.

A natural citizen can only be made through other citizens not exercising any privilege. It is settle law that American citizens are sovereign, and in their own country they need no privilege by government to extend their citizenship to their offspring. Citizens needing no privilege to pass on their citizenship are natural born citizens.

Ted Cruz is a great American, one whose ideas and ideals I share. I would vote for him 10 times (just like a democrat) if he was born in the United States and his father was an American citizen at the time of his birth. For after 7 years studying this subject I am firmly convinced that the framers of the Constitution rejected English Common Law as a foundation for the constitution and adopted Vattel's Law of Nations to seed our national law.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Teo Bear,

A simple way to look at the meaning of an Article II natural born citizen is to consider that under the law of nations, only a child who was born in a country to parents who were citizens of that country were "true" natural born citizens. This law of nations definition was incorporated into American common law.

All other citizens who may be so made "at birth" under the positive laws of a nation may be citizens "at birth," and even considered by some as natural born citizens, but they are not "true" natural born citizens. In this connection, consider the Naturalization Act of 1790 which said that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents "shall be considered as natural born citizens," which the Naturalization Act of 1795 changed to "shall be considered as citizens of the United States." Notice how the First Congress said that those citizens "at birth" shall be considered as natural born citizens, but since they were not true natural born citizens, the Third Congress said that they shall be considered only as citizens of the United States. Consider further that with the Naturalization Act of 1802, as interpreted, Congerss treated those same children (born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents who in 1790 were considered as natural born citizens and in 1795 were considered as citizens of the United States “at birth”) as aliens and in need of naturalization after birth. Surely, if those same children were true natural born citizens, neither Congress nor those who interpreted its naturalization act would have conclude that they were aliens.

In this same connection, today the Fourteenth Amendment and naturalization Acts of Congress make children born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof “citizens” of the United States “at birth.” Other naturalization Acts of Congress make children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents also “citizens” of the United States “at birth.” Of these children, those who do not meet the original common law definition of a true natural born citizen, are “citizens” of the United States “at birth.” Some consider them to be natural born citizens, like the British, under colonial English common law and statutes, considered all children born as or made “subjects,” “natural-born subjects.” But they are not true natural born citizens under the more demanding and strict American common law and hence constitutional requirement.

Since the Framers used the original American common law definition of a natural born citizen which came from the law of nations, which definition became incorporated into the Constitution as part of the supreme law of the land, only a "true" natural born citizen may be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. And that true natural born citizen is only that child who is born or reputed born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth.

Janet Price said...

I know you've been given many links to articles that claim that anyone born on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen. That is also what I've learned in school and what was broadly accepted until birthers came up with the concept of natural born citizens requiring two citizen parents in order to claim that President Obama is not eligible.

However, according to your post, you are indicating that there are more than two types of citizens, those who are natural born to U.S. citizen parents, those immigrants who go through the naturalization process after they have met the necessary requirements and those who while considered citizens at birth are not natural born but must go through a naturalization process since either one of both of their parents were not citizens. Have you provided an example of someone who has been born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents who also went through the naturalization process? According to what you claim, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Barack Obama would have to go through the naturalization process. So would millions of others if what you claim were true. However, there are only two types of citizens, those who are natural born and those who naturalize. There is no third category of citizens who are born citizens who also have to go through the naturalization process due to their parents citizenship status. The 14th amendment makes this abundantly clear as they have provided that those who are children of military invaders or foreign diplomats are not considered to be U.S. citizens yet anyone else born on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen. It is one of the reasons that the GOP wanted to change the 14th amendment. They didn't want so many anchor babies.

Why is it that for years many spoke about Jindal as being a good candidate for the GOP for President yet NOBODY came forward and said, "he's not eligible due to his parents' lack of citizenship." Being the child of immigrants born in the U.S., he would surely have been aware if he was not considered to be natural born. The idea that the founding fathers turned to Vattel for citizenship status is ludicrous considering his stance on other topics such as a state religion or forbidding citizens to bear arms. Of course, the actual translation of Vattel does not indicate the need for two citizen parents, but the birthers refuse to listen to reason because they are desperate to find anything that would make President Obama ineligible for the Presidency.

Orly Taitz, who has 2 sons that were born prior to her allegedly becoming a citizen, states that her sons are not eligible for the Presidency yet won't answer the question as to whether or not they went through the naturalization process that she claims is required in order to be a citizen if your parents are not both citizens. Hypocrites! No wonder there aren't any well-respected attorneys stepping forth to bring claims in the court that President Obama is ineligible. Well-respected, competent and knowledgeable attorneys recognize the fact that anyone born on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of III

Janet Price,

You have provided the typical “Obama is a natural born citizen” talking points. You have not specifically addressed the content of my article. Rather, you just post a tailor-made argument that has been made over the years which does not address my position.

You attempt to prove that someone is a natural born citizen by first providing what you say the definition of a “naturalized” citizen is (a person who becomes a citizen after birth) and then telling us that if a person is both a citizen and not naturalized, that person must be a natural born citizen. You conclude that any person who is made a citizen at birth is not naturalized and therefore must be a natural born citizen.

The fallacy in your argument lies first, in your definition of a naturalized citizen, and second, in concluding that since that citizen is not naturalized as you have defined the word, he must be a natural born citizen.

In our Constitution, there are only two types of members of our republic, “citizens” and “natural born citizens.” In our Constitution, naturalization is only a means by which one may become a citizen. The Constitution does not define the word “naturalization.” Nor does it limit Congress’s naturalization powers to using them to make non-citizens into citizens only after their birth.

All natural born citizens are citizens, but not all citizens are natural born citizen. To be a natural born citizen, one has to satisfy the common law definition of the clause which is a child born in a country to parents who were citizens at the time of the child’s birth. To be a citizen, either at birth or after birth, who is not a natural born citizen, one has to only satisfy the requirements of whatever naturalization law that applies to the circumstances. In 1866, Congress also added the Fourteenth Amendment as another means by which persons, who could not satisfy the common law definition of a natural born citizen and who were therefore not natural born citizens, could become “citizens” of the United States “at birth.”

That a law, such as the Fourteenth Amendment or naturalization Act of Congress, makes one a citizen “at birth” automatically at birth, obviating the need to go through a formal naturalization process after birth, does not mean that that person is not naturalized and therefore a fortiori natural born citizen. The concept of naturalization at birth has long been recognized in legal history. See Calvin’s Case (1608) (Lord Coke naturalized Calvin at birth to be a “natural-born subject. "The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.’” Co. Litt. 129, quoted and cited in United States v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. 785, 790 (1866). Under English common law, once a person became naturalized, he or she was deemed to be a “natural born subject”); Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (In Section 214 of The Law of Nations, entitled "Naturalisation," Vattel states: "Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner"); Congress’s naturalization Acts (Congress has been naturalizing children “at birth” who were born out of the United States to citizen parents since 1790); the learned Vinerian Professors of English common law, William Blackstone (1758–1766), Richard Wooddeson (1777–1793), and founder and jurist St. George Tucker, all recognized that mere birth in the country to alien parents under English common law conferred the birthright to naturalization; U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) (recognized naturalization at birth); Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815(1971) (recognized naturalization at birth). See also, Jill A. Pryor, “The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of III

Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty,” 97 Yale L.J. 881 (1988) (Concluding that a “naturalized born citizen” is a “natural born citizen,” stated: “Section II demonstrates that Congress' naturalization powers under the Constitution enable it to naturalize citizens from birth. Section III marshals textual and structural support for the alternative ‘naturalized born’ approach, which reads the clause to require that the presidential candidate be a citizen at the time of birth. Under that approach, Congress has the power to define which classes of people will be citizens upon birth, but it may not declare any person a ‘citizen at birth’ retroactively."

Hence, your “naturalization” argument fails because persons can be naturalized either at birth or after birth. Those naturalized at birth are made citizens at birth automatically. But that does not mean that they were not naturalized. It only means that since they became citizens at birth automatically, they did not need to go through any further naturalization after birth. Hence, citizens of the United States “at birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment or Acts of Congress, who do not meet the common law definition of a natural born citizen, while not needing formal naturalization after birth, are in the technical sense, still naturalized, albeit at birth. Needing naturalization at birth, they are not Article II natural born citizens under American common law (not to be confused with English common law).

Your argument also fails in how you attempt to get around the constitutional definition of a natural born citizen by proving a negative to prove a positive, with the negative being naturalization and the positive being a natural born citizen. Simply stated, trying to prove that someone is a natural born citizen by proving that someone is not something else, is fallacious. A person who is a citizen, in order to prove that he or she is a natural born citizen, has to prove that he or she satisfies the constitutional common law definition of a natural born citizen. The person does not just bootstrap himself or herself to be a natural born citizen by showing that he or she is not a naturalized citizen, especially when the definition of a naturalized citizen is limited in order to arrive at the desired result. That a positive law makes one a citizen at birth and thereby obviates the need for the person to go through naturalization after birth in order to be a citizen, what you call not being a naturalized citizen, does not and cannot replace the need to prove the necessary and sufficient conditions of being a natural born citizen, i.e., born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

What you learned in school or what is broadly accepted does not prove what the definition of a natural born citizen is. You have to prove to us what the specific issue was and what study was made of that issue in school in order for what you learned in school to have any degree of controlling effect.

The “birthers” did not come up with the concept of natural born citizen requiring two citizen parents in order to claim that President Obama is not eligible to be President. The birthers are not desperate to make Obama not eligible. He simply is not, not by anything the birthers invented, but rather by his own birth circumstances. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 commands that no person who is not a natural born citizen is eligible to be President. There are numerous historical and legal sources which define a natural born citizen as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Hence, no one is picking on President Obama.
Furthermore, there have been many presidential candidates in the past who have been challenged for not being natural born citizens. So, President Obama is not some poor unprecedented victim.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of III

You said:

“However, according to your post, you are indicating that there are more than two types of citizens, those who are natural born to U.S. citizen parents, those immigrants who go through the naturalization process after they have met the necessary requirements and those who while considered citizens at birth are not natural born but must go through a naturalization process since either one of both of their parents were not citizens.”

~~~~~

If you would have read what I wrote and not just paste your pat comment here you would see that I have never said that a person who is by the Fourteenth Amendment or Act of Congress made a citizen “at birth” has to go through a naturalization process. See my comments above. But that they do not have to go through any naturalization after birth does not mean that they were not naturalized at birth.

You said:

“The 14th amendment makes this abundantly clear as they have provided that those who are children of military invaders or foreign diplomats are not considered to be U.S. citizens yet anyone else born on U.S. soil is a natural born citizen.”

~~~~~

That the Fourteenth Amendment only excludes as citizens thereunder, of all children born in the United States, children born to foreign diplomats or military invaders and makes all the rest “citizens” of the United States “at birth” does not prove that those children are natural born citizens. The clause “natural born citizen” does not appear in the Amendment’s text. The amendment neither repealed nor amended Article II’s natural born citizen clause. Both Minor v. Happersett and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), along with notable scholars, have all said that the Amendment does not define a natural born citizen. So I do not know what type of glasses you are using to read the amendment to tell us that it makes it “abundantly clear” that all those children born on U.S. soil are natural born citizens.

Your comment about the bad Republicans picking on poor “anchor babies” is a red herring. Whoever the Fourteenth Amendment may make a “citizen” of the United States does not prove who is an Article II natural born citizen. On the contrary, surely anyone the Amendment does not make a citizen thereunder cannot be a natural born citizen. In this regard, remember that U.S. Supreme Court in The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) said that children born in the United States to any alien parents were not citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. So much for your theory that children born on U.S. soil to alien parents who are not foreign diplomats or enemy invaders, is a natural born citizen. I just cannot image how our U.S. Supreme Court could mistake a natural born citizen for an alien.

That certain candidates, such as Bobby Jindal and others, are not challenged as not being natural born citizens does not mean they are. Your logic and standards are wanting.

You said:

“Of course, the actual translation of Vattel does not indicate the need for two citizen parents.”

~~~~~

I do not know what you mean or expect by “actual translation.” There have been numerous English translations of Vattel done, with the first done in 1759 or 1760, and others done through the rest of the 18th and 19th centuries. Those translations have been accepted by numerous U.S. Supreme Court and lower court decisions. Here is the most accepted translation of Vattel, as found in the 1797 English edition: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” The Law of Nations, Section 212. So you see, Vattel has been translated numerous times and all his translations say “parents who are citizens.”

Given what I have already said, I have covered the rest of your comments.

Thank you for commenting on my article. Should you believe that you can refute my reply to you, please do so here.

Janet Price said...

Why would Vattel mention the need for two citizen parents when at the time the Law of Nations was written, a woman's citizenship followed that of her father until she married and then subsequently, the citizenship of her husband? Women weren't given the consideration of being citizens on their own, they weren't even recognized as being relevant to citizenship. Vattel would not have distinguised a mother as not being a citizen separate from her husband.

If the Constitution recognized the idea that you have to have two citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen, why did we bother with the 14th amendment and its exclusions for those from positions as invading military or foreign diplomats?

As far as Jindal goes or President Obama, if it were necessary for them to have two citizen parents in order to be eligible for President, they would NOT have been considered as a potential candidate for several years without someone calling notice to the fact that their parents were not both citizens when they were born. There hasn't been any attempt on either of them to hide their parentage. If there were really this huge conspiracy to put someone into office as the birthers often claim was the case with Obama, I'm certain that those behind the conspiracy would not have used a half-black, half-caucasian with an unusual name whose father also happened to be an African citizen.

I clearly remember learning the concept of "jus soli" in school when I was in 5th grade. Birthers claimed they learned there was a requirement that both parents be citizens yet they have never brought forth a textbook that indicated that was true.

Where are all these citizens that had to naturalize after being born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents? If what you say is true, they would have to go through the naturalization process as there are only two types of citizens, natural born and naturalized. A citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. You can write the opposite all you like but that won't make it correct.

Janet Price said...

I will add more to my argument against your stance tomorrow because I have several cites saved but it's too late for me to continue this discussion tonight. Instead, I'll leave you with one question, can you name any legal scholar who has ever said that the founding fathers relied on Vattel for their stance on citizenship, meaning they actually said his name and that this is what they considered a natural born citizen to be according to Vattel? I've never found a cite that can name anyone who has done so. There is also the idea that many birthers use that Vattel was heavily relied upon yet there are several circumstances as I've mentioned in an earlier post that are in direct contradiction to our Constitution.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of VI

Janet Price,

In this comment, which has six parts, I start with your first point.

1. “Why would Vattel mention the need for two citizen parents when at the time the Law of Nations was written, a woman's citizenship followed that of her father until she married and then subsequently, the citizenship of her husband? Women weren't given the consideration of being citizens on their own, they weren't even recognized as being relevant to citizenship. Vattel would not have distinguished a mother as not being a citizen separate from her husband.”

I will start with the influential John Locke and what he thought about the power and influence that fathers and mothers had over their children. In The Two Treatises of Civil Government (T. Hollis ed. London 1764) (London 1689), Locke explained how that power and influence over their children were equal.

Now let us look at what Vattel actually wrote in his highly influential, The Law of Nations, regarding “citizens” and “natural-born citizens.” In Section 212, Vattel distinguished the citizens from the natural-born citizens as follows:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

In this capsulized definition of a natural born citizen, Vattel used the word “parents.” If he meant parent or only “fathers,” there was no need for him to us the word “parents” in the actual definition of a natural born citizen. He could has simply said “parent,” “father,” or “fathers” as he did later in his explanation of how a natural born citizen came into being. Vattel later refers to “father” or “fathers” because he knew that a wife and child inherited their allegiance and citizenship from the husband and father, respectfully.

In his treatise, Vattel made other references to a child’s father and mother as both being a necessary component of his or her citizenship.

“A man ought to preserve gratitude and affection for the state to which he is indebted for his education, and of which his parents were members when they gave him birth….” Sec. 122.


In Section 217, Vattel explained that a child born on a foreign vessel is “reputed born in the country” of the parents if the birth occurs on the vessel when it is in the port of their own nation and “she and her husband,” meaning the child’s mother and father, “have not quitted their native country to settle elsewhere.”

In Section 219, Vattel stated: Vagrants are people who have no settlement. Consequently those born of vagrant parents have no country, since a man’s country is the place where, at the time of his birth his parents had their settlement. . .”

Notice that in these examples Vattel referred to just one child and to his mother and father as “parents.” Hence, Vattel did not mean many fathers (one parent) for many children when he said “parents.” Rather, he meant father and mother (both parents) for one child when he wrote “parents.”

It follows that both the father and mother have to be U.S. citizens from the national security policy objective that the Framers sought to achieve through the natural born citizen clause. The Framers wanted to keep monarchical and foreign influence out of the Office of President and Commander. Since under jus sanguinis parents pass on their citizenship and allegiance to their children, the Framers wanted those parents to all be U.S. citizens. Under jus sanguinis, a child inherits as much foreign allegiance from one parent as he or she does from two. So if one of the parents was not a citizen, the child would inherit from that foreign parents a foreign allegiance just as much as if both parents were not citizens. Hence, allowing just one citizen parent would have defeated the Framers’ national security policy of keeping monarchical and foreign influence out of the Office of President and Commander.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of VI

Let us examine the debate between William Rawle and John Locke, which also gives us further insight into what definition of a natural born citizen the Framers selected and that definition included the requirement that both parents be U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth in the United States. Related to inheriting citizenship and allegiance from one’s parents, one of the most fundamental concepts of American republican government is that the people give their consent to their government to be governed by it (an abandonment of the divine right of kings). In other words, the people must want to will it for those who seek to govern over them to do so legitimately. The Founders and Framers adopted this doctrine directly from John Locke, although the concept was already around since at least the Fifteenth Century. See “Consent of the governed,” at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_of_the_governed . The Founders and Framers also incorporated consent into the new American citizenship. The system of citizenship that the Framers and Congress developed demonstrates that consent to be a citizen was given by a child’s parents and inherited or acquired by him or her. Under that system, one could not be an American citizen unless one consented to be one. The first citizens showed their consent by adhering to the American Revolution. Having done that, they could pass on their right as citizens to their minor children and so on. For the future, for persons who were not born citizens but who chose to become U.S. citizens, they manifested their consent by completing the naturalization process during their years of majority. And once they became U.S. citizens, they could pass that right to their then living minor children under naturalization Acts of Congress, which made those children citizens of the United States after birth, or to their children to be born to them in the United States under the common law, which made those children natural born citizens, or to their children to be born to them out of the United States under naturalization Acts of Congress, which made those children citizens of the United States “at birth.” As part of this consent to being a citizen to begin with also existed what the Framers viewed to be the natural right to expatriate oneself from the citizenship with which one was born or later adopted.

Now let us examined Rawle’s famous “natural born citizen” quote within its proper context, which shows that he made his statement as a criticism of how John Locke based citizenship upon the consent of a child’s parents, which a child could throw off and adopt another upon reaching the age of majority:

“Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity. It is an error to suppose, as some (and even so great a mind as Locke) have done, that a child is born a citizen of no country and subject of no government, and that be so continues till the age of discretion, when he is at liberty to put himself under what government he pleases. How far the adult possesses this power will hereafter be considered, but surely it would be unjust both to the state and to the infant, to withhold the quality of the citizen until those years of discretion were attained. Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America‎ (2nd ed. 1829).

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of VI

First, Rawle provided no evidence prior to his “Therefore” conclusion as to what a natural born citizen was. Rather, what he did was to conflate and confound an original citizen, who came into being by being born or by being an inhabitant of the colonies and becoming a citizen of one of the free and independent states by adhering to the American Revolution, and then a citizen of the United States upon the states forming the Union of the states. He assumed that simply because those who were born in the colonies, regardless of the citizenship of their parents, became citizens of the United States, that the Framers also saw persons born under the same circumstances to be future Article II natural born citizens. But he is mistaken to conflate the two types of citizens, for one came into being as a result of the unique circumstances of the Revolution (pursuant to natural law and the law of nations) and the latter came into being through a process, means, or mechanism which Rawle does not address, but political philosophers like John Locke and Vattel did (also pursuant to natural law and the law of nations). Rawle also erred in not acknowledging that in the new America, there was a constitutional distinction between a national citizen of the United States and a citizen of a state.

Second, Rawle, in criticizing Locke’s natural law and law of nations definition of citizenship said: “It is an error to suppose, as some (and even so great a mind as Locke) have done, that a child is born a citizen of no country and subject of no government, and that be so continues till the age of discretion, when he is at liberty to put himself under what government he pleases. How far the adult possesses this power will hereafter be considered, but surely it would be unjust both to the state and to the infant, to withhold the quality of the citizen until those years of discretion were attained. Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that the place of birth creates the relative quality is established as to us.”

But Rawle provided no authority for his definition of what is a natural born citizen. He also recognized that his was not the only definition of the term, acknowledging that there were other authorities (he mentions Locke) who thought differently than he did on the subject. He simply stated that his definition was correct and that of others was incorrect. It should be noted that when Rawle rejected the notion that a child could wait until the years of discretion to elect his or her citizenship, he was actually rejecting Vattel’s view expressed on the subject in Section 212. Why should we accept Rawle's view as the standard for what the Framers believed about what a "natural born Citizen" was? What evidence does Rawle cite to support his conclusion on what is a natural born citizen?"

The problem for Rawle is that the Founder, Framers, and the U.S. Supreme Court (see The Venus (1814), Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor (1830), Shanks v. Dupont (1830), Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), and Minor v. Happersett (1875)) did not agree with his definition of a natural born citizen and hence his criticism of Locke. Needless to say that the Founders and Framers were greatly influence by the political philosophy of Locke and Vattel, and not that of Rawle.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

IV of VI

Lock’s consent theory of citizenship is grounded on the premise that individuals are not naturally subject to a sovereign, but rather consent to be governed and subordinate their natural freedom for protection by the government. John Locke, The Two Treatises of Civil Government (T. Hollis ed. London 1764) (London 1689). In solving the problem of birth into an organized society, Locke presented the theory of “tacit consent,” whereby an individual’s consent was implied so long as the individual remained under the government’s protection. Id. at § 118. Nevertheless, Locke did not believe that children could consent to the government under which they were born. Id. He believed that a person could manifest such consent only upon reaching adulthood, at which time a volitional choice could be made. Id.

This concept of national U.S. citizenship is not drawn from the English common law but rather from natural law and the law of nations, as codified by Emer de Vattel, in Section 212 of The Law of Nations. In Section 212, Vattel said: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. . .” He added that

“children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights...[E]ach citizen on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born.”

We can see that Vattel maintained that a child followed the condition of his or her parents. Hence, the child had no capacity to acquire any allegiance or citizenship different from that of his or her parents regardless of where he or she was born. Vattel did add that the child was free upon reaching the age of majority to decide whether he or she would keep the citizenship that was given to him or her by his or her parents or join a different society and select that society’s citizenship. So with Locke we can see that the English common law did not influence his ideas on how to define citizenship in a society but natural law and the law of nations did.

The Founders and Framers were influenced by natural law and the law of nations which defined a natural born citizen as a child born in the country to citizen parents. They never accepted a definition of a natural born citizen as put forth by Rawle. Rawle’s definition of a natural born citizen is therefore to be rejected as not having any historical or legal basis or support. See William Ramsay, a founder, physician, and influential revolutionary historian who said that birthright citizenship after July 4, 1776 was reserved only for the children of citizens. See also Peter Schuck & Rogers M. Smith, Citizenship Without Consent 30 (1985), who argue that mutual consent is a component of birthright citizenship. The authors maintain that the Founders adhered to Lockean consent theory and individual rights, not to feudal notions of property and citizenship. Id. at 73, 76.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

V of VI

Justice Daniel in Dred Scott adopted the both “parents” understanding of Vattel. In Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1856), concurring, he cited and quoted Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen.”

By this same writer it is also said: ‘The citizens are the members of the civil society, bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority; they equally participate in its advantages. The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.’ Again: ‘I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen, for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners who are permitted to settle and stay in the country.’ Vattel, Book 1, cap. 19, p. 101.” Id. at 476-77.

Note how Justice Daniels changed “fathers” to “parents” and “father” to “person.” This indicates that his understanding of Vattel was that he required both parents to be citizens and not just a father or one parent.

Also, both Minor and Wong Kim Ark recognized only scenarios in which a child’s parents were either both citizens or both aliens. There could not be a father with one citizenship and a mother with another. And those fathers and mothers, with one citizenship only, were a child’s “parents.” When the Framers wrote the Constitution, there existed unity of husband’s and wife’s citizenship. With married couples, there was no speaking about just one parent being a citizen, for once a woman married a man, she acquired his citizenship. With unity of husband and wife, there was no problem of dual allegiances between a husband and wife. With unity of citizenship and allegiance between a husband and wife, there was no problem of passing on to their child dual or more allegiances. At that time, if a child was born to an unwed mother, he or she inherited the citizenship of his or her mother. So again, there was no problem with the child inheriting dual or more allegiances. Since most children would have been born in wedlock and the doctrine of unity of husband and wife prevailed, it only stands to reason that the Framers expected that both parents had to be U.S. citizens.

We have further evidence of the need for U.S. citizen “parents” from our Congress. 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 stated Vattel’s definition thus:

"[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. . . . ” John A. Bingham, (R-Ohio) US Congressman, March 9, 1866 Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866), Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes (1866).

Bingham had stated the same thing in 1862:

“Does the gentleman mean that any person, born within the limits of the Republic, and who has offended against no law, can rightfully be exiled from any State or from any rood of the Republic? Does the gentleman undertake to say that here, in the face of the provision in the Constitution, that persons born within the limits of the Republic, of parents who are not the subjects of any other sovereignty, are native-born citizens, whether they be black or white? There is not a textbook referred to in any court which does not recognise the principle that I assert.” Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 407 (1862).

When Bingham made these statements, not one member of Congress objected that he was mistaken to include citizen parents in the definition of a natural born citizen.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

VI of VI

It is also important to understand that the 1922 Married Women's Act (or the Cable Act) finally severed the link between citizenship and naturalization and marital status for most women. This is not a development that the Founders and Framers foresaw. Nor did the Act in any way amend nor could it amend Article II’s natural born citizen clause. The Founders and Framers expected that a natural born citizen be born within the full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. That could be accomplished only if the child was born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens. While the Cable Act of 1922 finally allowed U.S. citizen women to retain their citizenship when marrying an alien husband, its framers also warned that it could create dual national children. That the Cable Act requires married woman to take affirmative steps to become U.S. citizen if not already so at the time of marriage only added additional steps for parents to be U.S. citizens at the time of their children’s birth in order for those children to be natural born citizens. The Act did not amend the natural born citizen clause or create any equal protection issue so as to allow for only one U.S. citizen parent in the definition of a natural born citizen. Both parents must still be U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth in order to satisfy the Framers’ national security goals which they sought to achieve through the natural born citizen clause. Hence, today both father and mother still have to have U.S. citizenship at the time of their child’s birth in order for their child to be an Article II natural born citizen.

So, as we can see, these historical and legal sources, which are not meant to be exhaustive, all demonstrate that to be a natural born citizen, a child must be born or reputed born not only in the United States, but must also be born to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth. It is only by satisfying this requirement that the Framers’ national security concern of requiring future Presidents and Commanders in Chief to be natural born citizens may be realized today.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Janet Price,

2. “If the Constitution recognized the idea that you have to have two citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen, why did we bother with the 14th amendment and its exclusions for those from positions as invading military or foreign diplomats?”

