Donate

Monday, February 22, 2016

Donald Trump Is Right to Retweet that Marco Rubio Is Not a Natural Born Citizen





Donald Trump Is Right to Retweet that Marco Rubio Is Not a Natural Born Citizen 

                                                 By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                     February 22, 2016


Image result for image the Fourteenth AmendmentDonald Trump retweeted that both Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio are not natural born citizens.  See https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/701045567783219201 .  George Stephanopoulos on Sunday, February 21, 2016, asked Trump on ABC’s “This Week” about his Saturday retweet and whether he really believed that Marco Rubio was not a natural born citizen.  See at about 1:30 at  https://youtu.be/R9GkFo1Kfno  ("Donald Trump on His South Carolina Primary Win, the GOP, and the Cruz Campaign Tactics") and http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=7663 and http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/270208-trump-im-not-sure-if-rubio-is-eligible-to-run-for .  Trump responded:  “I think the lawyers have to determine it.”  It was a retweet. Not so much with Marco, I’m not really that familiar with Marco’s circumstances.  I know that Ted has a problem.”  Again, Stephanopoulos pressed Trump why he would retweet the message if he was not be sure whether Rubio was a natural born citizen.  Trump said he did it because “I’m not sure.”  Stephanopoulos responded in amazement:  “You’re really not sure?”  Trump responded:  “I don’t know.  I’ve never really looked at it, honestly George.”  Again, Stephanopoulos forged forward “You’re not sure?”  Trump then said that he has contact with 14 million people on social media and “I retweet things and we start a dialogue.  It’s very interesting.” 

Donald Trump is correct for retweeting that Marco Rubio is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President. 

A natural born citizen is a citizen by virtue of birth and birth alone.  But birth does not exist in a vacuum.  There are circumstances that exist at the time of birth.  Those circumstances are, among many, the parents to whom one is born and the place where one is born.  In order to have a valid definition of the natural born citizen, it is necessary that we take these birth circumstances and make them part of a definition.

There does, indeed, exist a definition that contains the necessary and sufficient birth circumstances that must exist in order for one to be a natural born citizen.  The historical and legal record demonstrates that in order to be a citizen by virtue of birth alone, one must be born in the country to parents who were its citizen at the time of the child’s birth.  Indeed, a natural born citizen is a child born or reputed born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.  See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Sections 212 to 217 (1758) (1797) ("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"); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (“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”); accord U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 665 (1898) ("The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle").  All other birth circumstances, i.e., either not being born in the country or not being born to two citizen parents, do not produce citizenship by virtue of birth alone. 

Since 1790, Congress has for policy reasons seen the need, exactly for the reason that they are not natural born citizens, to naturalize children of U.S. citizens born out of the United States and before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and its interpretation by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) to naturalize children born in the U.S. to alien parents.  The First and Third Congress, which included James Madison and many Founders and Framers, with the approval of President George Washington, passed the Naturalization Acts of 1790 (An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, Sess. II, Chap. 3; 1 stat 103, 1st Congress; March 26, 1790, available at http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html ) and the Naturalization Act 1795 (An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject, Sess. II, Chap. 19, 20; 1 stat 414, 3rd Congress; January 29, 1795, available at same).  The 1790 Act provided:

That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court  that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.  And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. 

~~~~~

The 1795 Act made it harder for aliens to become citizens of the United States, but repeated:  “that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization. . . shall be considered as citizens of the United States:   Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States.”  So, under both Acts parents had to naturalize in the United States to make their minor children citizens of the United States and those children had to be dwelling in the United States for the new status to attach to them.  If parents