~~~~~

The exclusions of foreign diplomats and military invaders under the Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), apply to the recognition of a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” under that Amendment, and not to recognizing who are Article II natural born citizens. The issue of whether one is born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States applies only to one wanting to be a citizen of the United States “at birth” under that Amendment. Neither “subject to the jurisdiction” analysis nor the exclusions is relevant to the definition of a natural born citizen, which requires that a child not only be born in the United States, but also be born to U.S. citizen parents, birth circumstances which automatically admit of full and complete jurisdiction not only over the parents but also the child. This is the reason that we have never seen the requirement of jurisdiction as any part of the definition of a natural born citizen.

3. “As far as Jindal goes or President Obama, if it were necessary for them to have two citizen parents in order to be eligible for President, they would NOT have been considered as a potential candidate for several years without someone calling notice to the fact that their parents were not both citizens when they were born. There hasn't been any attempt on either of them to hide their parentage.”

~~~~~

Being considered as a potential candidate for several years without someone challenging Jindal or Obama on whether they are natural born citizens does not make them natural born citizens. Only if one satisfies the common law definition of the clause is one a natural born citizen. Being challenged on not on the issues does not prove satisfaction of the definition.

4. “If there were really this huge conspiracy to put someone into office as the birthers often claim was the case with Obama, I'm certain that those behind the conspiracy would not have used a half-black, half-caucasian with an unusual name whose father also happened to be an African citizen.”

~~~~~

I have never maintained that here was some conspiracy to put Obama into the Office of President. In any event, conspiracy or not is not controlling. Meeting the definition of a natural born citizen is. Also, that Obama may have been picked for the job, but erroneously so because he is not a natural born citizen, does not convert him into a natural born citizen.

5. “I clearly remember learning the concept of "jus soli" in school when I was in 5th grade. Birthers claimed they learned there was a requirement that both parents be citizens yet they have never brought forth a textbook that indicated that was true.”

~~~~~

As I have demonstrated, that “text book” is Vattel’s The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797).

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Janet Price,

6. “Where are all these citizens that had to naturalize after being born on U.S. soil to non-citizen parents? If what you say is true, they would have to go through the naturalization process as there are only two types of citizens, natural born and naturalized.”

~~~~~

I have already provided many authorities which throughout our history stated that a child born in the United States to alien parents was an alien. None of these authorities were concerned about naturalization records as you are. Also, children born in the United States or out of it to alien parents, whose parents naturalized during their minority and when they shall be residents of the United States became U.S. citizens derivatively from their parents’ naturalization. They did not get any naturalization papers. If they wanted to, they could apply for a Certificate of Citizenship like Rick Santorum’s father, Aldo Santorum, did. As to adults who were not a citizen, they filed naturalization petitions on their own if they qualified and wanted to become citizens. As to any other adults who did not file petitions with the federal government to become U.S. citizens, they would have been recognized as citizens by their states and they did not need national recognition.

7. “A citizen at birth is a natural born citizen. You can write the opposite all you like but that won't make it correct.”

~~~~~

Your simply concluding what does or does not make something correct without providing any evidence for your position does not help you at all. You have provided no historical or legal evidence for your thesis. Your statement is false. It is fallacious, for all natural born citizens at born citizens, but not all born citizens are natural born citizens. It is simple enough to see that just on the face of the statements. The natural born citizens is a proper subset of the born citizens. The two sets are not equal. Under American constitutional national common law, only a child born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth are the natural born citizens. Under the Fourteenth Amendment and Acts of Congress (not the common law under which the Framers defined a natural born citizen), all the rest of the born citizens are made so by those very positive laws and considered as “citizens” of the United States “at birth.” But they are not common law natural born citizens.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Lisa Price,

It is time that you return to Fogbrain from where you came. I have not posted your latest two comments. Rather than addressing the issues here, they contain personal attacks against me and others. I answered your questions in a civil way. I guess my answers not only burned you out of control, but smoked you out of your Obot hole.

Your comments also display contempt for Emer de Vattel, saying that the Founders would not have relied upon Vattel for anything because he “didn't believe in the separation of church & state, or the rights of citizens to bear arms, or felt it was justified to invade foreign nations, kidnapping their women to resupply the population as being the person we look to for a decision on who is considered a citizen of the U.S. at birth and why.”

Well chew on this, you fake, phony, fraud:

Benjamin Franklin[edit]

Swiss editor Charles W.F. Dumas sent Benjamin Franklin three original French copies of de Vattel's Le droit des gens (The Law of Nations). Franklin presented one copy to the Library Company of Philadelphia. On December 9, 1775, Franklin thanked Dumas: [3]

It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising State make it necessary to frequently consult the Law of Nations.

Franklin also said that this book by Vattel, "has been continually in the hands of the members of our Congress now sitting".[4]

George Washington[edit]

Two notable copies of The Law of Nations owned by the New York Society Library have been associated with US President George Washington. One copy had been borrowed by Washington on 8 October 1789, along with a copy of Vol. 12 of the Commons Debates, containing transcripts from Great Britain's House of Commons. When the staff of the Washington museum at Mount Vernon heard about the overdue books, they were unable to locate them, but purchased a second copy of the de Vattel work for US$12,000. This identical copy was ceremoniously "returned" 221 years late on 20 May 2010. The library waived the unpaid late-fees.[5]

***

Influence[edit]

Vattel was one of a number of 18th century European scholars who wrote on international law and were "well known in America" at the time, including Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui,Cornelius van Bynkershoek, Hugo Grotius, Samuel von Pufendorf, Thomas Rutherforth, and Wolff. The Law of Nations has been described as "unrivaled among such treatises in its influence on the American founders".[7][8]

Vattel is also cited extensively in Lysander Spooner's The Unconstitutionality Of Slavery and appears to be a key Enlightenment thinker in Spooner's thought.

_____________

Selected footnotes:

7. U.S. Department of State: Hillary Rodham Clinton, Secretary of State: America’s Founders were inspired by the ideas and values of early Swiss philosophers like Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui and Emer de Vattel, and the 1848 Swiss Constitution was influenced by our own U.S. Constitution. Swiss commitment to democracy is an example for nations and people everywhere who yearn for greater freedoms and human rights

8. Ramsey, Michael D. (14 October 2005). "Law of Nations as a Constitutional Obligation" (MS Word document). International Human Rights Colloquium (Georgetown University Law Center). Retrieved 4 May 2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emer_de_Vattel

Lisa Price, you lose.

P.S. Now Slartibartfast can continue to go around the internet telling everyone as he does that my blog is “heavily moderated” and that is why his great writings do not appear on my blog. What’s funny is that his great writing do not appear anywhere.

dick head said...

I read a article about rubio hiring someone to test the waters for his presidential run even though he is not eligible being the child of parents who were not us citizens at time of his birth. The controlled msm will not blink a eye about him, Obama and Cruz not being eligible for CiC

dick head said...

My wife, like Obama and Cruz, is the child of a alien father and like them she is not eligible. I do not think the Kenyan is real father of barry. My wife is a citizen of the us and is eligible to be in congress like Cruz. I am not even sure if Obama was born a citizen of the us because of his forged bc, draft card and fake social

dick head said...

I think mario has done a great job on NBC subject and I can also say he lets the propagandists/ liars/ dissemblers and morons have their say but he will call them out on it. I have gone off topic before calling attention to the govts other lies like 911 and fires bringing down massive steel girded, concrete reinforced sky scrapers. Just last week a tower in Dubai was engulfed and is miraculously still up right. The JFK warren comm was a outright farce. I was very ignorant of the criminals in power until I read minor v happersett and I knew something was very wrong in us after that. Being a article 2 NBC is very simple and yet congress, judges and msm are silent.

dick head said...

Hey Janet, read the 14th. All persons born or naturalised in us and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are citizens of the us. Read article 2 and then tell us if a 14th amendment citizen of the us or anyone who is just a citizen of the us is eligible now. You and the lying fraud in white house have nothing to worry about because the game is rigged. The only people who never had to naturalise were children of us citizens born in us. The Founders did not want a foreign citizen commanding us army. The child of a alien father is born a foreign citizen

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I have just rejected another attempt by Lisa Price to pollute my blog. What is hilarious is that Lisa Price (he/she) does not like me calling him/her Lisa Price rather than her false name Janet Price. He/she continues to try to post personal attacks against me here after I told the poor thing not to do it. What a sorry individual. Rather than engage in intelligent discussion, he/she has to resort to personal attacks. But then we know that is the Obot approach when they know they lost.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

Janet Price comments:

“[C]an you name any legal scholar who has ever said that the founding fathers relied on Vattel for their stance on citizenship, meaning they actually said his name and that this is what they considered a natural born citizen to be according to Vattel? I've never found a cite that can name anyone who has done so. . .”

~~~

I have provided numerous historical and legal sources which demonstrate that the definition of a natural born citizen comes from the law of nation’s treatment of citizenship which was incorporated into American national common law on citizenship. As one example, the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett (1875) plainly said that the Framers relied upon the common law to define a natural born citizen and then went on to tell us what that common law provided. The Court explained when defining a natural born citizen:

"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) (favorably cited and quoted in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898).

The common law which the Court included in its decision contains an expression of the law of nations. That common law as expressed by the Court contained the definition of a natural born citizen as found in Vattel’s Section 212 of The Law of Nations, Vattel said: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” The Court said that that common law defined a natural born citizen as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. It added that under that common law all the rest of the people were “aliens or foreigners,” who could be naturalized by Acts of Congress or treaties. Finally, it added that “there have been doubts” whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was even a “citizen” (the Court did not say that there were doubts whether that child was a “natural born citizen”).
Clearly, all of what the Court said comes right out of Vattel’s Law of Nations (see Section 212 to 217) and not out of the colonial English common law, which on the contrary, provided that all children born in the King’s dominion and under his protection, regardless of the citizenship of the child’s parents, were “natural-born subjects,” and even treated naturalized subjects for all intents and purposes as “natural-born subjects,” something which we cannot do because of the prohibition in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of non-natural born citizens being eligible to be President). Furthermore, the English common law was selectively adopted by the states until abrogated by their legislatures. It did not provide any uniform rule on citizenship that was needed for the new national government. Consider that the Framers commanded in the Constitution that Congress make a “uniform Rule of Naturalization,” which at that time was a hodgepodge of statutes among the states. On the contrary, the law of nations, which was a universal and binding law, did provide that uniformity, not only among the several states, but also among the nations of the civilized world.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Finally, have we seen people like Janet Price produce any evidence that the Framers relied upon William Blackstone and the colonial English common law for their definition of a natural born citizen? No. The best that they can do is try to convince us that when Wong Kim Ark used the colonial English common law as an aid in defining “subject to the jurisdiction” contained in the Fourteenth Amendment--which was ratified in 1868, which did not repeal or amend Article II’s natural born citizen clause, and which does not mention the clause in its text let alone define it in any way--it defined an Article II natural born citizen.

Sorry, Janet Price, but your argument is a loser.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of III

Slartibartfast directed this comment to me at Café Con Leche Republicans:

Okay, I’ll try to explain it very simply and clearly: The government argued [in Wong Kim Ark] that the court could not make Mr. Wong a citizen because that would make him a natural born citizen and eligible for the presidency. The court agreed that Mr. Wong was either not a citizen or a natural born citizen and, therefore, their ruling that Mr. Wong was a citizen necessarily implies that Mr. Wong was a natural born citizen. I think you just have an inability to hear anything which contradicts your beliefs.

***

I would also note that the key arguments for this theory are born of some of the most racist episodes in our nation’s history: a concurrence with what is generally considered the worst ruling in SCOTUS history, Scott v. Sandford; an argument to ensure that the 14th Amendment phrase “subject to the jurisdiction” didn’t include Native Americans; and the Chinese exclusion acts, which barred an entire race from citizenship.

Sorry, but when you falsely attack the first African-American president for not meeting a standard that none of his predecessors were held to using arguments drawn from obviously racist sources there are some conclusions that are hard to avoid.

~~~~~

Here is my response. Definitions are the lifeblood of the law. Without definitions there can be no law. Conditions, elements, or factors which must be satisfied make up the definition of a word or phrase used in the law. If one can prove through acceptable evidence that those conditions exist, then the thing that is being defined in that law exists. The law also ascribes consequences for the society in general and the litigants in particular, positive or negative, to those conditions which together determine whether the thing exists or does not exist.

The words “citizen” and “natural born citizen” exist in our constitutional, common, and statutory law. Under that law, the word citizen has a different meaning than the clause natural born citizen. Those meanings may be found in their definitions which contain the elements to be satisfied. From the definitions of these words, we can see that they denote that a person has a certain status. Originally, we said that the status is membership in a republic. Today, the status is also used to signify membership in a monarchy. So, in order for a person to have the status, one must satisfy the conditions of the definition and the conditions to be satisfied come from the definitions that are applicable to the word and phrase, all as prescribed by our constitutional and statutory law.

The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court explained in Minor v. Happersett (1875) who the original citizens were. It explained how they came into being through the circumstance of the American Revolution, by adhering to that Revolution. So, the condition to be satisfied in order to be an original citizen was to adhere to the American Revolution. This reality is part of the common law of our Constitution.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of III

In the case of a natural born citizens, the Minor Court held that the definition of a natural born citizen came from the common law and its nomenclature of which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. It explained that under that common law and its nomenclature (which was not the English common law because that common law does not contain the phrase “natural born citizen”), the clause “natural-born citizen” (which is the exact way the clause is styled in the 1797 English translation of Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212) meant a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. The Court stated: “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. This statement is a paraphrase of what Vatell wrote: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Section 212. Hence, natural born citizens were a product of birth which occurred in the country to parents who were its citizens. It said that these children were not only “citizens” like their parents (the parents did not have to be natural born citizens), but also “natural-born citizens.” This reality is also part of the common law of our Constitution.

Minor then explained that there could be additional citizens, whose definitions came from naturalization Acts of Congress and treaties. This reality is part of our statutory and treaty laws and recognized by our Constitution.

Minor also implied that there could also be another definition of a citizen (it did not say “natural-born citizen”), found in the Fourteenth Amendment, being a child born in the jurisdiction of the United States to alien parents. It added that “there have been doubts” whether that definition was ever accepted by our nation. Here, the Court did not say that that definition was a possible definition of a natural born citizen. Rather, it only implied that it could be an acceptable definition of a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment and that since Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen and a fortiori a citizen, it was not necessary for it to decide that question.

Because Wong was not born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents like Virginia Minor was, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) was compelled to resolve the Fourteenth Amendment doubts left open by Minor, which, again, were not natural born citizen doubts. In the end, after distinguishing a natural born citizen (who the Court described as “the natural-born child of a citizen who was born in the country) from “[t]he child of an alien, . . . born in the country”), the Court concluded, through the application of colonial English common law, that the latter gained the status of a citizen from the moment of birth through the force of being born in and being subject to the jurisdiction of the country (James Madison informed that birth gets it other force from being born to citizen parents). Hence, the Court held Wong to be a citizen from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, who Congress in 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) calls a citizen “at birth.” It did not hold that he was a common law “natural born citizen” and rightfully so, for, while he was born in the country and subject to its jurisdiction, which made him a citizen “at birth,” he was not born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of his birth, the two forces which make a born citizen not only a citizen “at birth,” but also a natural born citizen.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of III

Let us now apply what we have learned to set theory language. The set natural born citizens is not equal to the set citizens, which includes born citizens (citizens “at birth”) and citizens after birth. Nor is the set natural born citizens equal to the set citizens “at birth.” The reason these sets are not equal is that one has to satisfy different necessary conditions in order to be included in the sets. We have seen above where these conditions may be found and what those conditions are (natural born citizen in the common law and citizen “at birth” in the Fourteenth Amendment and Acts of Congress). We can conclude from all this that all natural born citizens are born citizens, but not all born citizens are natural born citizens. In other words, the sets are not equal. Hence, the natural born citizens is a proper subset of the born citizens (not only a subset).

Again, all natural born citizens are born citizens, but not all born citizens are natural born citizens. The fallacy in your thinking is that you fail to grasp that under our constitutional common law only children born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth are natural born citizens and that under the Fourteenth Amendment or Acts of Congress someone can be a citizen “at birth,” but not also a natural born citizen for failure to satisfy the necessary and sufficient conditions of being a natural born citizen prescribed by that common law, which we have seen is birth in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

Your argument that this constitutional law is somehow racist is also a pathetic attempt by you to appeal to race to save your already sunken ship. All presidents who were born after the adoption of the Constitution, except for Barack Obama and Chester Arthur (our two usurper Presidents), were born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents and therefore natural born citizens.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

The Obots poke fun at me for maintaining that a natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth, a definition that I contend comes from Vattel’s Section 212 in his The Law of Nations, which definition was incorporated into American national common law as confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875). But yet they cannot point to any historical or legal sources which I have disregarded in order to arrive at my conclusion. The best that they can do is point to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and say that no one in any position of authority has come out publicly to state they agree with me. The Obots’ reliance upon Wong Kim Ark is fatal and shows the lengths to which they are willing to contort the text and torture the logic of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Court’s decision.

On the other hand, I have shown how reliance upon Wong Kim Ark for a definition of a natural born citizen different from what Minor gave is misplaced. I have provided many historical and legal sources from the Founding period which support my position. I have been transparent in my methodology and reasoning used to arrive at my conclusions. Yet, in advocating their position, that any born citizen is a natural born citizen, regardless of how the status may have been obtained, the Obots ignore both my historical and legal sources and reasoning and respond with personal attacks.

In short, I have put forth my position and provided my evidence and reasoning in support. The Obots have not been able to overcome what I have presented. The Obots have put forth their position and evidence and reasoning which I have overcome.

So, things look much better for me than they do for the Obots.

phil stone said...

Would be beneficial if Cruz, Jindal, and Rubio would do the honest thing and explain to our citizens why they are not eligible to be president and for the same reasons Soetoro is not eligible either. Then they need to persuade congress to investigate the fraud.old Marine Phil Stone

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

In II of III, on February 24, 2015, at 11:58 AM, I wrote this sentence:

In the end, after distinguishing a natural born citizen (who the Court described as “the natural-born child of a citizen who was born in the country) from “[t]he child of an alien, . . . born in the country”), the Court concluded, through the application of colonial English common law, that the latter gained the status of a citizen from the moment of birth through the force of being born in and being subject to the jurisdiction of the country (James Madison informed that birth gets it other force from being born to citizen parents).

It should read:

In the end, after distinguishing a natural born citizen, who the Court described as “the natural-born child of a citizen” born in the country, from “[t]he child of an alien . . . born in the country,” the Court concluded, through the application of colonial English common law, that the latter gained the status of a citizen from the moment of birth through the force of being born in and being subject to the jurisdiction of the country (James Madison informed that birth gets it other force from being born to citizen parents.)

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I just left this comment over at Cafe Con Leche Republicans:

Bob and Slartibartfast,

Under constitutional common law, an Article II natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. This is the definition that our Framers relied upon when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. Your appeal to name calling and some modern-day authorities who do not provide historical and legal sources and reason which support their position and rather just want to revise that definition because it is politically expedient to do so does not change its constitutional meaning.

De facto President Barack Obama, regardless of where he was born, is not a natural born citizen because he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) ("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"); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898) (citing Minor and quoting its same exact common law definition of a “natural-born citizen,” resolving the question left open by Minor whether children born in the United States to alien parents can be “citizens” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment (not under the common law which the Framers relied upon to define a natural born citizen) from the moment of birth by distinguishing those Fourteenth Amendment “citizens” from Minor’s common law “natural-born citizens,” and holding that a child born in the United States to alien parents who were neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders is born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore is a “citizen” of the United States from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment). That Mr. Obama may finish out his second term as President does not nor can it make him a natural born citizen.

Senator Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen because he was not born in or reputed born in the United States. He was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father, who were not in the U.S. military or otherwise serving the U.S. national defense. Compare John McCain, who was reputed born in the United States because he was born to two U.S. citizen parents who were serving the national defense of the United States and therefore a natural born citizen. See Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 217 (children born to citizens serving the armies of the state are reputed born in the country). See also Black’s Law Dictionary (“Natural Born Citizen Clause. The clause of the U.S. Constitution barring persons not born in the United States from the presidency. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5.” (7th ed. 1999). Cruz is not a natural born citizen also because he was born to a non-U.S citizen father. See the discussion above related to Obama.

For further analysis and discussion, see Mario Apuzzo, “What Do President Obama and Ted Cruz Have In Common: They Are Both Not Natural Born Citizens,” at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-president-obama-and-senator.html .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

Bob said this to me at Café Con Leche Republicans:

“At CPAC yesterday, Ted Cruz explained he was eligible to be president because he was a citizen by birth (and therefore a natural-born citizen).

No one — not one of the “constitutional conservatives” in the room, or anyone in the media — disagreed with Cruz’s assessment.
Our nation turns its lonely eyes to you, Mario Apuzzo.”

Bob also said: "To see where Apuzzo’s ramblings are not discussed, see The Rest of the World; see also Reality."

~~~~~

Here is my response:

Bob,

Talk about reality. You, indeed, have attempted to change reality. You have attempted to change the words and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. It says “citizens” of the United States, not “natural born citizens” of the United States, and defines the former and not the latter who are still defined under constitutional common law. You have attempted to change the holding of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). It did not hold Wong to be a “natural born citizen.” Rather, it held him to be a “citizen” of the United States from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment and not by virtue of the common law that defines a natural born citizen. Now you want to change the words of the statute, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g), that makes Senator Cruz a “citizen” of the United States from the moment of birth. The text of this statute says he is a “citizen” of the United States “at birth,” not “by birth.” What other law would you like to torture and manipulate in order to convince us of your baseless and fallacious argument that any born citizen, even if one needs the Fourteenth Amendment or a naturalization Act of Congress for the status, is a natural born citizen. Needing such a law is surely not acquiring the status “by birth.”

“By birth,” as applied to citizenship, refers to birth alone being sufficient to cause citizenship to occur. Under American common law, as confirmed by naturalization Acts of Congress, U.S. citizenship attaches to a child “by birth” without the need of any law to allow that to occur, when the child is born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. A true natural born citizen becomes a natural born citizen because he or she does not need a naturalization Act of Congress or the Fourteenth Amendment to make him or her so. His or her birth in the United States to U.S. citizen parents makes him or her a natural born citizen. Hence, he or she becomes a citizen “by birth” alone and without the need of any law to make him or her so, and surely without the need of any naturalization in whatever form it may come.

On the other hand, “at birth,” when applied to citizenship, refers to citizenship occurring at the moment of birth. It does not tell us what is necessary for that citizenship to occur. Also, positive law can fix events to be recognized as of any time, past, present, or future. There is nothing natural about the process of simply fixing by law when something occurred. To know what is necessary to occur for one to be a “citizen” of the United States “at birth,” we have to look to law which creates that status. That law is either the Fourteenth Amendment or Acts of Congress, which are the only sources of law that exist which create that status. One has to satisfy what is written in those laws in order to be a “citizen” “at birth” or else one is not a citizen at all, unless one satisfies another one of Congress’s naturalization Acts or treaties which then would make one a citizen after birth. If one needs the benefit of a law in order to be a citizen, then one is not nor can one be a natural born citizen.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Ted Cruz became a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” because a law provided that he could be one. That law, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g), is a naturalization Act of Congress. Without that law, he would not have been a citizen at all. Hence, it was not his birth alone that was sufficient to give him his birth status, which is the case for natural born citizens. Rather, it was Congress through its naturalization statute that considered him to be a citizen of the United States at birth. In this statute, Congress was willing to overlook the fact that he was born out of the United States, but only because he was born to a U.S. citizen parent. If one needs the grace of Congress in order to be a citizen of the United States, one is not a natural born citizen, for a natural born citizen does not need Congress to make him or her such. Remember that we had original citizens and natural born citizens before there was a Fourteenth Amendment or naturalization Act of Congress.

Since, Cruz needed Congress through one of its naturalization Acts to consider him to be a citizen of the United States “at birth,” he did not became a citizen “by birth” alone. He is therefore not and cannot be a natural born citizen.

ajtelles said...

Set-Subset-Proper Subset
Citizen and Natural Born Citizen


1

Mario,

I've been looking at the previous discussion on your blog about "natural born Citizen" and that proper subset is the "best answer" to your question for the two neo-birther math experts, and your current discussion with Bob, Bryan Olson and Ph.D. Mathematician Kevin/Slartibartfast on Cafe Con Leche Republicans, and now I understand the point of calling a "natural born Citizen" a proper subset of the "citizen" set, the "born and oath" U.S. "citizen" set.

It looks like the essence of the proper subset issue is the distinction between two articles of the Constitution, the Article II singular U.S. citizenship "by" birth and the Amendment XIV dual U.S./foreign citizenship "at" birth. Extraneous but relevant, is the naturalized "citizen" with singular U.S. citizenship "by" oath "after" birth.

A couple of days ago* you had a comment on your blog about the comment you put on Cafe Con Leche Republicans about citizens "by" birth vs. "at" birth vs. "after birth," which I have expanded on, part of which is included after your "best answer" question.

Here is part of your "by" vs. "at" comment:

" “By birth,” as applied to citizenship, refers to birth alone being sufficient to cause citizenship to occur. Under American common law, as confirmed by naturalization Acts of Congress, U.S. citizenship attaches to a child “by birth” without the need of any law to allow that to occur, when the child is born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents.

"A true natural born citizen becomes a natural born citizen because he or she does not need a naturalization Act of Congress or the Fourteenth Amendment to make him or her so. His or her birth in the United States to U.S. citizen parents makes him or her a natural born citizen. Hence, he or she becomes a citizen “by birth” alone and without the need of any law to make him or her so, and surely without the need of any naturalization in whatever form it may come.

"On the other hand, “at birth,” when applied to citizenship, refers to citizenship occurring at the moment of birth. ... To know what is necessary to occur for one to be a “citizen” of the United States “at birth,” we have to look to law which creates that status. That law is either the Fourteenth Amendment or Acts of Congress, which are the only sources of law that exist which create that status. ... unless one satisfies another one of Congress’s naturalization Acts or treaties which then would make one a citizen after birth.

"If one needs the benefit of a law in order to be a citizen , then one is not nor can one be a natural born citizen.

If one needs the benefit of a law in order to be a citizen,
["by" birth
or
"at" birth
or
"by" oath
(naturalized)]
then one is not nor can one be a natural born citizen.
["by" birth]


"Ted Cruz became a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” because a law provided that he could be one. That law, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g), is a naturalization Act of Congress. Without that law, he would not have been a citizen at all.

"Hence, it was not his birth alone that was sufficient to give him his birth status, which is the case for natural born citizens. Rather, it was Congress through its naturalization statute that considered him to be a citizen of the United States at birth."


____________________
*February 27, 2015 at 7:45 PM
( http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-president-obama-and-senator.html )

ajtelles said...

Set-Subset-Proper Subset
Citizen and Natural Born Citizen


2

This is my application of the "by" birth vs. "at" birth distinction.

The U.S. Constitution
Two Types of "Persons"
“Citizens” and “Natural Born Citizens"


The U.S. Constitution knows two types of "persons"—“citizens” and “natural born citizens."

In the U.S. Constitution, WE the People gave the Congress authority to naturalize new citizens "at" birth and "by" oath. It has done so "by oath" by statute since the 1790 Naturalization Act. In addition to positive law statutes, Congress has done so "at birth" by amendment, the 14th Amendment. The constitution's original 1787 Article 2 "natural born Citizen" by birth and at birth* designation and status has been reinforced as perpetual, not abrogated and repealed, but reinforced as perpetual by the 1868 14th Amendment language: "All persons born or naturalized...citizens of...". The "born or naturalized" words together are declarative positive law language, not natural law and positive law language, and the words refer to the "citizen" who is born ** and the "citizen" who by oath is naturalized. The "citizens" of the 14th Amendment and the naturalized "citizens" by statute*** are itemized on my blog, and it will be clear after being itemized why ALL of the 14th Amendment and statute "citizens" are dual U.S./foreign citizenship "proper subsets" of the citizen "set," and "natural born citizen" in Article 2 is the ONLY "citizen" who is a singular U.S. citizenship "proper subset" of the citizen "set."

____________________
*Not "by" birth alone, but "by & at" birth together. "Natural born Citizen" contains two elements, a natural law aspect and a positive law aspect. The natural law "natural born" entity, not a status, an entity is "by birth", and the positive law "citizen" status, not an entity, a status is given "at birth", not "by birth", but is given "at birth" and not at a later time by statute.

**In the 14th Amendment, the original intent of the two aspects of Article 2, natural law/positive law—"by birth and at birth"—are reinforced with the 14th Amendment declarative language suggesting, not "by birth and at birth" natural law and positive law but "at birth and by oath" positive law alone. The 14th Amendment "born" designation is declarative positive law language about what the "status" of the "person" is "at birth", just as "naturalized" in the same sentence is declarative positive law language about what the "status" of the "person" is "by oath" (naturalization implies oath). The framers of the 14th Amendment were declaring that whether a "person" is born OR naturalized, that "person" is at the very least, a born "citizen" of the U.S. and the "born citizen" has the same status as a naturalized "citizen" of the U.S. Both are "citizens" of the U.S. The "citizens" part is itemized later in this discussion about why "natural born Citizen" is a "proper subset" of "citizen."

*** (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g) ) The text of this statute says that a child born on foreign soil, not U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil, but foreign soil, is a "citizen" of the United States "at birth" and not "by birth."

ajtelles said...

Set-Subset-Proper Subset
Citizen and Natural Born Citizen


3

Mario, for context about the previous set theory discussion on your blog, first I include your "best answer" question on June 13, 2014 at 9:28 AM to Slartibartfast (Kevin—Ph.D. Mathematician) and Dr. Conspiracy (Kevin Davidson—Masters of Science in Mathematics—the designation is from his About page at ObamaConspiracy.org).

The Set/Proper Subset "Best Answer" Question

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Said...
Dr. Conspiracy,

I am directing this comment to you because I know that you are a mathematician and you have supporters who are also in that field.

I asked Slartibartfast on this thread:

Let us assume that you are a math student going for your Ph.D. in Mathematics at Obama World Institute of Mathematics. You are taking a multiple choice exam on set theory. You are instructed that for each question you are to provide only one answer which must be the best answer of the choices provided.

Here is one of the questions of the exam:

-1. Natural born citizens is:

-a. A subset of citizens.
-b. A proper subset of citizens.
-c. A superset of citizens.
-d. None of the above.

Please provide your answer.


=====

[Next is Ph.D. Kevin/Slartibartfast's answer—and a personal finger-wag at Mario.]

[Mario:] Here is his answer:

[Ph.D. Kevin:] And finally, your math question:

If multiple answers are allowed (i.e. the rules are "choose all correct answers),
this is a perfectly fine question
(and something I would expect in an undergraduate set theory course)
and the only correct answer is both "a" and "b".

If not, I would go to the professor and explain that both "a" and "b" were correct.

If the professor did not immediately recognize that I was correct (and could prove it),
then I would go to the Director of Graduate Studies or the Department Chair to make sure
that they understood that the guy (or gal) they had teaching set theory was going senile.

Seriously, there has never been a graduate student in mathematics, nor will there be, that doesn't understand this perfectly. What you are suggesting is like an English literature professor not knowing their ABCs.

I know that you just assume that everything I say is wrong, but you are making yourself look like a complete fool here. Once again, I can prove that you are demonstrably wrong and everything I've said is correct. I strongly suggest you quit talking about subjects where objective truths can be established---your dishonesty sticks out like a sore thumb.


=====

[Now Mario is again speaking to Dr. C./Kevin]

Like I said, I know that you are a mathematician. I also know that you have taken many multiple choice exams in your life and that during those exams, you followed the reasonable instructions that were given to you in answering the questions rather than argue with the instructor about them.

I am also sure that you experienced many exams in which you were instructed to provide the one (1) “best” answer to the question from the choices provided. So, I will ask you the same question that I asked Slartibartfast (stated above).

Please provide your one (1) “best” answer to the question from the four possibilities provided.

June 13, 2014 at 9:28 AM



Mario Apuzzo, Esq. Said...
Dr. Conspiracy answered my set theory question. Here is what he said:

"Mr. Apuzzo, not being a mathematician, doesn’t realize that on math tests, you aren’t asked to provide the “best” answer. Math isn’t about value judgments.

"Since Apuzzo doesn’t define “best,” the respondent has to guess the definition, which just leads to confusion and disputes.

"What I find interesting is that I think that even in this formally straightforward question, Apuzzo is trying to surreptitiously wave around his straw man named “Obots think all citizens are natural born citizens.”

ajtelles said...

Set-Subset-Proper Subset
Citizen and Natural Born Citizen


4

"The way I reason the problem, I will answer:

"-b. A proper subset of citizens.

"I call this answer “best” because the other true statement (-a. A subset of citizens.) can be derived from answer “b,” making it the more useful response."


=====

Dr. Conspiracy is wrong in everything that he said except his answer to my question.
[...snip]
In any event, Dr. Conspiracy provided the correct answer.

Hence, we can see that Ph.D. Mathematician Slartibartfast is wrong again. He said the best answer was a. and b. when the “best” answer is only b., meaning that natural born citizens is a proper subset of citizens.

Here is Slartibartfast trying to save face at Dr. Conspiracy’s blog:

A proper subset (a mathematical “term of art”, so to speak) is a subset (another “term of art”) which does not include the entire set.

In math, all of the words mean something specific and unique. Doc’s response is that of a mathematician replying thoroughly and thoughtfully to an extremely inane question.


=====

[Mario continues]

You have got to love Slartibartfast, telling us that Dr. Conspiracy, as a mathematician, replied “thoroughly and thoughtfully” to an “extremely inane question.” I thought Slartibartfast was also a mathematician. After all, he told us that he has a Ph.D. in Mathematics.

Also, why would someone need to be “thoroughly and thoughtfully” when answering an “extremely inane question?” And if it was such an inane question, why would Slartibartfast provide a wrong answer to the question?

Here is more from Slartibartfast:

"It’s certainly a nice change from Mario’s perfidy…

"FYI—when you’re reading in “math”, every word is important and conveys a unique meaning. There are no extraneous or ambiguous terms (or you are making the equivalent of a grammatical error).


=====

[Mario continues]

Notice how Slartibartfast is trying to save face even harder, educating others just after just being proven by Dr. Conspiracy that he gave the wrong answer to the question. He also did not follow his own lecture when he answered my question.

Rather, he chose to argue with the instructor and even go to the Department Head in protest over the question and then insisted that the question had two answers and not one “best” answer.

Dr. Conspiracy did not buy into any of that nonsense because he saw the writing on the wall. He simply provided the correct answer.

So, what can we say about Slartibartfast, who tells us that will not be around for several days? (I guess things will cool off for him during his absence.) You be the judge.

June 13, 2014 at 3:25 PM


One More Comment by Dr. Conspiracy/Kevin Davidson

It’s a technical term in set theory:
A proper subset is a
subset that is
not equal
to the
set

So for example.
Orly Taitz is a citizen = set B
who is not a natural born citizen = set A
She is in the set (citizens) = set B
but not the subset (natural born citizens) = set A

I found this comment on Dr. C./Kevin's blog—June 13, 2014 at 1:05 pm.
( http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2014/06/reply-to-mario-apuzzo-on-immoral-birthers/#comment-334117 )

"It’s a technical term in set theory: A proper subset is a subset that is not equal to the set.

"So for example. Orly Taitz is a citizen who is not a natural born citizen. She is in the set (citizens) but not the subset (natural born citizens).

ajtelles said...

Set-Subset-Proper Subset
Citizen and Natural Born Citizen


5

"Put another way, “A is a proper subset of B” means:

"1) All the elements of A are in B
"2) At least one element of B is not in A.

"Every set is trivially a subset of itself, but not necessarily a proper subset."


Analysis and Application
Hey, I'm Not A Mathematician—So What Do I Know, Right?


Now for my "hey, I'm not a mathematician, so what do I know" analysis and application of the comments of the three set theory experts. The question is about the "best" answer, as asserted by original birther Mario, confirmed by neo-birther mathematician Dr. C./Kevin, although confirmed to the chagrin of his neo-birther mathematician friend Ph.D./Kevin.

The "best" answer is that "natural born Citizen" is a "proper subset" of the "citizen" set. The "best" answer is NOT both "subset" AND "proper subset." Yes, both are correct, but the "best" answer is that "natural born Citizen" is a "proper subset" of the citizen "set."

Next is a very brief definition of subset and proper subset from Mathinsight.org.

Mathinsight.org

Definition of subset
( http://mathinsight.org/subset_definition )

"A set A is a subset of another set B if all elements of the set A are elements of the set B.

"In other words, the set A is contained inside the set B.

"The subset relationship is denoted as A["C"]B. [On the Mathinsight.org page, a symbol that looks like a "C" is between "A" and "B"—it means "contained inside"].

"For example, if A is the set {diamond, heart, club, spade} and B is the set {diamond, pyramid, heart, club, spade}, then A is contained inside B but B is not contained inside A.

"Since B contains elements not in A, we can say that A is a proper subset of B.

Proper subset definition
( http://mathinsight.org/proper_subset_definition )

A proper subset of a set A is a subset of A that is not equal to A.

In other words, if B is a proper subset of A, then all elements of B are in A but A contains at least one element that is not in B.

For example, if A = {1, 3, 5} then B = {1, 5} is a proper subset of A.
The set C = {1, 3, 5} is a subset of A, but it is not a proper subset of A since C = A.
The set D = {1, 4} is not even a subset of A, since 4 is not an element of A.

The Mathinsight.org definitions use {A} as the "set" symbol and {B} as the "proper subset" symbol, but the "best answer" {A} symbol for "proper subset" and the {B} symbol for "set" are Dr. C./Kevin's as found in his previous "technical term in set theory" comment, so I have maintained them here for comparison and contrast continuity.

For a more thorough comparison and contrast analysis of "natural born Citizen" as a proper subset of the "citizen" set, I have expanded the original question from one proper subset element to eight: {A} {C} {D} {E} {F} {G} {H} {I}.

ajtelles said...

Set-Subset-Proper Subset
Citizen and Natural Born Citizen


6

Now that I finally understand the Mathinsight.org definitions of set/subset/proper subset, and still not being a mathematician, my analysis starts with Marios's confirmation that new meaning neo-birther Kevin/Dr. Conspiracy gave the "best" answer when he chose "b" proper subset: "In any event, Dr. Conspiracy provided the correct answer."

I won't post my entire analysis and application of "natural born Citizen" as a proper subset here, but it can be read at my blog, U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union"
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/2014/12/time-to-change-conversation.html ) .

[...big snip...]

Set Theory Conclusions—"What does THAT mean?"
Using set theory, there are at least four irrefutable conclusions.

Point #1
All "natural born Citizens" are citizens "by" birth, but none, zip, zero, zilch, absolutely NONE of the amendment 14 citizens "at" birth are "natural born Citizens" "by" birth.

Point #2
All statute naturalized citizens "at" birth (Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio, etc.) or "by" oath are citizens, and NOT "natural born Citizens" "by" birth.

Point #3
All citizens "by" birth (Gov. Sarah Palin, Gov. Scott Walker, Sen. Rick Santorum, Sen. Mike Lee, etc.) can NOT be Amendment 14 citizens "at" birth ALSO because "natural born Citizens" "by" birth do NOT need to be recognized as Amendment 14 "citizens" "at" birth.

Point #4
Finally, and of course, NONE of the statute naturalized citizens "by" oath can be "natural born Citizens" "by" or "at" or "after" birth, since they were born on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizen parents.

"THAT" is WHY "natural born Citizen" means ONLY singular U.S. citizenship derived ONLY "by" birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Ajtelles,

Now that you have understood that the natural born citizens is a proper subset of the citizens, you have to move to the next critical understanding which is that the natural born citizens is also a proper subset of the born citizens. This set theory statement comes from realizing that all natural born citizens are born citizens, but not all born citizens are natural born citizens. This realization proves that Jack Maskell is wrong in concluding that all born citizens, regardless of how they obtained their status, are natural born citizens. By making such a statement, Maskell makes the two sets equal. But by constitutional definition confirmed by Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the two sets are not equal.

I was preparing Ph.D. Mathematician, Slartibartfast, for this next step but because he is a weasel and intellectually dishonest he was not willing to admit as easily done by Mathematician Dr. Conspiracy that of being a subset or a proper subset, the best answer of the two is that the natural born citizens is a proper subset of the citizens.

Bryan Gene Olson has agreed with me several times in comments that he posted at Café Con Leche Republicans that natural born citizens is a proper subset of born citizens. After both he and Slartibartfast accused me of lying in saying that Mr. Olson said that and therefore agreed with me, and after I provided the quotes of Mr. Olson saying just that, both Mr. Olson and Slartibartfast now whine that Mr. Olson did not mean to say that.

This discussion is going on now at Café Con Leche Republicans. This morning I posted my latest response to both Bryan Gene Olson and Slartibartfast on this subject. For some unknown reason, the site’s host, Bob Quasius, has not allowed my comment out of moderation even though I have since asked him why. He did allow me to post my question regarding my comment not being released which appears there now. I will publish my unpublished comment here on my blog following this comment.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

Slartibartfast,

The issue with Bryan Gene Olson on set theory has been what he said, not what he meant. You have told us that you are a mathematician. That means that you know that when we intelligently use mathematical expressions, we do not leave open possibilities for misinterpretation. You know that mathematics, being a science of virtual precision, does not work like that. Having shown that you have the capacity to understand this issue and that mathematics is for all intents and purposes an exact science, know let me show how much of a fake, phony, fraud you are.

You know darn well what Mr. Olson said and what his words mean. Here is what he said, not only once but many times which I will not bother to quote for you: “I do not say that ‘natural born Citizen’ is the same as ‘Citizen of the United States.’ The natural-born citizens are the (proper) subset of citizens that obtained their citizenship at birth.” ~~ Bryan Gene Olson. I have asked you, what about that statement do you not understand, Slartibartfast? He clearly said that the natural born citizens is a proper subset of the born citizens. That my lying friend means the sets are not equal. That my delusion friend means that all natural born citizens are born citizens, but not all born citizens are natural born citizens. As applied to natural born citizens, that my propaganda mister friend means that among all the born citizens, only those who are born in the country to parents who were citizens at the time of the child's birth are natural born citizens. But you want to ignore the precision of what Mr. Olson said regarding mathematical set theory as applied to natural born citizens. Initially you accused me of “misrepresenting” what he said. You maintained through the deceitful manipulation of words that what he wrote does not mean what it plainly means on its face. Being a mathematician and knowing that you cannot support your interpretation of the meaning of the words that he actually wrote, now you admit that what he wrote means what I say it means, but add that there has been a “misunderstanding” in that he did not mean to write what he wrote. First, thank you for finally admitting that Mr. Olson wrote that the natural born citizens is a proper subset of the born citizens. Second, thank you for admitting that what he said is not the same as what you initial said it meant. Third, I don't care that now you tell us that he did not mean to write what he wrote. His mathematical expression speaks for itself. He clearly said that all natural born citizens are born citizens, but not all born citizens are natural born citizens. Both you and he have maintained that I lied in saying that he stated such. Your final position, that he did not mean to write what he wrote, does not erase you accusing me of lying about what he said. And by the way, Mr. Olson was correct in agreeing with me that the natural born citizens is a proper subset of the born citizens, even though now he says he no longer agrees with me.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Bryan Gene Olson,

As far as your explanation goes, you attempt to hide your ignorance and error under your soft and polite voice. You give us some gibberish to make it look like you know what you are talking about and to hide the true meaning of your words. But then you tell us that you have struggled for over one-half year with having made your statement. Now you tell us that what you wrote (which is a mathematical statement) is really not what you meant. Now you explain that what you really meant by the statement is something different. But the whole time both you and Slartibartfast have maintained that I lied regarding what you said about set theory and natural born citizens. But, indeed, your words do mean that all natural born citizens are born citizens, but not all born citizens are natural born citizens. What you said is correct. But now you want us to accept that you really did not mean to say that. You have the right to change a position you have taken in the past. Such change often happens after someone has had the opportunity for further study and reflection. But none of this excuses Slartibartfast and you from claiming that I lied about what you said when in fact you said exactly what I said you said.

So now we have both of you asking us to excuse you for having said something you did not mean. You both want us to release you from your statement. But none of that changes that you agreed with me that the natural born citizens is a proper subset of the born citizens, i.e., all natural born citizens are born citizens, but not all born citizens are natural born citizens; that I said you made the statement; and that both you and Slartibartfast said that I lied when I said you made the statement. All this is another example among many which shows how deceit just flows through both of your blood.

In the end, none of what either of you say changes anything. The definition of a natural born citizen found in the common law upon which the Framers relied when they drafted and adopted the Constitution has been and still is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Minor v. Happersett (1875); accord U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Under that common law definition, which is the law of the land under our Constitution, neither de facto President Barack Obama nor Senator Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen which makes both of them not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Peter Lettkeman said...

Mr. Apuzzo,
Love your work. I, like Teo Bear have been looking at this subject for 7 years in my spare time. I have utilized your work to push me to look in other areas for information. I think that Rogers v Bellei provides a ton of nuggets of information to get thru to the average person how Ted is a naturalized citizen, and that is how the Supreme Court of the United States in both the affirmative and dissenting opinions see it. They disagree on the 14th Amendment and it's use but they both agree that being born outside the United States and citizenship acquired by the INA makes one a naturalized citizen. Thanks for your information and thanks for your time. My research can be found at.
http://petesresearchonnaturalborncitizenship.blogspot.com/

ajtelles said...

Set
Proper Subset
Citizen
Born Citizen
Natural Born Citizen


1

Mario,

Your comment in the first sentence of the first paragraph about moving "to the next critical understanding" that "natural born citizen is also a proper subset of born citizen" has already been dealt with in my previous post and more fully on my blog, which is an agreement with what you wrote in the second sentence:

"This set theory statement comes from realizing that
all natural born citizens are born citizens,
but not all born citizens are natural born citizens."


Mario, neo-birthers Jack Maskell, Masters mathematician Kevin/Dr. Conspiracy, Bryan Gene Olson and Ph.D. mathematician Kevin/Slartibartfast have been resisting this common sense articulation of yours for more than six years. I know this by reading your blog, and I've only been awake, aware and fully engaged for exactly three years today, March 1, 2015, since March 1, 2012 when Sheriff Joe Arpaio had his Cold Case Posse news conference about the fake, phony fraud birth certificate posted on our Federal Government website.

So, now I understand why the neo-birthers fight for dual U.S./foreign citizenship and resist singular U.S. citizenship, and most recently resisting vehemently are Brian and Ph.D. Kevin in their Cafe Con Leche Republicans incoherence as they are slip-slidin' away with their rattles clacking denials that they REALLY meant what they wrote previously.

In my previous recent post here today, and more completely on my own blog, in my concluding point #1 I wrote:

"All "natural born Citizens" are citizens "by" birth,
but none, zip, zero, zilch, absolutely NONE
of the amendment 14 citizens "at" birth
are "natural born Citizens" "by" birth."

That is another way, my way, of saying that "by birth" all Article II "natural born citizens" are "born citizens," and "at birth" all Amendment 14 "citizens" like Pres. Obama and Sen. Rubio are "born citizens" and "at birth" all statute "citizens" like Sen. Cruz are "born citizens."

ajtelles said...

Set
Proper Subset
Citizen
Born Citizen
Natural Born Citizen


2

Or, to put it in other words, Amendment 14 citizens "at" birth, like Pres. Obama and Sen. Rubio, are in a proper subset distinct from statute citizens "at" birth, like Sen. Cruz, who is in a proper subset distinct from Article 2 natural born citizens like Gov. Palin and Sen. Santorum. All Article 2 "natural born citizens" are "born citizens" who are "by" birth in the proper subset that is unique in being distinct from ALL "born citizens" who are "citizens" "at" birth.

So, not all "born citizens" are "citizens" "at" birth, and not all "born citizens" are "natural born Citizens" "by" birth.

It could be confusing if "by" birth and "at" birth are confounded as is done by the neo-birthers, Dr. Conspiracy/Kevin, who knows better, Jack Maskell, Bryan and Ph.D. Kevin, and which they are constantly doing.

Not only are the two Cafe Con Leche Republicans neo-birthers confusing themselves as they slip-slide away with rattles clacking, they are incoherent because they do not seem to accept that the essence of the POTUS eligibility debate is the singular U.S. citizenship proper subset of Article 2 "natural born Citizen" vs. the dual U.S./foreign citizenship proper subsets of Amendment 14 and statute "citizens" and "born citizens" as you are emphasizing in your comments at Cafe Con Leche Republicans and here on your own blog today.

And in concluding point #2 I wrote:

"All statute naturalized citizens "at" birth
(Sen. Ted Cruz, Sen. Marco Rubio, etc.)
or "by" oath are citizens,
and NOT "natural born Citizens" "by" birth.

So, it seems to me that we're in essence saying the same thing, but with different emphases and intent. Other than the different emphases, I don't see that there is a "next critical understanding" as you wrote. Other than Article 2, treaties, Amendment 14 and the statute "citizens" "at" birth, is there something specific that you are referring to to distinguish between "at" birth and "by" birth?

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Peter,

Thank you for your kind words.

You are right about Rogers v. Bellei (1971). I have cited to both the majority and dissenting opinions for support for my position that there is such a thing as naturalization at birth and that such naturalization can produce a "citizen" of the United States "at birth" who, being naturalized at birth, is not a natural born citizen.

In the case of Bellei, the naturalization at birth occurred for Bellei, who was born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents (the same situation as Senator Ted Cruz). The Court in Bellei called the naturalization "Congressional generosity," sanctioned by the Constitution. Benjamin Franklin called it receiving grace from Congress.

What is important about the Bellei decision is that the Court said that, since persons born out of the United States are not entitled to the protections of their citizenship under the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress has the constitutional power to not only imposed conditions subsequent to retaining their citizenship, but to deny them U.S. citizenship all together. We saw such denial with the Naturalization Act of 1802. We also saw the Third Congress, through the Naturalization Act of 1795, change their status as "considered as natural born citizens" (as provided by the Naturalization Act of 1790) to "considered as citizens of the United States." Well, we know that if those children were natural born citizens, with Congress only having the power to naturalize, Congress would not have the power to impose such conditions or to deny them their citizenship.

Bellei, among many other historical and legal sources, is solid evidence which shows that Senator Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen.

Ray said...

A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts. - United States v. Wong Kim Ark

Mr. Cruz is a naturalized citizen who acquired citizenship at birth. The citizenship granted was temporary, to retain his citizenship Mr. Cruz was required to take affirmative action by a date certain. The retention requirements where modified in 1972 and repealed in 1978. His citizenship is entirely a creature of positive law and granted by Congress.

“Citizen at birth” includes naturalized citizens, therefor “citizen at birth” does not equal “natural born citizen”. "Citizen at birth" encompasses both naturalized citizens and "natural born citizens"

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Ray,

Excellent summary.

Again, a fortiori from the face of the clause itself and from its definition, all natural born citizens are born citizens, but not all born citizens are natural born citizens. This means that the natural born citizens is a proper subset of the born citizens. This means that being a born citizen does not prove that one is a natural born citizen. In order to prove that one is a natural born citizen, one still has to satisfy the one and only common law definition used by the Framers when they drafted and adopted the Constitution which is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the child's birth. Minor v. Happersett (1875); accord U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

Jack Maskell, the Obots, and all those of like mind, who contend that all born citizens, regardless of how they acquired their status, are natural born citizens, are wrong. Notice how the Obots and their supporters push that Senator Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen (can you imagine, they support Ted Cruz). They do so only to provide cover for Barack Obama, who is at best (if he was born in the United States) like Cruz, a born citizen. Obama was presumably born in the United States to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father. Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father. Obama was naturalized at birth by the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) (grant the status of “citizen” of the United States “at birth” only to those born in the United States) and Cruz by a naturalization Act of Congress, 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g) (applies to children born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents). They are both born citizens by virtue of the grace bestowed upon them by these subsequently adopted positive laws, but not natural born citizens by virtue of the only applicable and binding constitutional common law which was in force at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.

ajtelles said...

Citizen / Born Citizen / Natural Born Citizen
1

Mario,

Maybe Sen. Cruz and Sean Hannity should read my study, in which my purpose was to only educate myself, about why Article 2 "natural born Citizen" "by birth" is a proper subset of the "citizen/born citizen" set and why an Amendment 14 " "born citizen" is a "citizen" "at birth" and also a proper subset of the "citizen" set.

Senator Ted Cruz, in his CPAC speech (the full 46 second question and answer quote is below) said that the Constitution requires being a "natural born citizen" to be eligible to be POTUS—and because his mother was "a citizen by birth" that made Sen. Cruz "an American citizen by birth."

The Obama birth narrative neo-birthers must be ecstatic that Sen. Ted Cruz, one of the most prominent Republicans and a constitutional scholar, in his answer to Sean Hannity, tacitly says that Article 2 implies dual U.S./foreign citizenship of one parent, and also the dual citizenship of putative single U.S. citizen parent Pres. Obama, and they must also be ecstatic that Sen. Cruz's answer tacitly denigrates Article 2 and ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY "by birth" ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.

In his answer Sen. Cruz confounds the understanding about Amendment 14 "at birth" and Article 2 "by birth", and he conflates the two in his answer. He does so by confounding the distinction between a 14th Amendment or INA: ACT 301 statute "born citizen" and an Article 2 "natural born citizen."

The confusion in Sen. Cruz's answer confounds the constitutional distinction between Article 2, Amendment 14 and the INA: ACT 301 statute.

The 1787-2015 Article 2 inspired by original birther John Jay intends ONLY singular U.S. citizenship "by birth" ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, while the 1868-2015 Amendment 14, according to the Supreme Court, intends ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship "at birth" on U.S. soil to either one OR zero U.S. citizen married parents. Amendment 14 does NOT affirm BOTH singular U.S. citizenship AND dual U.S./foreign citizenship. Amendment 14 affirms ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship.

Sen. Cruz's answer also confounds the Article 2 singular U.S. citizenship intention of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship "by birth" ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents with the INA: ACT 301 (clauses "a and "g") statute which intends ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship "at birth" on foreign soil to one OR two U.S. citizen parents. The INA: ACT 301 statute also intends ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship "at birth" on U.S. soil to one OR zero U.S. citizen parents. The statute does NOT affirm BOTH singular U.S. citizenship AND dual U.S./foreign citizenship. The INA:ACT 301 statute affirms ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

ajtelles said...

Citizen / Born Citizen / Natural Born Citizen
2

CPAC 2015
( http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4529323/senator-ted-cruz-cpac )

Sen. Ted Cruz speech at CPAC 2015.
At about 20 min. 12 sec. to 20 min. 58 sec. = 46 seconds.

There was no reference to Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, Amendment 14, Section 1 (1st sentence), or the relevant statute—INA: ACT 301 - Nationals and Citizens of the United States at Birth. Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401], specifically clauses (a) and (g).

[ http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html#0-0-0-375 ]

"(a) a person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
[...snip...]
(g) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was ... ."

Hannity:

Alright, I want to warn everybody, I am asking this next question, because I know the liberal media will.
Ok, so we might as well get it out of the way for them.

Your mother was an American citizen.
You talked about your dad coming from Cuba.
You were born in Canada.
You had dual citizenship.
There are a bunch of liberal birthers out there that would try to make the case that you're not eligible.
Just a quick, short answer.

Sen. Cruz:

Look, I was born in Calgary.
My mother was an American citizen by birth.
Under Federal law that made me an American citizen by birth.
The Constitution requires that you be a natural born citizen.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

A 46 second question and answer about constitutional eligibility.

After an exhausting 46 seconds question and answer, in which there was not time to discuss the original genesis original intent of original birther John Jay, and why he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" which was included in Article 2, there was an Immediate transition from eligibility to Sen. Cruz's top five agenda items—and after a possible tacit reference to the 2nd Amendment, he didn't say what he was referring to, there is item #4 about constitutional rights. It would be nice if constitutional scholar Sen. Cruz would affirm the "constitutional rights" of WE the People to have ONLY an Article 2 singular U.S. citizenship "natural born Citizen" who is a "born citizen" "by birth" and not "at birth."

Hannity:

Alright,
Now we're going to do our quick lightning round,
'cause we're running out of time.
What would the top five agenda items of a President Te Cruz, what would they be?

Sen. Cruz:

#1 - repeal every blasted word of ObamaCare.
#2 - abolish the IRS. Take all 125,000 IRS agents and put them on the southern border.
#3 - stop the out of control regulators; the EPA and the alphabet soup of Washington.
#4 - defend our constitutional rights; all of them.
#5 - restore America's leadership in the world as a shining city on a hill.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Here is what Obot Bob just posted to me at Café Con Leche Republicans:

Cruz said “by birth” at CPAC; try to keep up.

The grown-ups all agree that a citizen “at birth” or “by birth” is a natural-born citizen.

~~~~~

Here is my reply:

Poor, poor, Bob. He needs to change the words of the Congressional statute which makes Senator Cruz a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” in order for his Obot narrative to work.

When enacted in 1952, section 301 required a U.S. citizen married to an alien to have been physically present in the United States for ten years, including five after reaching the age of fourteen, to transmit citizenship to foreign-born children. The ten-year transmission requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still is applicable to persons born during that period.

As originally enacted, section 301(a)(7) stated:

(a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:

***

(7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years: Provided, That any periods of honorable service in the Armed Forces of the United States by such citizen parent may be included in computing the physical presence requirements of this paragraph.

~~~~~

The modern version of this statute is found at 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g).

Now, Bob, did you see what Congress wrote? It wrote “at birth,” not “by birth.” You need to catch up, man.

So, Bob what else will you change in order to convince us of your phony position? Let’s make a list of what you have changed so far:

The Constitution says the president needs to be a “natural born citizen,” but you tell us that he needs to be a native-born citizen.

The Fourteenth Amendment plainly says “citizen” of the United States, but you tell us it says natural born citizen.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) held Wong to be a “citizen” of the United States from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, but you tell us it held that he was a natural born citizen.

Now, Cruz, and those like him, is under the express words of a Congressional naturalization Act a “citizen” of the United States “at birth,” but you tell us that he is a “citizen” of the United States “by birth.”

That's right, Bob, just suck it all in.

Bob, do you not see the writing on the wall? You really are pretty lousy at this.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

I just posted this comment at American Thinker, in response to a comment by The_Heretic70 to Pedro Gonzales’ article entitled, “Why Ted Cruz is constitutionally qualified to be president,” found at http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/03/why_ted_cruz_is_constitutionally_qualified_to_be_president_comments.html.

You said: “He was a citizen at birth. He did not have to be naturalized.” Your first sentence is correct, but your second one is not.

Regarding children born out of the United States, the Constitution gives to Congress in matters of citizenship only the power to naturalize. This naturalization power does not include the power to make anyone a natural born citizen. At the time of the writing of the Constitution, the common law did not extend citizenship to anyone born out of the United States. Hence, the first Congress saw the need, as the English had done for centuries, to provide for children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents. The Naturalization Act of 1790 (our nation’s first immigration and naturalization law), approved by that First Congress, which comprised of many Founders and Framers, and signed into law by President George Washington, said that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents "shall be considered as natural born citizen." The “shall be considered as” language was naturalization language, for it made through a naturalization law a person who otherwise was not even a citizen the same as a natural born citizen to the extent that it constitutionally could. Hence, Congress's naturalization language gave to these children retroactively all the civil and political privileges and immunities of a "natural born citizen," except the privilege of being elected president which, because of the Framers’ concern for the national security and preservation of the nation, could be gained only by satisfying Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, which included satisfying the American common law and therefore the Constitution's definition of a "natural born citizen." That definition was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797); Minor v. Happesett (1875); accord U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

With the Naturalization Act of 1795, the Third Congress, again with the approval of many Founders and Framers, including then-Representative James Madison and President George Washington, removed the "natural born citizen" language and replaced it with the "citizen of the United States" language, making it undoubtedly clear, given that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 distinguishes with respect to presidential eligibility between a “Citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents were naturalized from the moment of birth (which Congress in later statutes calls “at birth”) as "citizens” of the United States, and were not and could not be true "natural born citizens," who not only enjoyed all the rights, privileges, and immunities of the citizens, but also enjoyed the privilege of being elected President. Hence, not becoming U.S. citizens by virtue of the Constitution's common law definition of the clause, the Third Congress viewed such children as excluded from being "natural born citizens." See U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Rogers v. Bellei (1971) (both explain that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents do not have a constitutional right to their citizenship and can become naturalized "citizens” of the United States “at birth” only by the grace of Congress and not under the Constitution, with Congress having the power to add conditions for gaining and retaining that citizenship or to deny the

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Continued . . .

II of II

privilege all together). See also, Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999) (“Natural Born Citizen Clause. The clause of the U.S. Constitution barring persons not born in the United States from the presidency. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5”). These source, among many, confirm that one can be a “citizen” “at birth,” which is nothing more than naturalization at birth, which no natural born citizen would ever need in order to obtain that status at birth.

Again, Congress in matters of citizenship only has the constitutional power naturalize. That power includes the power to make more “citizens” of the United States “at birth.” But that power does not include power to add to the Article II "natural born citizen" class. On the contrary, given your reliance on an Act of Congress to make Mr. Cruz a natural born citizen, you maintain although without demonstrating that Congress does have this power. But even assuming for arguments sake that Congress has the authority to add to the "natural born citizen" class, the last time that it did so was in 1790. In 1795, Congress changed the status that it bestowed upon children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents, from “natural born citizens” to “citizens of the United States.” Congress has never again since 1790 added to the "natural born citizen" class, including in the Act of Congress which made Ted Cruz a "citizen” of the United States “at birth” when he was born and also not in the Fourteenth Amendment (neither of these laws even mention the clause “natural born citizen”). Additionally, “by birth” denotes becoming something because of the birth alone. “At birth” signifies becoming something at the moment of birth by any means provided. While the former needs no law for the creation, the latter may make of such use. For example, a child is the natural child of his parents by birth to them alone while a child is the adopted child of his parents only through the force of law which converts that child from the natural child of his natural parents to the adopted child of his adopted parents from the moment of birth or “at birth.” Notice that Congress has never used the phrase “by birth,” which pertains to the natural born citizens, but rather has used “at birth,” which pertains only to the moment in time when a person becomes a citizen of the United States through the grace of a naturalization Act of Congress or even the Fourteenth Amendment. So even if you are correct about Congress having such power, which it does not, your argument still fails because Congress did not exercised it so as to benefit Ted Cruz at the time of his birth in 1970.

You also state: “You are all clinging to definitions that are not in the law. Don't invent reasons to deprive us of a President Cruz.” On the contrary, you are the one who is clinging to definitions that are not in the law and inventing reasons to have your favorite candidate be President, who is not constitutionally eligible to be President. The historical and legal record demonstrates that Senator Cruz is a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” by virtue of Section 301(a) (7) of the Immigration Act of 1952. He is not a “citizen” of the United States “by birth,” or what the Constitution calls a “natural born citizen,” as defined by the common law upon which the Framers relied for their definition of an Article II natural born citizen. Ted Cruz is a “Citizen of the United States.” But he was also born after the adoption of the Constitution. Being neither “a natural born Citizen, [n]or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” he is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of V

At the same article at American Thinker, The_Heretic70 said that I am mistaken in my position on what is a natural born citizen and that Senator Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen, citing Mark Levin as a source who has concluded that Mr. Cruz is a natural born citizen. He cites to http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-explains-that-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/ , where we find an audio explanation by Mr. Levin posted on August 29, 2013, entitled, “Mark Levin Explains That Ted Cruz Is A Natural Born Citizen.” Below are my comments on Mr. Levin’s argument which I have posted to American Thinker:

There are numerous problems with Mark Levin’s explanation on why he believes Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen and therefore eligible to be President. Here they are:

1. Levin starts by admitting that Cruz is a “naturalized American citizen.” Yet he finds that he is a natural born citizen.

2. Levin refers to the “birther” confrontation with de facto President Barack Obama, saying that they failed because they could not prove his birth certificate was a forgery. But he makes no mention of the other constitutional problem with Obama’s claim to being a natural born citizen, i.e. that he was born to a non-U.S citizen father.

3. Levin states that the Constitution does not define a natural born citizen and that therefore we have to look to the “right law” in order to define it. He then says that the right law is statutes and regulations. He concludes that under that law, a natural born citizen is any person born abroad to U.S. citizen parents or any person born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of the person’s parents. But his reliance on statutes and regulations is misplaced. Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) both tell us that the Constitution, which already included the Fourteenth Amendment, does not define a natural born citizen. They both said that we are to look to the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution for their definition of a natural born citizen. Minor explained and Wong Kim Ark cited and quoted approvingly, that a natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. There is no mention at all in either Minor or Wong Kim Ark that a natural born citizen is defined by statute or some regulation. What is more, when the Framers wrote natural born citizen into the Constitution, there were no statutes in place. Hence, they could not have been guided by any statutes. Furthermore, we all know that we cannot amend the Constitution with statutes. Hence, any subsequently adopted statute could not have change the Framers’ definition of a natural born citizen which Minor and Wong Kim Ark told us existed in the common law.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of V

4. Levin makes reference to John McCain, who was born in Panama to U.S. citizen parents, as precedent for Cruz being a natural born citizen. But Cruz’s birth circumstances are different. It does not matter if McCain in 1936 was born in the Panama Canal Zone, Panama proper, or on a military base. Wherever he was born, he was born there to parents who were both U.S. “citizens” and serving in the armies of the state. Emer de Vattel at Section 217 of The Law of Nations (1758) informs that someone born under such circumstances is “reputed born in the country; for a citizen, who is absent with his family on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.” McCain was born in Panama to U.S. citizen parents who were serving the national defense of the United States (his father was in the Navy and his wife was at his side). Hence, McCain is reputed born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents which makes him a natural born citizen. On the contrary, Cruz’s parents were not serving the national defense of the United States when they were in Canada and had Ted. Additionally, Cruz’s father was not a U.S. citizen. Hence, McCain’s situation does not apply to that of Cruz.

5. Levin then relies entirely on a naturalization Act of Congress, the Naturalization Act of 1940, to conclude that Cruz is a natural born citizen. He does quote the correct language which applied to Cruz when he was born in 1970. He quotes from the following:

(a) The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: (7) a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States who, prior to the birth of such person, was physically present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than ten years, at least five of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years . . . .

Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration Act of 1952.

He states that Cruz’s mother was born and resided in the United States and had her son when she was 30 years old and therefore she is a qualifying U.S. citizen that could transmit her U.S citizenship to her son, Ted. He concludes that under that act, Cruz is a “citizen” of the United States “at birth,” and that any such citizen is a natural born citizen. He adds that only those who are naturalized after birth are not natural born citizens.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of V

The problem for Levin and Cruz is that this statute is not only a naturalization statute, but given that its text does not even mention natural born citizen, it does not make anyone a natural born citizen. Hence, his reliance upon this act is misplaced. See U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Rogers v. Bellei (1971) (both explain that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents do not have a constitutional right to their citizenship and can become naturalized "citizens” of the United States “at birth” only by the grace of Congress and not under the Constitution, with Congress having the power to add conditions for gaining and retaining that citizenship or to deny the privilege all together). See also, Black’s Law Dictionary (7th ed. 1999) (“Natural Born Citizen Clause. The clause of the U.S. Constitution barring persons not born in the United States from the presidency. U.S. Const. art. II, § 1, cl. 5”). These source, among many, confirm that one can be a “citizen” “at birth,” which is nothing more than naturalization at birth, which no natural born citizen would ever need in order to obtain that status at birth.

Also, Levin’s comment that there should not be any debate about Obama being a natural born citizen because he also qualifies under this same Act of Congress is mistaken. Unlike Cruz’s mother, Obama’s mother was not residing in the United States for at least 5 years after she became 14 years old. When Obama was born in 1961, she was only 18 years old (she had to be 19). Hence, if Obama was not born in the United States, this statute would not naturalize him to be a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” and he would be an alien.

6. Levin’s references to Barry Goldwater and George Romney are unavailing given that they were only Presidential candidates and did not get very far in the process. For that matter, Roger Calero ,who was born in Nicaragua in 1969 and was not a U.S. citizen (he was a lawful permanent resident of the United States holding a green card since 1990), was also a presidential candidate for the Socialist Workers Party and appeared on the 2004 and 2008 New Jersey ballot for President, among other states. Hence, simply being a presidential candidate does not prove that one is a natural born citizen. Actually, not even getting elected President proves that one is a natural born citizen, for we have seen Chester Arthur who got elected Vice-President and then move to President and Barack Obama who was elected twice as President and they both were not natural born citizens.

7. Levin says that it is not practical to argue that Cruz is not a natural born citizen because no court would make such a finding. This is a surprising and contradictory statement from him given that he states that he is such a staunch supporter of the Constitution, regardless of what a court might otherwise find. (For example, he strongly objects publicly to Chief John Roberts finding ObamaCare to be constitutional.) After all, the Constitution is the people’s founding document and the people should never give up their right to be heard on what it means to them.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

IV of V

8. Levin states that Cruz would qualify as a natural born citizen under the Naturalization Act of 1790 and that should end the matter. But his reliance on that Act is misplaced. The Naturalization Act of 1790 (our nation’s first immigration and naturalization law), approved by that First Congress, which comprised of many Founders and Framers, and signed into law by President George Washington, said that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents "shall be considered as natural born citizen." The “shall be considered as” language was naturalization language, for it made through a naturalization law a person who otherwise was not even a citizen the same as a natural born citizen to the extent that it constitutionally could. Hence, Congress's naturalization language gave to these children retroactively all the civil and political privileges and immunities of a "natural born citizen," except the privilege of being elected president which, because of the Framers’ concern for the national security and preservation of the nation, could be gained only by satisfying Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, which included satisfying the American common law and therefore the Constitution's definition of a "natural born citizen." That definition was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797); Minor v. Happesett (1875); accord U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

With the Naturalization Act of 1795, the Third Congress, again with the approval of many Founders and Framers, including then-Representative James Madison and President George Washington, removed the "natural born citizen" language and replaced it with the "citizen of the United States" language, making it undoubtedly clear, given that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 distinguishes with respect to presidential eligibility between a “Citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents were naturalized from the moment of birth (which Congress in later statutes calls “at birth”) as "citizens” of the United States, and were not and could not be true "natural born citizens," who not only enjoyed all the rights, privileges, and immunities of the citizens, but also enjoyed the privilege of being elected President. Hence, not becoming U.S. citizens by virtue of the Constitution's common law definition of the clause, the Third Congress viewed such children as excluded from being "natural born citizens."

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

V of V

Again, Congress in matters of citizenship only has the constitutional power to naturalize. That power includes the power to make more “citizens” of the United States “at birth.” But that power does not include power to add to the Article II "natural born citizen" class. On the contrary, given Levin’s reliance on an Act of Congress to make Mr. Cruz a natural born citizen, he also maintains although without demonstrating that Congress does have this power. But even assuming for arguments sake that Congress has the authority to add to the "natural born citizen" class, the last time that it did so was in 1790. In 1795, Congress changed the status that it bestowed upon children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents, from “natural born citizens” to “citizens of the United States.” Congress has never again since 1790 added to the "natural born citizen" class, including in the Act of Congress which made Ted Cruz a "citizen” of the United States “at birth” when he was born and also not in the Fourteenth Amendment (neither of these laws even mention the clause “natural born citizen”).

Additionally, “by birth” denotes becoming something because of the birth alone. “At birth” signifies becoming something at the moment of birth by any means provided. While the former needs no law for the creation, the latter may make of such use. For example, a child is the natural child of his parents by birth to them alone while a child is the adopted child of his parents only through the force of law which converts that child from the natural child of his natural parents to the adopted child of his adopted parents from the moment of birth or “at birth.” Notice that Congress has never used the phrase “by birth,” which pertains to the natural born citizens, but rather has used “at birth,” which pertains only to the moment in time when a person becomes a citizen of the United States through the grace of a naturalization Act of Congress or even the Fourteenth Amendment. So even if Levin is correct about Congress having such power, which it does not, his argument still fails because Congress did not exercised it so as to benefit Ted Cruz at the time of his birth in 1970.

9. Finally, after giving his explanation, which I have demonstrated is replete with error, he closes any reply to him. He even has banned anyone, which he calls “birthers,” from calling his radio station to discuss the issue. That is very disappointing given that on his radio show he is always talking about the Constitution and the rule of law, the Founders and Framers, natural law, republicanism, the civil society, preservation of that society (which is the Framers' purpose for requiring that the President and Commander in Chief of the Military be a natural born citizen) the natural born citizen clause), and also advocating amending the Constitution, among many other constitutional issues. That he has cut off any debate on the topic speaks volumes as to the strength of his position and his motives.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

V of V

Again, Congress in matters of citizenship only has the constitutional power to naturalize. That power includes the power to make more “citizens” of the United States “at birth.” But that power does not include power to add to the Article II "natural born citizen" class. On the contrary, given Levin’s reliance on an Act of Congress to make Mr. Cruz a natural born citizen, he also maintains although without demonstrating that Congress does have this power. But even assuming for arguments sake that Congress has the authority to add to the "natural born citizen" class, the last time that it did so was in 1790. In 1795, Congress changed the status that it bestowed upon children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents, from “natural born citizens” to “citizens of the United States.” Congress has never again since 1790 added to the "natural born citizen" class, including in the Act of Congress which made Ted Cruz a "citizen” of the United States “at birth” when he was born and also not in the Fourteenth Amendment (neither of these laws even mention the clause “natural born citizen”).

Additionally, “by birth” denotes becoming something because of the birth alone. “At birth” signifies becoming something at the moment of birth by any means provided. While the former needs no law for the creation, the latter may make of such use. For example, a child is the natural child of his parents by birth to them alone while a child is the adopted child of his parents only through the force of law which converts that child from the natural child of his natural parents to the adopted child of his adopted parents from the moment of birth or “at birth.” Notice that Congress has never used the phrase “by birth,” which pertains to the natural born citizens, but rather has used “at birth,” which pertains only to the moment in time when a person becomes a citizen of the United States through the grace of a naturalization Act of Congress or even the Fourteenth Amendment. So even if Levin is correct about Congress having such power, which it does not, his argument still fails because Congress did not exercised it so as to benefit Ted Cruz at the time of his birth in 1970.

9. Finally, after giving his explanation, which I have demonstrated is replete with error, he closes any reply to him. He even has banned anyone, which he calls “birthers,” from calling his radio station to discuss the issue. That is very disappointing given that on his radio show he is always talking about the Constitution and the rule of law, the Founders and Framers, natural law, republicanism, the civil society, preservation of that society (which is the Framers' purpose for requiring that the President and Commander in Chief of the Military be a natural born citizen), and also advocating amending the Constitution, among many other constitutional issues. That he has cut off any debate on the topic speaks volumes as to the strength of his position and his motives.

ajtelles said...

Mark Levin audio...

Mario,

Dittos on your post about Mark Levin's self imposed constitutional blinders.

In the TheRightScoop.com post of Levin's audio from August 29, 2013,

>> http://therightscoop.com/mark-levin-explains-that-ted-cruz-is-a-natural-born-citizen/

entitled “Mark Levin Explains That Ted Cruz Is A Natural Born Citizen,” we learn that Mark is not very deep and not very informed and not very knowledgeable about Article 2 and original birther John Jay's "original genesis original intent" for underlining the word "born" in "Natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington.

However, there is at least one glimmer of hope for Mark Levin... and Rush Limbaugh... and Glenn Beck... and Sean HANNITY.

Just as Mark Levin formerly did not agree that an Article V convention of the legislatures of the states was a viable possibility to amend the constitution, so there is still a glimmer of hope possibility that Mark will look seriously at Article 2 as he does the rest of the constitution.

If you and I and other John Jay original meaning birthers can understand the eternal relevance of the original intent of Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, well then, so can Mark--someday--maybe.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/2014/12/time-to-change-conversation.html )

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

ajtelles,

Mark Levin has missed a very important lesson from the Founders and Framers on why they commanded in the Constitution that the great and singular civil and military powers of the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military not devolve upon any person born after the adoption of the Constitution who was not a natural born citizen. May I explain.

Membership in a political society or what we call citizenship in a republic, realized as original citizens and natural born citizens, who were their offspring, is a fundamental basis of the American Revolution. That Revolution was about the individual being free to pursue his or her destiny, which included creating a government of limited powers to serve the individual in pursuing his or her happiness. These individuals, through the force of and as permitted by the law of nature, sacrificed to assure mankind that the individual is supreme over government. Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence expressed that supremacy as the individual possessing and enjoying, among other rights, the “unalienable Rights” to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” which he explained came from the “Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” He further expressed that supremacy when he said that the individual then constitutes government for the sole purpose of better securing those rights, and to accomplish that end, the people consent to give that government just and limited powers. Those who adhered to the American Revolution became the original citizens and given the task of creating that new government which was to best serve them in their pursuit of happiness.

The concept of the original citizens and natural born citizens is the one and only ideal that places the individual over the government with power to change that government when necessary, thereby guaranteeing man’s freedom from a potentially oppressive and tyrannical government. Indeed, as long as there is life, there will be the potential for original citizens and natural born citizens, who are citizens born to citizens in their country. Original citizens are those who create new political societies. Their offspring born to them in their new country are the first natural born citizens. Hence, original citizens and natural born citizens make the first government, that government does not make them. Once the original citizens make the new government, that government then through positive laws makes more citizens to join the original citizens and first natural born citizens in making the nation great. In later generations, all those who are born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth become natural born citizens like the original natural born citizens. Emer de Vattel, in The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) explains that it is these citizens, children born in the country to citizen parents, who in the end for love of country will best strive to guarantee the perpetuation of the society and government which was created by the original citizens. Of course, a nation also has citizens who are so made through the force of positive law. These citizens also have a duty to protect the nation in whose citizenship they were born or whose citizenship they adopted after their birth.

Hopefully, Mark Levine will someday give serious study to the meaning of a natural born citizen and what it means to the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military and the survival of the constitutional republic. Through that study, he will better understand the foundation of the making of America and what is needed to assure her survival as the nation conceived by the Founders and Framers.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

I just posted this comment at Café Con Leche Republicans:

Slartibartfast,

You and others like you love to misrepresent what Minor v. Happersett (1875) established with respect to the constitutional definition of an Article II natural born citizen. You also falsely accuse me of “cherry picking” from the decision.

Minor explained that the meaning of a natural born citizen was not found in the Constitution, which then already included the Fourteenth Amendment. Rather, Minor said that we had to look outside the Constitution for its meaning. It said that we could look to the common law for that meaning. Minor held that under the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution, children born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth were not only citizens like their parents, but also “natives, or natural-born citizens,” and that the rest of the people were all “aliens or foreigners,” who could be naturalized by Acts of Congress or statutes.

The court was silent on whether children born in the United States to alien parents were also “natives, or natural-born citizen.” Had the Court wished to include those children as natural born citizens it could have easily done so by appropriate language. But the Court did not include language in its decision indicating that those children were also natural born citizens.

Minor’s intent as to what is a natural born citizen is clear from the plain language it used. Children born in the United States to alien parents did not fit within the class it identified as natural born citizens. To suggest that the Court intended to place them there makes no sense given the definition that the Court gave and which it said guided the Framers when they wrote the natural born citizen clause into the Constitution.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

You contend that how Minor defined a natural born citizen was not meant by it to exclude children born in the United States to alien parents from being natural born citizens. You continuously tell us that Minor said there were “doubts” as to other children who could also be natural born citizens. You are mistaken. While the Court might not have definitely excluded those other children from being citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment, which is what U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) found, it did exclude them from being natural born citizens under the common law. We know that it excluded them because the Court explained that at common law children who were not born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of their birth were “aliens or foreigners” who needed to be naturalized under Acts of Congress or treaties. The Court would not have made that statement if there were other children born under different birth circumstance who might also be natural born citizens. What Minor did add was that “some authorities” had maintained that children born in the jurisdiction to alien parents were also “citizens.” Evidently, the Court was referring to the question of whether those children were “citizens” under the Fourteenth Amendment, which would have added to Congressional Acts another means by which children who were not natural born citizens could become citizens from the moment of birth. Both Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (overruled by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment) and The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36 (1873) (decided post-Fourteenth Amendment) had said they were not. (Wong Kim Ark acknowledged that The Slaughterhouse Cases had so stated but said that its remark was dicta.) The Court said that “there have been doubts” whether that was true, but never any doubts that those belonging to the natural born citizen class were citizens. The Court concluded by saying that there was no need for it to answer that question because Virginia Minor, who we know was born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents and which under the Court’s definition of the clause made her a natural born citizen, was a citizen. So there is no ambiguity in Minor’s holding as to who was a natural born citizen under the common law upon which the Framers relied to define the clause.

Even if ambiguity exists regarding the definition of a natural born citizen as you contend, the historical and legal record supports the Court giving us a strict and limited definition of a natural born citizen. For example, the early naturalization Acts of Congress, highly probative evidence of the Framers’ meaning of a natural born citizen, all treated children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and in need of naturalization. So, there is no basis to your position that Minor did not give us one and only one definitive definition of a natural born citizen. On the contrary, Minor informed that there was only one and only one definition of a natural born citizen which was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Under that definition, neither Mr. Obama nor Mr. Cruz are natural born citizens. Therefore, also not being “Citizen[s] of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution,” they are both not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I posted this at Cafe Con Leche Republicans:

Slartibartfast,

You stated, looking for a "True" answer:

“True or false: In the language of the English common law, the term “natural born subject” simply means “subject at birth”, regardless of how that status was achieved.”

~~~~~

That is precious, Slartibartfast. Thank you for conceding that a “natural born citizen” is not the same thing as a “natural born subject.”

A natural born subject included all subjects, whether made by birth or naturalized by statutes or even by the court (Calvin). It even included subjects so made by statute after birth. The term was an umbrella word which had no precise parameters. It captured the sweeping and broad perpetual allegiance owed to the King under English common and statutory law. On the other hand, a natural born citizen, which was consent based both as to acquisition and expatriation, was a clause that had one and only one meaning under the common law to which the Framers looked for its definition. That meaning was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. The Framers also distinguished between a “Citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” allowing Senators and Representatives to qualify even if just “citizens,” but requiring that for those born after the adoption of the Constitution only a natural born citizen was eligible to be President and therefore have devolved upon him/her the singular and great civil and military powers of the Office of President and Commander in Chief. Equating natural born citizen with natural born subject would not have allowed this constitutional scheme to work, for it would have blurred the line between a citizen and a natural born citizen.

For these fundamental reasons and others that I have stated, which are at the heart of the American Revolution, the Framers would never have equated a natural born citizen with a natural born subject.

ajtelles said...

1868 Freedom from Slavery = Singular U.S. Citizenship for the freed Negroes
1

Amendment XIV Section 1
[Part A:] All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
[Part B:] No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
[Part C:] nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Mario,

In your first four sentences of your first paragraph in part 2 of your point-counterpoint on Cafe Con Leche Republicans with Kevin/Slartibartfast, which you posted here on your blog on March 6, 2015 at 1:35 PM, you wrote about "some authorities," my comment is about them:

"You contend that how Minor defined a natural born citizen was not meant by it to exclude children born in the United States to alien parents from being natural born citizens.

"You continuously tell us that Minor said there were “doubts” as to other children who could also be natural born citizens.

"You are mistaken.

"While the Court might not have definitely excluded those other children from being citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment, which is what U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) found, it did exclude them from being natural born citizens under the common law.

"We know that it excluded them because the Court explained that at common law children who were not born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of their birth were “aliens or foreigners” who needed to be naturalized under Acts of Congress or treaties.

"What Minor did add was that “some authorities” had maintained that children born in the jurisdiction to alien parents were also “citizens.” Evidently, the Court was referring to the question of whether those children were “citizens” under the Fourteenth Amendment, which would have added to Congressional Acts another means by which children who were not natural born citizens could become citizens from the moment of birth."


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario, what you wrote about the Minor v. Happersett decision, which was written in 1875, only 7 years after Amendment 14 was ratified in 1868, revealed two things about Amendment 14 that I noticed with greater clarity yesterday after analyzing the first sentence for the umteenth time:

"While the Court might not have definitely excluded those other children from being citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment,
[...snip...]
What Minor did add was that “some authorities” had maintained that children born in the jurisdiction to alien parents were also “citizens.”


It looks like there are three possible citizenships meant by "all persons born or naturalized...are citizens..." in Amendment 14: (1) ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for "born...citizens;" (2) ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship for "born...citizens;" (3) BOTH singular U.S. citizenship AND dual U.S./foreign citizenship for "born...citizens."

ajtelles said...

1868 Freedom from Slavery = Singular U.S. Citizenship for the freed Negroes
2

Some 2008-2015 "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers are accurate in asserting that the 1868 original intent for the word "born" in "all persons born...are citizens..." in Amendment 14 was not clear until 30 years later in 1898 with the holding of the Supreme Court in the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision. They assert that the Court's holding that Wong Kim Ark in 1898 was a "citizen" means that the 1868 Amendment 14 language of the framers can be construed as implying that "born" means two things: (1) Dual U.S./foreign citizenship at birth on U.S. soil to either one OR zero U.S. citizen parents, married or not married to each other at the time of their child's birth; (2) Dual U.S./foreign citizenship at birth on U.S. soil to either two OR one OR zero non-U.S. citizen parents, married or not married to each other.

Although the "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birther dilemma is that ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship is possible with one OR zero U.S. citizen parents and with two OR one OR zero non-U.S. citizen parents, the new meaning neo-birthers simply assert with no historical foundation, either by amendment, statute or judicial decision, that dual U.S./foreign citizenship fulfills the original intent of "natural born Citizen" in Article 2. They assert it simply because the child is "natural born" on U.S. soil and Amendment 14 explicitly states that they are "citizens" of the United States.

That is how easy it is to be a "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birther—'cause dual U.S./foreign citizenship is as good as singular U.S. citizenship to be eligible to be POTUS 'cause the neo-birthers say so. Period.

However, the neo-birther dilemma REALLY means that since the Supreme Court held in the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision that a Chinese child born on U.S. soil to two married Chinese parents who were both not naturalized as U.S. citizens before their child was born, the common sense conclusion is that ALL children born on U.S. soil to two OR one OR zero married or not married parents who are NOT U.S. citizens, and ALL children born on U.S. soil to one OR zero U.S. citizen married parents, either by birth or by naturalization, ALL of their child are "citizens" with dual U.S./foreign citizenship, and NONE are an Article 2 "natural born Citizen" with singular U.S. citizenship. The "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birther dilemma means that it was NOT the original intent of the framers of the 1868 Amendment 14 for BOTH singular U.S. citizenship AND dual U.S./foreign citizenship OR ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship.

Since the 1898 U.S. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court "citizen" decision, the constitutional distinction is between a 1787 Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" with singular U.S. citizenship AND an 1868 Amendment 14 Section 1 "citizen" with dual U.S./foreign citizenship, NOT singular U.S. citizenship. The new meaning neo-birther dilemma is that being born with dual U.S./foreign citizenship means that Wong Kim Ark, who had zero U.S. citizen parents, was not eligible to be POTUS in 1898 America, and that Wong Kim Ark common sense conclusion about eligibility means that "All persons born ..." on U.S. soil with zero U.S. citizen parents have dual U.S. citizenship and are still NOT eligible to be POTUS in 2015 America. That common sense conclusion ALSO applies to persons born on U.S. soil to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent. Persons born on U.S. soil to either one OR zero U.S. citizen parents are NOT eligible to be POTUS.

ajtelles said...

1868 Freedom from Slavery = Singular U.S. Citizenship for the freed Negroes
3

Dual U.S./foreign citizenship does NOT fulfill the 1787 "natural born Citizen" requirement of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by ONLY being born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.

The "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers also assert that the INA: ACT 301 language means that birth on foreign soil to either one OR two U.S. citizen parents, married or not married to each other at the time of their child's birth, fulfills the 1787 "natural born Citizen" requirement simply because the child was "natural born" to either one OR two U.S. citizen parents.

The language of INA: ACT 301 is not suggesting that "at birth" a child born on U.S. soil to one OR zero U.S. citizen parents is a "natural born Citizen" by birth alone, also expressed as "by birth." Also, the INA: ACT 301 language is not suggesting that "at birth" a child born on foreign soil to one OR two U.S. citizen parents is a "natural born Citizen" by birth alone, also expressed as "by birth."

Maybe the "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers can cite the source that says that a 1787-2015 Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 "natural born Citizen," aka a "citizen" "by birth," is the same thing as an 1868-2015 Amendment 14, Section 1 "citizen" "at birth."

Also, maybe the "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers can cite the source that says that a 1952-2015 INA: ACT 301 - Nationals and Citizens of the United states at Birth, Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401], specifically clauses (a) and (g), is the same thing as an Article 2 "citizen" "by birth," aka a "natural born Citizen."

Notice the explicit language about "at Birth" the child is a "citizen." The language is not suggesting that "at birth" the child is a "natural born Citizen." The "Citizens...at Birth" are INA: ACT 301 "citizens" "at birth" but not Article 2 "natural born Citizens" "by birth" since the "natural born Citizen" does not need Amendment 14 "at birth" positive law or INA: ACT 301 "at birth" positive law to be "by birth" a natural law/positive law "natural born Citizen."

To put it another way in two parts:

(1) the Amendment 14 language, as interpreted by the Supreme Court since 1898 until today in 2015, is NOT suggesting that "at birth" a child born on U.S. soil to one OR zero U.S. citizen parents is a "natural born Citizen" "by birth."

(2a) the INA: ACT 301 language is NOT suggesting that a child born on U.S. soil to one OR zero U.S. citizen parents, OR (2b) born on foreign soil to one OR two U.S. citizen parents is "at birth" a "natural born Citizen" "by birth."

The first sentence of Amendment 14 Section 1 has the explicit language, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States...are citizens... ."

The question is, what did "born" mean in 1868? Did "born" mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for the Amendment 14 free negroes; or did "born" mean ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship for the Amendment 14 free negroes; or did "born" mean BOTH 1868 singular AND 1898 dual?

THAT is the essence of the "born" debate about the original intent of "born" in Amendment 14.

ajtelles said...

1868 Freedom from Slavery = Singular U.S. Citizenship for the freed Negroes
4/

Before the 1898 Supreme Court decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, "born" did NOT mean dual U.S./foreign citizenship for the negroes while they were still slaves, and it definitely did NOT mean dual U.S./foreign citizenship for the free negroes AFTER slavery was abolished since they were now free citizens of ONLY one nation. So, the word "born" in 1868 meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for the negroes freed from slavery by Amendment 13, the 1865 abolition of slavery amendment; which was followed by Amendment 14, the 1868 "born...citizens" amendment; followed by Amendment 15, the 1870 racial suffrage amendment, which meant that the national right to vote was for male negroes. The national right for all females of all races to vote came in 1920 with Amendment 19, the women's suffrage amendment.

However, since the Supreme Court decision of 1898, "born" in Amendment 14 can ONLY mean born a citizen with ONLY dual U.S. foreign citizenship "at birth" AND not eligible to be POTUS, and "born" in Amendment 14 does NOT mean ALSO Article 2 singular U.S. citizenship "by birth" AND eligible to be POTUS. This "at birth" dual U.S./foreign citizenship status in the Amendment 14 language has been confirmed by the Supreme Court since 1898 when the Court held in the U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision that the Chinese child Wong Kim Ark, born in the United States to a Chinese married couple who were both not U.S. citizens by birth or by naturalization, their child Wong Kim Ark was a U.S. citizen "at birth," meaning born with dual U.S./Chinese citizenship; U.S. citizenship "at birth" on U.S. soil AND Chinese citizenship "by birth" to alien parents. The child Wong Kim Ark was NOT a "natural born Citizen" "by birth" to alien parents AND born with singular U.S. citizenship. Wong Kim Ark was a "born citizen" "at birth" according to the 1898 Supreme Court decision, but he was born with dual U.S./Chinese citizenship and NOT eligible to vote because he was born to two alien parents who did not naturalize before he was born.

So, according to Amendment 14 and how the 1898 Supreme Court interpreted Amendment 14 and "born" in the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision, it looks like the essence of the "natural born Citizen" proper subset issue is the distinction between two articles of the Constitution: the Article 2 singular U.S. citizenship "by birth" and the Amendment 14 dual U.S./foreign citizenship "at birth". Extraneous but relevant, is the naturalized "citizen" with singular U.S. citizenship "by" oath "after" birth. Not an issue today is the original intent in 1868 of "All persons born ... are citizens ..." in Amendment 14 meaning ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for the free negroes.

ajtelles said...

1868 Freedom from Slavery = Singular U.S. Citizenship for the freed Negroes
5/

However, the 1868 original intent could be a BIG issue today in 2015 America if, and this a BIG "IF," the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court holding that "All persons born ... are citizens ..." means dual U.S./foreign citizenship and that implicit meaning of dual U.S./foreign citizenship was overturned by a future Court, or if the 1898 Supreme Court decision with the implicature of dual U.S./foreign citizenship were repealed with an Article V amendment at a convention of states' legislatures, that would mean Amendment 14 would ONLY mean singular U.S. citizenship again as was intended in 1868, NOT dual U.S./foreign citizenship as implied since 1898, and definitely NOT BOTH 1868 Amendment 14 singular U.S. citizenship AND 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court implication of dual U.S./foreign citizenship. If Amendment 14 Section 1 and "All persons born ... are citizens ..." were defined and codified as meaning ONLY singular U.S. citizenship again as in 1868, that would mean BOTH words, "born" AND "naturalized" in "All persons born or naturalized in the United States ...," would BOTH be expressing singular U.S. citizenship as was originally intended in 1868, instead of "born" having the 1898 Supreme Court meaning of dual U.S./foreign citizenship and "naturalized" having the 1868 Amendment 14 meaning singular U.S. citizenship.

To be naturalized means to make the oath to renounce foreign citizenship and titles, so the new citizen "by oath" has ONLY singular U.S. citizenship. That means that with BOTH the 1868 singular U.S. citizenship meaning of "born" AND the 1898 dual U.S./foreign citizenship meaning of "born," and also the 1868 singular U.S. citizenship meaning of "naturalized," the word "born" in "All persons born ... are citizens ..." in Amendment 14 means NOT eligible to be POTUS, and the word "naturalized" in "All persons ... naturalized ... are citizens ..." in Amendment 14 ALSO means NOT eligible to be POTUS.

Anchor baby citizenship was definitely NOT the original intent of the original framers of Amendment 13 and the word "born" in Amendment 14 Section 1. If "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers insist that anchor baby citizenship with dual U.S./foreign citizenship WAS the original intent of the original framers of Amendment 14, they need to cite the sources for the assertion that the framer's original intent was to include dual U.S./foreign citizenship for alien parents who "break and enter" to "plop and drop" their dual U.S. citizenship "anchor babies."

An Article V amendment should be written to codify the word "born" in "All persons born..." with language to immediately stop "anchor baby citizenship" for children born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/2014/12/time-to-change-conversation.html )

ajtelles said...

An ooops correction...

In part 4, the last sentence of the penultimate paragraph "vote" was not intended, it should be POTUS.

"NOT eligible to vote because..." should be

Wong Kim Ark was "NOT eligible to be POTUS because because he was born to two alien parents who did not naturalize before he was born."

Art

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

We have this from Dr. Conspiracy at his blog:

“The original source of prejudice, I believe, is either racism or bias against anyone not on the right politically. Racism still remains stigmatized in the minds of most Americans, so racists have to come up with some other justification, such as calling Obama other things (noting that there’s nothing “wrong” with some of these):
• Ineligible (foreign born)
• Ineligible (not a natural born citizen because of his father).”
• ***

~~~~~

So, we have the self-hating Dr. Conspiracy telling us that those who question Mr. Obama’s Article II eligibility are racists. Under his test, since I maintain that Mr. Obama is not a natural born citizen because he was either not born in the United States (Mr. Obama did not provide any evidence of his place of birth in one of the many courts in which he was sued) and/or because he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father (notice the fake, phony, fraud Dr. Conspiracy hides in his list that his father was not a U.S. citizen), and Dr. Conspiracy knows it, Dr. Conspiracy has called me a racist. You know that the Obots are beat when things like Dr. Conspiracy have to play the race card to get anyone to pay attention to and believe their lies.

P.S. Beware that Dr. Conspiracy mixes into his dung what he passes off as real food so as to hide the dung.

ajtelles said...

Freedom from slavery...

Mario,

After reading your post about Dr. Conspiracy, I read his post on his blog.

After reading the shallow writing about racism and the connection with, these are my terms, original birther John Jay original intent birthers, by "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birther Dr. Conspiracy / Kevin Davidson / Masters Mathematician and proper subset expert, I have one question for new meaning neo-birther and racism expert Kevin:

What did "born" in Amendment 14 mean in 1868?

The first sentence of Amendment 14 Section 1 has the explicit language, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States...are citizens... ."

The question is, what did "born" mean in 1868 to the original framers and the original negroes set free three years earlier in 1865 by Amendment 13?

Q-

Did "born" mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for the Amendment 14 negroes set free in Amendment 13 by the first Republican President Abraham Lincoln?

Q-

Did "born" mean ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship for the Amendment 14 negroes set free by President Lincoln?

Q-

Did "born" mean BOTH 1868 singular U.S. citizenship AND 1898 dual U.S./foreign citizenship?

Well, that's a freebie for Kevin - definitely NOT both.

THAT is the essence of the "born citizen" debate about the original intent of "born" in Amendment 14, and how the Supreme Court in the 1875 Minor v. Happersett decision stayed close to the 1868 original intent of singular U.S. citizenship for "born" in Amendment 14, and how the court thirty years later in the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision strayed from the original intent common sense understanding of "born" 30 years earlier in 1868 and dual U.S./foreign citizenship was the conclusion of defining Wong Kim Ark as a "born citizen" even though born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents.

Q-

Did "born" mean singular U.S. citizenship OR dual U.S./foreign citizenship for the negroes while they were still slaves BEFORE Amendments 13 and 14, AND BEFORE the 1898 Wong Kim Ark decision?

A-

Before? No and no.

Q-

Did "born" mean ONLY singular U.S citizenship OR ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship for the free negroes AFTER slavery was abolished and they were free and new citizens of ONLY one nation?

A-
After? Definitely ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, of course, since they were new citizens of ONLY one nation.

Dual U.S./foreign citizenship would have been incoherent in 1868, and it was incoherent for 30 years until the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark court lost coherent connection with the original intent of the original framers of Amendment 14 and the word "born" in Section 1 and the first sentence, "All persons born or naturalized ... are citizens of ...."

So, the word "born" in 1868 meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for 30 years for the negroes freed from slavery by Amendment 13, the 1865 abolition of slavery amendment; which was followed by Amendment 14, the 1868 "born...citizens" amendment; followed by Amendment 15, the 1870 racial suffrage amendment.

Hmmm, I wonder.

Does Masters Mathematician and "natural born Citizen" is a proper subset of "citizen/born citizen" expert Dr. Conspiracy have deep thoughts about Republican President Abraham Lincoln and his 1865 Amendment 13 success in freeing the slaves as free "citizens" of ONLY one nation with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship three years later in 1868 with Amendment 14?

Hmmm.

"Natural born Citizen" original meaning and original birther John Jay "original genesis original intent" birthers are waiting for a common sense reply - if not here, well, somewhere - from "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birther Dr. Conspiracy.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/2014/12/time-to-change-conversation.html )

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

Here is my response to a commenter named Methuselah2 at http://www.westernfreepress.com/2015/03/05/ted-cruz-and-natural-born-citizenship-a-belated-reply-to-mario-apuzzo/?hubRefSrc=email#lf_comment=279146333

The Obots constantly use the following quote as support for their position that any born citizen, whether born in or out of the United States, regardless of how that status is obtained, is a natural born citizen. I will repeat the quote below and add my critique in brackets thus [], followed by my final comments.

The Heritage Foundation – Director Edwin Meese (President Reagan’s Attorney General) [this article was not written by Mr. Messes. Rather, it was written by Professor James C. Ho. You can read Professor Ho’s impressive credentials as presented by the Texas law firm for which he works here http://www.gibsondunn.com/lawyers/jho ] is a very conservative think tank. It’s respected by almost everyone on the right except Blovario Apuzzo. [this is a lie. My criticism is of Professor Ho, not of the Heritage Foundation] Here’s what it has to say about eligibility of those born in the United States under the “natural born Citizen” clause:

“The third qualification to be President is that one must be a "natural born Citizen" . . . [] Under the longstanding English common-law principle of jus soli, persons born within the territory of the sovereign (other than children of enemy aliens or foreign diplomats) are citizens from birth. Thus [he uses “thus” as though he has proven anything previously to using the word], those persons born within the United States are "natural born citizens" [he replaces natural born citizen for natural born subject without proving that the two phrases are interchangeable] and eligible to be President. Much less certain, [instead of saying that there is no legal support for the proposition, he reduces the negative evidence by saying that it is less certain] however, is whether children born abroad of United States citizens are "natural born citizens" eligible to serve as President. As early as 1350, the British Parliament approved statutes recognizing the rule of jus sanguinis, under which citizens may pass their citizenship by descent to their children at birth, regardless of place. Similarly, in its first naturalization statute, Congress declared that "the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens." 1 Stat. 104 (1790). The "natural born" terminology was dropped shortly thereafter. See, e.g., 8 U.S.C. § 1401©. [He gives the correct history but does not tell us what it means. So, he thinks he did his job by just telling us the facts] But the question remains whether the term "natural born Citizen" used in Article II includes the parliamentary rule of jus sanguinis in addition to the common law principle of jus soli. In United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the Supreme Court relied on English common law regarding jus soli to inform the meaning of "citizen" in the Fourteenth Amendment as well as the natural-born–citizenship requirement of Article II, [here Ho really fabricates things. He just throws “natural born citizen” in there given that it serves his purpose. A reading of Wong Kim Ark shows that its holding makes no mention of Wong being a natural born citizen] and noted that any right to citizenship though jus sanguinis was available only by statute, and not through the Constitution. Notwithstanding the Supreme Court's discussion in Wong Kim Ark, a majority of commentators today [how does Ho determine that it is a majority? Who did he ask?

Continued . . .



Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Did he do some type of statistical polling?] argue that the Presidential Eligibility Clause incorporates both the common-law and English statutory principles, and that therefore, Michigan Governor George Romney, who was born to American parents outside of the United States, was eligible to seek the Presidency in 1968.” [this majority of commentators to which he refers is probably made up of persons who were plugging for Romney in 1968 just like we have some commentators plugging for Senator Cruz today]
http://www.heritage.org/constitution/#%21/articles/2/essays/82/presidential-eligibility

According to the Heritage Foundation, [its not the Heritage Foundation. Rather, it is Professor Ho] not only is Barack Obama eligible, but so is Ted Cruz. So, am I going to take Blovario Apuzzo’s word for it or that of the Heritage Foundation? I don’t think it’s a difficult decision. Blovario Apuzzo is an authority only to his patron, Commander Kerchner, who wants to keep one scary black man out of the White House. [you know the Obots lost when they have to pay the race card]

~~~~~

My additional comments: Professor Ho’s love affair with Wong Kim Ark jus soli puts Ho in a bind. Ho argues that, under English common law jus soli, simply being born in the United States makes one a born citizen of the United States which “thus” makes one a “natural born Citizen.” He concludes by just making stuff up that Wong Kim Ark held Wong to be a citizen of the United States and a natural born citizen. Ho does not explain how being a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment automatically makes on an Article II natural born citizen.
Ho also gives controlling effect to one being born a citizen. He suggests that that alone makes one a natural born citizen. But then he does not explain why if born a citizen makes one a natural born citizen, why should Wong Kim Ark have concluded that persons born abroad to citizen parents who are also born “citizens” of the United States are citizens only by naturalization Act of Congress and hence not natural born citizens. (Remember that Chief Justice Fuller in his Wong Kim Ark dissent faulted the majority for so maintaining.) Ho offers no explanation why Wong Kim Ark gave birth on U.S. soil so much more controlling force than birth to U.S. citizen parents when it came to making one a citizen (not to be confounded and conflated with a natural born citizen who needs the force of both factors). Not having an answer, Ho simply suggests that we not pay any attention to Wong Kim Ark when it comes to the question of whether our citizens born abroad to citizen parents are natural born citizens. He submits that they are simply because that is what some mythical “majority of commentators” believes (He places those commentators, whoever they may be, above the word of the U.S. Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark.) It is clear that Ho uses Wong Kim Ark anyway he wants, given the particular needs of the moment.

Finally, Professor James C. Ho’s position on the natural born citizen clause needs to be considered within the context of who he is and what he advocates generally regarding the clause. Ho was not born in the United States. He has long advocated the repeal of the natural born citizen clause so that he too can run for President if he should decide to do so. He has long argued that even persons who become naturalized after birth like former Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger should have the right to be eligible to be President. He adds that the natural born citizen clause is obsolete and that there is no modern national security need for the clause.

ajtelles said...

An ooops correction...

Mario, I posted this earlier this morning, but just in case it got lost in virtual land, here it is again.

In part 4 of my post today, March 7, 2015 at 10:16 AM, in the last sentence of the second paragraph I wrote that Wong Kim Ark was "NOT eligible to vote because..."

but it should read not read "vote" - it should read "POTUS"

Wong Kim Ark was "NOT eligible to be POTUS because he was born to two alien parents who did not naturalize before he was born."

Thanks,

Art

ajtelles said...

Singular U.S. Citizenship vs. Dual U.S./Foreign Citizenship
or
Freedom from Slavery = ONLY Singular U.S. Citizenship
1

Mario,

After reviewing my previous post here about the 1868 original intent of the Amendment 14 words "All persons born or naturalized...," I noticed that I had not connected the word "born" with the word "naturalized" as clearly as I should have (I wrote it quickly) to show that both words had ONLY one original intent in 1868, which was and still is ONLY singular U.S. citizenship in ONLY one nation, and it does not matter to the original intent of the 1868 framers what the 1898 Supreme Court construed and held.

As I mentioned on that previous post, I read Dr. Conspiracy's deep, deep, oh so intellectually deep, racism comment on his blog after reading your post about his connection of racism with common sense birthers who question Obama's deep, deep, oh so intellectually deep defense of his eligibility to be POTUS—I-I-I was born on U.S. soil, yes I was, and I had ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, and that's good 'nuf to be POTUS.

So, I have some simple questions (tacitly related to "proper subset") for both of the "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers and racism experts (and proper subset experts) Kevin/Masters Mathematician and Kevin/Ph.D. Mathematician:

The first sentence of Amendment 14 Section 1 has the explicit language, "All persons born or naturalized in the United States...are citizens of... ."

What did "born or naturalized" in Amendment 14 mean to the original framers of the words "born or naturalized ... are citizens ...."

What did "born or naturalized" mean to the original Negroes living in 1868, many of whom could not read or write, only three years after Republican President Abraham Lincoln set them free from "slavery" and "involuntary servitude" in 1865 with Amendment 13?

Did "born or naturalized" mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for the Amendment 14 Negroes set free in 1865 with Amendment 13?

Did "born or naturalized" mean ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship for the Amendment 14 Negroes set free in 1865 with Amendment 13?

Did "born or naturalized" mean BOTH 1868 singular U.S. citizenship AND 1898 dual U.S./foreign citizenship? The BOTH/AND is an easy one for the "proper subset" math experts—of course NOT both/and, 'cause that would be incoherent. Right?

Question
Did the free Negroes have ONLY singular U.S. citizenship as free "citizens" of ONLY one nation, OR did the free Negroes have ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship as new "citizens" of ONLY one nation?

Answer
ONLY singular U.S. citizenship as "citizens" of ONLY one nation, of course.

Question
Did the free Negroes have BOTH singular U.S. citizenship AND dual U.S./foreign citizenship as new "citizens" of ONLY one nation?

Answer
ONLY singular U.S. citizenship as new "citizens" of ONLY one nation, of course. The framers of the language of Amendment 14 were common sense thinkers, not schizophrenic and incoherent to suggest ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship.

ajtelles said...

Freedom from Slavery = ONLY Singular U.S. Citizenship
2

Question
Do free thinkers in 2015 America, aka 1787-2015 "natural born Citizen" original meaning original intent birthers and 2008-2015 "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers, think that the free Negroes would consider themselves to be "citizens" of ONLY one nation OR "citizens" of two nations?

Answer
"Citizens" of ONLY one nation, of course.

The Negroes born in America AND the Negroes brought to America BEFORE 1868 could ONLY have been thought of by the Amendment 14 framers in 1868 as "citizens" of ONLY one nation with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship. Right?

It is incoherent to assert that the 1868 framers were incoherent and thinking of dual U.S./foreign citizenship for the free Negroes or for anybody. Also, the 1868 framers of Amendment 14 were definitely NOT thinking of ALSO "citizens" of two nations with dual U.S./foreign citizenship in anticipation of future anchor babies being applauded by a later Supreme Court, such as the 1898 Court decision in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, which construed the 1868 Amendment 14 language as meaning that anchor baby Wong Kim Ark was a "citizen" even though born to two non-U.S. citizen Chinese parents simply because he was "natural born" on U.S. soil.

The questions again in other words:

What did "born or naturalized" mean in 1868 to the original framers and the original Negroes who were set free three years earlier in 1865 with Amendment 13?

What did "born or naturalized" mean in 1868, singular U.S. citizenship as "citizens" of ONLY one nation, OR dual U.S./foreign citizenship of ALSO two nations?

What did "born or naturalized" mean, singular citizenship and one nation OR dual citizenship and one nation?

What did "born or naturalized" mean, singular and one OR dual and one?

THAT is the essence of the "born or naturalized ... citizens" debate about the 1868 original intent of "born or naturalized" in Amendment 14.

Seven years later in 1875 the Supreme Court in the Minor v. Happersett decision stayed close to the 1868 original intent of singular U.S. citizenship for "born" in Amendment 14 ("naturalized" has always meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, including the Negroes grandfathered into citizenship in 1868), and how a different Supreme Court, twenty-three year after 1875 and thirty years after 1868, in the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision became incoherent when it strayed from the original intent common sense understanding of "born" in 1868. So, of course, ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship without eligibility to be POTUS was the conclusion for persons born on U.S. soil to one OR zero U.S. citizen parents after the Court defined Wong Kim Ark as one of the "born ... citizens" of Amendment 14, making Wong Kim Ark an "anchor baby" with the right to vote even though he was born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents instead of defining him as an alien because he was born to two alien parents. That incoherent "anchor baby" decision of the 1898 Supreme Court which gave the right to vote to all "anchor babies" can be overturned by a new Court, or for perpetual stability, by an Article V amendment to clarify the Amendment 14 framer's singular U.S. citizenship original intent, but NOT the intent of eligibility to be POTUS, for BOTH words "born" and "naturalized."

ajtelles said...

Freedom from Slavery = ONLY Singular U.S. Citizenship
3

Question
Did "born or naturalized" in 1868 mean singular U.S. citizenship OR dual U.S./foreign citizenship for the Negroes while they were still slaves BEFORE Amendments 13 and 14, AND BEFORE 1898 and the Wong Kim Ark decision?

Answer
Before? Definitely no no—no to "OR dual" and no to "BEFORE 1898."

Question
Did "born or naturalized" mean ONLY singular U.S citizenship in 1868 OR ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship in 1868 for the free Negroes AFTER slavery was abolished in 1865 and they were free and new citizens of ONLY one nation?

Answer
After 1865 and 1868? Definitely ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, of course, since the free Negroes of 1865 were new "citizens" in 1868 of ONLY one nation.

Dual U.S./foreign citizenship would have been incoherent in 1868, and it was incoherent thirty years later when the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court lost coherent connection with the original intent of the original framers of Amendment 14 Section 1 and the word "born" in the first three words of the first sentence, "All persons born or naturalized ... are citizens of ...."

So, the word "born" in 1868 meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for 30 years for the Negroes freed from slavery by Amendment 13, the 1865 abolition of slavery amendment; which was followed by Amendment 14, the 1868 "born...citizens" amendment; followed by Amendment 15, the 1870 racial suffrage amendment.

Hmmm, I wonder.

Does ANY "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers have deep thoughts about Republican President Abraham Lincoln and his 1865 Amendment 13 success in freeing the Negro slaves as free "citizens" of ONLY one nation with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship three years later in 1868 with Amendment 14?

"Natural born Citizen" original meaning original intent birthers are waiting for a common sense reply—if not here on your blog Mario, well, somewhere, anywhere will do—from "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birther Kevin Davidson/Dr. Conspiracy/Masters Mathematician and "proper subset" expert, and/or from "natural born Citizen new meaning neo-birther Kevin/Ph.D Mathematician and recalcitrant "proper subset" expert.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

PS. I corrected the capitalization of Negros from lower case "n" to upper case "N". No disrespect was intended.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/2014/12/time-to-change-conversation.html )

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I just posted this to Cafe Con Leche Republicans:

Slartibartast,

***

You said: "Just so you know, Mario, Jack Maskell is a friend of a friend. Do you know what he thinks of you? Absolutely nothing at all. And I’ll wager that is the highest you could possibly hope to rate in his estimation. You are nothing but a loser who will never accomplish anything—at least with this eligibility nonsense of yours."

~~~~~

As far as Jack Maskell goes, do you know what millions of Americans think of him? Nothing.

I have a suggestion for you. Why not get Jack Maskell to agree to a public debate with me. The Obots and the Anti-Obots can set it up. We can pick a venue in Washington, D.C. We can video tape it or whatever and then the whole world can see who wins and who loses. Just think it would be a great opportunity for Jack Maskell to defend his thesis that all born citizens, regardless of how the status was obtained, are natural born citizens, and to prove me wrong. His performance will go a long way for not only for Mr. Obama, but also for Mr. Cruz, Mr. Rubio, Mr. Jindal, and Ms. Haley. Do you think Jack Maskell will be up to the challenge? Contact him and see what he says.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I just posted this comment on "Ted Cruz and Natural Born Citizenship: A Belated Reply to Mario Apuzzo," at http://www.westernfreepress.com/2015/03/05/ted-cruz-and-natural-born-citizenship-a-belated-reply-to-mario-apuzzo/?hubRefSrc=email#lf_comment=279676710

@HistorianDude @apuzzo2009 @chillydogg1

What a fool you are. Constitutional interpretation does not work that easy.

Yea, the Framers wrote a Constitution and they put natural born citizen in it as a presidential eligibility requirement and they did not tell anyone what they meant. Just think how grand, the whole world did not know who was supposed to be eligible to be President of the United States.

It is printed material that you are looking for? I just told you it was the 1797 anonymous English translation of Vattel 's The Law of Nations. What better way than to tell the world what they meant when they wrote that the President had to be a natural born citizen than to have it printed in The Law of Nations. Why else do you think that the translator would have gone through all that trouble to do another English translation and to surgically fix the previous English translations to reflect that Vattel defined a "natural-born citizen." Also, do you not find it strange that to this day we still do not know who the translator was? Notice that there is also no evidence that the Framers discussed the meaning of a natural born citizen during the Convention. Moreover, remember John Jay's "hint" to then-General George Washington that the Commander in Chief had to be a "natural born citizen." May I suggest to you that Vattel was a pretty controversial guy back then as he has again become today.

ajtelles said...

What Jack Maskell thinks—or not...
1

Mario,

I read Kevin's/Ph.D. Mathematician and recalcitrant "proper subset" expert, aka Slartibartfast's comment about his friend who is a friend of Jack Maskell who thinks "absolutely nothing of you," as if that gives intellectual weight to Maskell's incoherent explication about "natural born Citizen," dual U.S./foreign citizenship and Obama's eligibility.

Mario, don't hold your breath for Jack Maskell to respond to your public challenge 'cause his reputation, job and income are not threatened by not responding. Also, if Maskell has read your blog expositions, he can not refute your expositions of the Slaughter-House cases.

This next quote, which includes references to Amendments 13, 14, 15 and Slaughter-House, is from Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and Bryan Garner's 2012 book "Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts", pages 101-103, in the section titled "9. General-Terms Canon, General terms are to be given their general meaning."

(No open or closed quotes, all quote marks are in the original)

Scalia/Garner:

Examples of general words with general meanings can be found in the post-Civil War amendments to the United States Constitution. The Fourteenth Amendment, for example, guarantees equal protection of the law to "all persons." Some commentators have argued that because it was enacted for the benefit of blacks, it should not apply to anybody else.1 But in the first case to expound the meaning of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments--the Slaughter-House Cases2—the Supreme Court acknowledged the breadth of the language used, as contrasted with the immediate purpose for their passage:

We do not say that no one else but the negro can share in this protection [of the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments]. Both the language and spirit of these articles are to have their fair and just weight in any question of construction. Undoubtedly while negro slavery alone was in the mind of the Congress which proposed the thirteenth article, it forbids any other kind of slavery, now or hereafter. If Mexican peonage or the Chinese coolie labor system shall develop slavery of the Mexican or Chinese race within our territory, this amendment may safely be trusted to make it void. And so if other rights are assailed by the States which properly and necessarily fall within the protection of these articles, that protection will apply, though the party interested may not be of African descent.3

Both text and tradition support this much of the opinion. The language of the Fourteenth Amendment—that no state may deny to any person the equal protection of the law--is very general.

[...snip...]

ajtelles said...

What Jack Maskell thinks—or not...
2

Nor could the general wording of the Fourteenth Amendment be confined to men. ... the argument that despite the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection to all persons, women were not given the vote until adoption of the Nineteenth Amendment. That has nothing to do with the meaning of person in the Fourteenth Amendment; it has to do with the meaning of equal protection. ... there is no doubt that the society that adopted the Fourteenth Amendment did not believe that the equal-protection guarantee gave women the vote, as the laws of the era demonstrate.

[...snip...]

The argument most frequently made against giving general terms their general meaning is the one made (and rejected) in the Slaughter-House cases--that those who adopted the provision had in mind a particular narrow objective (equal protection for blacks) though they expressed a more general one (equal protection for "any person"). The conclusive response to this argument is that "statutory prohibitions often go beyond the principal evil to cover reasonably comparable evils, and it is ultimately the provisions of our laws rather than the principal concerns of our legislators by which we are governed."8

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario, what I would like for "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers Kevin/Slartibartfast and Jack Maskell and other new meaning neo-birthers to coherently define and defend is the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark holding that 1898 dual U.S./foreign citizenship anchor baby Wong Kim Ark, born to zero U.S. citizen parents, fulfilled the original intent of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship as a citizen of ONLY one nation that the original framers intended with the 1868 Amendment 14 words "All persons born or naturalized ... are citizens ...."

The "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers like Kevin/Slartibartfast and Jack Maskell can not defend the 1898 Court's rejection of the 1868 original intent of the original framers of Amendment 14 and ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation that was obviously intended for the 1865 Amendment 13 free Negroes.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/2015/01/time-to-change-natural-born-citizen.html )

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

The Jack Maskell thesis is that all born citizens, regardless of place of birth or how the status was acquired, are natural born citizens.

The only reason Obots maintain that a person who acquires his citizenship at birth through a naturalization Act of Congress is not naturalized (did I just write that) is that that person under that same Act acquires his citizenship "at birth."

Now we just cannot have any citizens "at birth" also be considered naturalized "at birth." Admitting that that person was naturalized at birth throws a monkey wrench into the Maskell all citizens at birth are natural born citizens crank nonsense, for it is absurd to contend that a naturalized born citizen is a natural born citizen.

The Jack Maskell theory and position are plain rubbish.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Here is my response to a long-running Obot commenter named ballantine at http://www.westernfreepress.com/2015/03/05/ted-cruz-and-natural-born-citizenship-a-belated-reply-to-mario-apuzzo

You said: “He [Wong] was affirmed to be a citizen because the court [Wong Kim Ark] said the English common law definition of natural born subject was incorporated into the original constitution and restated in the 14th Amendment. Hence the decision was that he was a citizen because he was a natural born citizen.”

~~~~~

More misrepresentations, ballantine? Let us take a look at what really happened in Wong Kim Ark.

The Court affirmed Wong to be a citizen because the Court said the colonial English common law’s definition of a natural born subject prevailed at the time the Constitution was adopted (which it did in the states) and under that English common law, a child born in one of the states (former colonies) to alien parents who were neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders would have been born subject to the jurisdiction of the King and therefore by analogy was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a “citizen” of the United States from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Sorry, Ballantine, but none of that has anything to do with defining an Article II natural born citizen, who under the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution was defined as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797); Minor v. Happersett (1875); accord U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

Also, your statement that “the decision was that he [Wong] was a citizen because he was a natural born citizen” is nothing more than you taking from Minor, as I have analyzed and commented on the case, and trying to inject it into Wong Kim Ark. If Wong had been a natural born citizen, the Wong Kim Ark Court would have decided the case the same as the Minor Court did, i.e., without the aid of the Fourteenth Amendment. Simply, the Court would have found that Wong was a natural born citizen under the applicable common law as Minor did and a fortiori a citizen and the case would have been over. But since Wong was not a natural born citizen, the Court had to rely upon the Fourteenth Amendment and go into having to analyze the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause which it did under the English common law, which provided a very lose standard by which to define that clause, for all friendly aliens present within the King’s dominion were “subjects” of the King and subject to his power and jurisdiction.

But under the new republican system, which was founded on volitional allegiance or consent to be a citizen (concepts adopted directly from John Locke), no one was a citizen of the United States unless both he or she and the nation gave consent to such citizenship. The original citizens gave their consent by adhering to the American Revolution. Their children inherited that consent if in being and if not, upon their birth to them in their country. And all other natural born citizen children born to citizen parents in the country in later generations did the same. This was the basis of Chief Justice Fuller’s dissent when he said that the English common law jus soli rule, which had no consent component, did not survive the American Revolution on the nation level. Chief Justice Fuller, joined by Justice Harlan, was, indeed, correct. But even though Justice Gray was wrong to use the English common law to inform on the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which in the past had always meant not subject to any foreign power (clearly the liberal English common law was therefore not relevant to the inquiry) and not merely subject to the laws of the United States, his error only goes to how we view the Fourteenth Amendment today, not what the correct constitutional definition of a natural born citizen is.

ajtelles said...

Yikes!!!

Mario,

After reading some of the comments and Greg Conterio's responses, author of the article "Ted Cruz and Natural Born Citizenship: A Belated Reply to Mario Apuzzo," and also moderator of comments, a person can get the impression that God has come down from heaven and confused the language of the people--again.

Sheesh, it seems that everybody knows some of the truth about everything but not the entire truth about any one thing. For example, here is a short snippet of one of Greg Conterio's incoherent responses (all emphases are his):

>> Cruz has NEVER been naturalized.

>> You CANNOT be "naturalized by statute," as many like to argue.

>> Naturalization is a deliberate, affirmative act, which must be done by the individual, period.

>> You may not like it, but that is the way it is."

Huh?

A naturalization statute "CANNOT" naturalize?

Oh well, babylon means confusion, and that comment of Conterio's is the definition of confusion.

Mario, here on your blog on March 9, 2015 at 12:20 AM I asked for a simple answer from "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers, and this is a restatement for Greg Conterio's benefit:

What I would like for "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers like Greg Conterio to coherently define and defend is that the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark holding that dual U.S./foreign citizenship by birth on U.S. soil to one OR zero U.S. citizen parents, as was the case of anchor baby Wong Kim Ark, born to zero U.S. citizen parents, fulfilled the obvious in 1868, the Amendment 14 original intent of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship as a citizen of ONLY one nation for the Amendment 13 free Negroes that the original framers intended with the 1868 Amendment 14 words "All persons born or naturalized ... are citizens ...."

The "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers can NOT defend the 1898 Court's incoherent Amendment 14 misconstruction which tacitly assimilated the 1868 obvious original intent of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation which was obviously intended for the 1865 Amendment 13 free Negroes, and the tacit assimilation transformed singular U.S. citizenship "born ... citizens" into dual U.S./foreign citizenship "born ... citizen" with the result that the anchor baby idiocy continues since 1898 into 2015.

It's a simple point, but the "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers can't handle the truth about the original intent of Amendment 14, ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/2015/01/time-to-change-natural-born-citizen.html )

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

ajtelles,

In order to justify his position that Senator Ted Cruz obtained his U.S. citizenship, not by naturalization law, but rather simply by being a natural born citizen, Gre Conterio, as you quote him, proclaims and edicts:

Cruz has NEVER been naturalized.

>> You CANNOT be "naturalized by statute," as many like to argue.

>> Naturalization is a deliberate, affirmative act, which must be done by the individual, period.

>> You may not like it, but that is the way it is."

~~~~~

We should ask Mr. Conterio how could Mr. Cruz have become a citizen of the United States if the Act of Congress which made him so did not exist? Of course, he would not answer such a simple question, because he would have to admit that Mr. Cruz, born in Canada to a U.S. mother and non-U.S. father, without Congress's grace expressed through a naturalization Act, would not have been a U.S. citizen at all. Now can you just imagine, a person who would not be a citizen at all without a naturalization Act of Congress is supposed to be a natural born citizen?

This is a prime example of how people who have a certain political belief can be driven to take positions which are contrary to sound reason.

ajtelles said...

What a waste of Ph.D. intellect...

Mario,

Your comment is irrefutable:

>> Now can you just imagine,
>> a person who would not be a citizen at all
>> without a naturalization Act of Congress
>> is supposed to be a natural born citizen?

Sometimes, well, 99% of the time, the "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers make it too easy to point out their silliness.

Kevin/Ph.D. Mathematician and recalcitrant "proper subset" expert wasted his intellect and his time on March 9, 2015 at 10:45 pm on Cafe Con Leche Republicans with this nonsense conclusion that follows his quotes from and about Blackstone (all emphases are his):

>> As such, it is inconceivable for the framers of the Constitution
>> to “import” a foreign idea of citizenship based on the bloodline of fathers
>> and not based on the Jus Soli doctrine as enunciated by Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case
>> and reaffirmed by Blackstone in his Commentaries
>> whose book was required reading by lawyers in colonial America.

Kevin/aka and recalcitrant "proper subset" expert has written this Lord Coke and Blackstone stuff before about "to “import” a foreign idea of citizenship based on the bloodline of fathers," but, so what, what's the point. He isn't proving anything. It's, well, lame.

A more relevant issue to define and defend is the 1868 Amendment 14 Section 1 (first sentence) language:

"All persons born or naturalized ... are citizens ... ."

The "all persons" words includes the 1865 Amendment 13 and the 1866 Civil Rights Act free Negroes.

Right?

Were the 1865 Amendment 13 and the 1866 Civil Rights Act free Negroes "citizen" with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation OR of two nations?

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation.

Right?

Kevin/aka/aka and his "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birther cohort can NOT coherently define and defend the 1898 Court's U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark incoherent misconstruction of the 1868 Amendment 14, Why? Because it was a misconstruction which tacitly countermanded the ONLY obvious 1868 original intent of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation.

The "ONLY" singular U.S. citizenship and the "ONLY" one nation implicature of the 1868 Amendment 14 was obviously intended for the 1865 Amendment 13 and the 1866 Civil Rights Act free Negroes.

Right?

And the 1898 Supreme Court's tacit countermanding of the original intent of Amendment 14 "transformed" singular U.S. citizenship "born ... citizens" into dual U.S./foreign citizenship "born ... citizen."

Right?

And the result was that the anchor baby incoherency continues, from 1898 until today in 2015.

Right?

It's a simple point, but the "natural born Citizen" new meaning neo-birthers can't handle the truth. They can not admit that the ONLY original intent of the original framers of the 1865 "abolition" Amendment 13, the 1866 Civil Rights Act, and the 1868 "born or naturalized ... are citizens" Amendment 14 was ONLY singular U.S. citizenship of ONLY one nation.

Right?

And the original framers of Amendment 14 did NOT have in mind ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship of ONLY one nation.

Right?

And, the 1868 Amendment 14 framers definitely did NOT intend both singular AND dual citizenship.

Right?

That would be an obvious and incoherent absurdity.

Right?

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/2015/01/time-to-change-natural-born-citizen.html )


Mario,

Cody Judy said...

Dear Mr. Mario Apuzo
Would you consider filling suit for me as a Presidential Candidate, pro bono , against Sen. Ted Cruz as he is expected to enter the Presidential Race this coming Monday, March 23rd, 2015.

You may know the actions I have filed in 2008 against Sen. McCain that also involved Sen. Obama. Then I filed in 2012 against Obama to N.H. Supreme Crt., Georgia Supreme Crt ., and U.S. SUPREME CRT.

My current and last chance case against Obama I have Just filed a Notice of Appeal from 10th Circuit Crt. 14-4136.

My biggest question regarding appropriate standing is can I claim Sen. Cruz is taking contributions from me by his entry evan though he is not the Republican nominee?

My considered answer is he is causing a whole lot of damage and extra work for me contending for the NATURAL BORN CITIZEN clause as I'm battling and spending so much time now fighting with Republicans that it is waisting precious resources away from my campaign for President.

Thank you for your blog and tireless fight for The U.S. Constitution and especially as an Art. II Patriot.I respect and appreciate your efforts.

In 2012 I ran as a Democrat. In 2008 I ran as a Write-In. I have not ruled out running under the D Party Ticket, neither ruled out an Independant Party Ticket for 2016 but have not officially entered yet as either. However, I'm feeling more and more inclined as a Democratic Party Ticket mostly because of Cruz and Rubio and the fact the courts in 2012 ballot challenges didn't really care I was a D against Obama. I think damages are being inflicted upon me across party lines from the moment of entry.

My blog www.codyjudy.blogspot.com has many entries already about Sen. Cruz that have also been published as Featured Editorials as proof of damages in time, talent, and money.

My web site www.codyjudy.us

My thought is Sen. Cruz eligibility fought fast and furiously in U.S. District Court could prove beneficial to the last stand in the U.S. Supreme Court against Obama.

Thank you for your consideration.
Cody Robert Judy
Cody@codyjudy.us



Cody Robert Judy


Doublee said...

I wish to present my interpretation of Senator Cruz's citizenship status for your critique.

1) Natural law is derived from the laws of nature, so by definition, any law enacted by man is not natural law.

2) Senator Cruz's citizenship status is dependent entirely on laws enacted by man. Therefore there is no possibility that he can be a natural born citizen.

3) His dual citizenship status in Canada derives both from US law and Canadian law.

3.1) I did not research Canadian law, so I take it as a given that Senator Cruz was born with Canadian citizenship by virtue of Canadian law.

3.2) I did look up US law regarding how one acquires US citizenship status when born in a foreign country.

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock

A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under local law at the time and place of the child’s birth to transmit U.S. citizenship.

Senator Cruz became a US citizen according to that provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act.

There is nothing "natural" about his citizenship.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Doublee,

You are absolutely correct. The point is so easy to understand when we consider that Senator Cruz would not be a citizen at all if it were not for a naturalization act of Congress. But yet he tells us he is a natural born citizen. Are we to hear Senator Cruz say that he is the natural child of his father and mother if he needed a law to be their son, which is the only means by which the parent-child relationship is created for an adopted child?

Senator Cruz wants us to honor the Constitution when he is the biggest violator of it. He is a hypocrite and the Republican Party should reject him as their candidate for President.

h2ooflife said...


bookfiend75 wrote: "...a debate that goes to the “heart” of what we think this country was founded on: are we a country of immigrants who take the best of what the world has to offer and mold it into something unique and powerful; or are we a country of WASPS who need to keep this country from falling into the wrong hands? For myself, most strangers in the world are, as my children put it, friends we haven’t met yet."

I can agree with your sentiments, but you, like everyone else, fail to grasp the context of the problem. It is not one of what is sociologically preferable but what is grounded in the Rule of Law.

Either you support the rule of law or you support doing what is “best” and ignoring the law. THAT is anti-American because we are founded on the rule of law and not men.

So what was “the law” when the Constitution was written? It was not what it is today. The difference is illuminated by the case of Virginia Minor and the high court’s discussion regarding her case.

Today’s Luciferians who equate “citizen” with “natural born citizen” (repeatedly, since they have no other hope of legitimizing their socialist messiah) fail to grasp that per the observation of the court, being a citizen does not confer all the rights of certain other citizens (males).

Even though Virginia was a natural born citizen she still had no right to vote, nor any right to be President. Why not? Because that was the way that society was structured.

To change it would have required a constitutional amendment, just as was ratified in order to give women the right to vote and to prohibit the sale of intoxicating liquors.
It thus can be argued that women have no constitutional right to serve as President since no amendment has been passed to allow that. That is a literal constitutional fact.
The amendment that gave them the right to vote gave them no other civic rights, including serving in elected offices in the government.

In the same vein, being a “citizen” does not mean that one has the right of a natural born citizen to be President.
Thus in 1875 when the Happersett opinion was written:
1. Citizen did not equal the right to vote.
2. Natural born citizen did not equal the right to be President.
3. Citizen did not equal the right to be President, not then, not now.

So by strict constitutional construction, which is mandatory, the word “natural” has constitutional significance, and as a result no alien-born person is a natural born citizen, and female citizens have not yet been given the privilege to serve as President.
We need another constitutional amendment to allow that, as well as another one to allow the alien-born to serve as President.

How about this new wording: “No person except a born citizen shall be eligible to the office of the President.”? That would work to allow the alien-born to serve. It would be fair and reasonable as long as they were raised in the United States as Americans.

But alas, that is not yet written nor ratified, so we are left with the restriction against the alien-born foreign-stock citizens. That is too bad because it sadly has implications for the legitimacy of the the current President.
Adrien Nash

h2ooflife said...

"Now can you just imagine, a person who would not be a citizen at all without a naturalization Act of Congress is supposed to be a natural born citizen?

This is a prime example of how people who have a certain political belief can be driven to take positions which are contrary to sound reason."

Actually, there are factors that have not occurred to you or anyone else.
I've illuminated them repeatedly in that last week, and they show there is a possibility to classify Cruz as a natural born citizen.
This is what I just wrote to Slarti at Dr.Communist's blog:

Slartibartfast: "It doesn’t matter what you think or Canada thinks or your sky daddy thinks or Rafael thinks or his papa thinks or the SCOTUS thinks or any other stupid condition you’ve made up out of whole cloth, it just matters WHAT CUBA THINKS.
If Cuba thought dad was their citizen, then he was. "

Wow! You’ve dug a really deep hole with that one and then buried yourself in it. It surely does not matter what you think, or what SCOTUS thinks [What! You really said that! Heresy! All Hail SCOTUS!] You confused due to knowing not a damn thing about Cuban law. And you are lecturing me about it when I’ve read their Constitution over and over?
It reveals that they have adopted entirely the American position of voluntary self-expatriation as an unalienable right. That is their embrace of the principle of liberty of identity and national association.
So in your opium hallucinations, how do you misconstrue the Cruz application for asylum in the U.S. as anything other than a clear expression of self-expatriation? But even aside from that, if you had more than three brain cells you would be cognizant of the fact that you cannot be “claimed” by any country in the world and have that claim recognized by the law of nations. Can North Korea claim your children as citizens if they happened to visit their soil? Is what they think all that matters?

By the law of nations Cruz senior was a man without citizenship because his Cuban citizenship ceased when his government and the nation that it formed vanished.

The same thing happened three thousand years ago when the island of Santorini exploded. The nation living on it ceased to exist, physically. It’s citizens who survived while away were no longer its citizens because it didn’t exist. They were stateless.

If your non-existent wife vanished into thin air, could someone say you are still married to her? There is no more “her”. She no longer exists. Your marriage is over. You are single again. See that? That is what reality looks like. Same with nationality.

That is the story regarding the Batista Cuba. Its replacement had no authority over either father or son because Sr.’s non-Cuban status pre-dated the existence of the Castro Communist government and its constitution.

I’ll make it even clearer for you. Saddam Hussein’s army invaded Kuwait. The nation of Kuwait fled the country of Kuwait. Did all of those former Kuwaiti citizens become citizens of the new Iraqi Kuwait? What’s that? No answer?

h2ooflife said...

"we consider that Senator Cruz would not be a citizen at all if it were not for a naturalization act of Congress."

Citizenship is nothing other than membership in a nation. Nothing more. Membership is either natural or legal. By blood or by borders. In the case of Cruz, as I've written about extensively here: The Overlooked Truth about Citizenship, the Presidency and Rafael Cruz https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2015/03/17/the-overlooked-truth-about-citizenship-the-presidency-and-rafael-cruz/ he was an American by blood and a Cuban also. But he was not a *citizen* of the new nation of Cuba. So as far as his citizenship was concerned, it was all through his mother, by blood lineage, providing him natural membership in her country and natural citizenship in her nation.

Without having a father having citizenship in some nation, it was the same as if his father was dead when he was born. 100% of his nationality was obtained from his mother.
You believe that native-birth is required also, but for those who know what "natural" actually implies, they can speculate that if the father Rafael was not a Canadian when his son was born, then he was a stateless person, providing no foreign alienage or citizenship to his son.
Adrien Nash

h2ooflife said...

Adrien Nash
On the REAL Meaning of “Natural Born Citizen"
https://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2015/03/25/on-the-real-meaning-of-natural-born-citizen/
Insights into a deceitful presentation based on a hidden ambiguity.
Like magicians, they play word games to fool the mind. And it would work were it not for those of us who have learned to see through their tricks.

h2ooflife said...

Mario wrote: Admitting that that person was naturalized at birth throws a monkey wrench into the Maskell "all citizens at birth are natural born citizens" crank nonsense, for it is absurd to contend that a naturalized born citizen is a natural born citizen."

So true. Also, they can't call them "a citizen BY birth" because that provokes the response that that characterization is inherently ambiguous since they are forced to misconstrue it to actually mean "a citizen by birth location", -as apposed to conception, gestation, and exit from the womb into the arms of parents who gave the baby its life and nationality. A. Nash

h2ooflife said...

"Senator Cruz became a US citizen according to a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
There is nothing "natural" about his citizenship."

That is true about everyone since citizenship is a political status not a natural status. What is natural is "membership", -as in a family, clan, tribe or country. Membership in a country is the basis of citizenship in the nation that occupies that country.

To say that someone's citizenship is not natural would mean that their membership in their country was not by natural relationship to member parents, or parent if the father is dead or stateless.

In that rare case, one's citizenship may be legal, -by statute, but one's membership in society and country may be natural via blood lineage or "right of descent" from a single parent whose partner is not living or is stateless and thus invisible in the citizenship arena.

If Ted's father was not Canadian when he was born, then he had no nationality for him to inherit, and thus he would not be a dual-citizen by blood, although he was one by blood (through his mother) and birth location in Canada.

h2ooflife said...

Per Minor v. Happersett in the future:
" ‘At common language, the meaning of which the framers of the constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born on the Moon of parents who were Earthlings, became themselves, upon their birth, Earthlings also. These were humans or natural-born
Earthlings,"

Ta Da! There you have the "definition" of a natural born Earthling! Justice Wait's equivalent in the future has thereby so stated.
A natural born Earthling is one born on the Moon of parents who are Earthlings.

How is the logic of that claim different in any way from the Nativist-Vattelian-Donofrian doctrine?
But just to be perfectly analogous:
"A natural born Earthling is anyone born on Earth of parents who are Earthlings."

From the moon-born Earthlings' perspective, that is a description, -NOT a definition.

Now let's restate it but change one pivotal word:
The term a "natural born Earthling" INCLUDES anyone born on Earth of parents who are Earthlings.

Notice two things: that version is NOT ambiguous and it does not "define" Earthling. While the ambiguity of "is" can imply in one's mind an exclusion which the words do not actually convey or denote.
The TRUE BELIEVER may believe that "is" connotes positive and intentional exclusion of all other persons, but that is just a baseless assumption of the canon of their faith in nativism.

The words themselves, not issued by any authority over their meaning, cannot be claimed to have intended any unwritten exclusion that is somewhere hidden between the lines.
This is very elementary logic, folks.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Adrian Nash,

We know that the Framers relied upon the common law to define a natural born citizen because the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) told us that much. The Court explained that under that common law a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth was not only a citizen like his or her parents, but also a natural born citizen, and that under that same common law, all the rest of the people were "aliens or foreigners" who needed naturalization at birth or after birth under some positive law. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Setions 211-17 (1758) (1797). Vattel at Section 212 explained:

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

Vattel, Sec. 212 Citizens and natives.

We can see that the Minor Court paraphrased its definition of a natural born citizen directly from Vattel's Section 212. Vattel's Section 213-217 also shows how the Court would have arrived at is statement that those who did not meet the common law definition of a natural born citizen were "aliens or foreigners" in need of naturalization.

As we can see, Minor was clear that anyone who did not meet this common law definition was excluded from being a natural born citizen and at best needed naturalization at birth or after birth under some positive law.

So, Mr. Nash, it looks like you have struck out again.

Doublee said...

Now that two (Cruz and Rubio) out of the three Republican presdential candidates are not eligible to be president, is there anything that can be done to settle this issue once and for all?

I have lost track, but weren't there hundreds of challenges to Obama's eligibility?

If anybody can become president, I would vote for Yuri M. Maltsev who worked under Gorbechev. He defected from the Sovient Union and is now a professor of economics at Carthage College. He has spoken under the auspices of the Ludwig von Mises Institute and is a spokesmen for liberty.

I have a quote of his hanging on my wall:

We have a two party system. One is evil and one is stupid. The worst thing is bipartisanship, which is both evil and stupid.

Sven Magnussen said...

Mario -

No, I used the term natural born citizen to describe it as undefined in the Constitution. Without a definition in the Constitution, SCOTUS is not authorized to opine on its definition.

Further, I argued Congress is not authorized to enlarge or abridge the rights of a US citizen with respect to citizenship and SCOTUS is not authorized to enlarge or abridge the rights of a US citizen with respect to citizenship. The authority delegated to the Congress and the Courts are coextensive. Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 - 1964, citing Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 827, 6 L.Ed. 204. And see Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 22, 34 S.Ct. 10, 13, 58 L.Ed. 101; United States v. Macintosh, 283 U.S. 605, 624, 51 S.Ct. 570, 575, 75 L.Ed. 1302; Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654, 658, 66 S.Ct. 1304, 1307, 90 L.Ed. 1500.

In conclusion, I argued SCOTUS is not authorized to use the common law at the time of the adoption of US Constitution to enlarge or abridge the rights of a US citizen with respect to citizenship because the People are sovereign and the People have not delegated authority to SCOTUS to thwart the will of the majority at the ballot box to abolish the US Constitution through the election of an ineligible President. The Federalist, No. 78. To allow SCOTUS to opine on the common law while denying Congress or the People the opportunity to respond would make SCOTUS the sovereign and deny the People their sovereign immunity after violating Article II to abolish the US Constitution.

One solution would be for a defense attorney to challenge the sovereign immunity delegated to the court after the installation of an ineligible President.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Sven,

I do not know where you are getting your ideas. The people through the Constitution created a central government and gave it specified powers to make various decisions over their lives. That included creating, not only a legislature and executive, but also a U.S. Supreme Court, which was given powers to interpret the Constitution and the meaning of a natural born citizen.

Sven Magnussen said...

Mario -

The People's right to abolish a government in times of unhappiness was declared in the Declaration of Independence, 1776, "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The US federal government is powerless to enjoin the sovereign from cancelling its delegation of authority for a republican form of government. "A sovereign is exempt from suit not because of any formal conception or obsolete theory, but on the logical and practical ground that there can be no legal right as against the authority that makes the law on which the right depends."; Kawananokoa v. Polyblank, 205 U.S. 349 (1907).

- blockquote -

The common law rule was that no one might throw off his country or abjure his allegiance without the consent of the sovereign. Dyer, 298b; 1 Bl. Com. 370. The earliest cases in the United States followed this principle also. Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. (28 U. S.) 242, 7 L. ed. 666; Inglis v. Sailor's Snug Harbor, 3 Pet. (28 U. S.) 99, 7 L. ed. 617. Wiliiams Case, 2 Cranch (C. C.), 82, note, Fed. Gas. No. 17,708. This principle was questioned in many cases, however. Murray v. Schooner Charming Betsy, 2 Cranch (6 U. S.) 64, 2 L. ed. 208; Ainslie v. Martin, 9 Mass. 454; Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandi. Ch. (N. Y.) 583, 657. But all doubts were removed in 1868 by U. S. Rev. Stat, §§ 1999-2000, declaring that "The right of expatriation is an inherent right of all people.” In construing these provisions, however, the court said in Comitis v. Parkerson, 56 Fed. 556, 559. 22 L. R. A. 148: "As to whether allegiance can be acquired or lost by any other means than statutory naturalization is left by Congress in precisely the same situation as it was before the passage of their act.”

- end blockquote -

See The American Ruling Cases As Determined by the Courts, Including the Fundamental Cases of England And Canada, Also All Reviewing And Illustrating Cases of Material Value From the Latest Official Reports, Completely Annotated. Chicago: The National law book company, pg. 168.

Obama is ineligible. Under the common law principle of sovereignty and the founding principles of this nation, the US federal government is powerless to prevent the will of the majority from installing an ineligible President in violation of Article II. All federal and state judges, all federal and state legislators and all federal and state executive officers must support the US Constitution pursuant to Article VI. US and state officers are not authorized to ignore a violation of Article II and continue their day to day activities. Delegated authority has been withdrawn through a new declaration of independence by the People.

The court would be the sovereign if it assumed authority to interpret the meaning of the term natural born citizen, i. e. each time the People elected an ineligible President to void the authority of the court, the court could opine the current sitting President is eligible to retain their jurisdiction over cases and controversies. "[Citizenship] carries with it the privilege of full participation in the affairs of our society, including the right to speak freely, to criticize officials and administrators, and to promote changes in our laws including the very Charter of our Government." Knauer v. United States, 328 U.S. 654, 658 (1946).

Bill said...

With all due respect to the amount of work you did here Sir, I ask that you include ALL pertinent parts of Vatel's work. There is a specific section that addressed this situation.

§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.

It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him;

Now I know that this specifically cites Fathers but the 19th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause effectively modifies this statement to include mothers.

Additionally current US Naturalization law states:

Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock

A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires
U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S.
citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its
outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at
the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a
period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is
required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a
period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for
physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to
transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be the
genetic or the gestational parent and the legal parent of the child under
local law at the time and place of the child's birth to transmit U.S.
citizenship.


Every one has an opinion but, where laws are clear there should be no debate with the execption of debates on modification of said laws as applicable.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Bill,

Thank you for posting your comment. I do not know, however, what your point is. Please state what it is that you want me to conclude from what you have posted.

phil stone said...

Mario -- not my post. Phil Stone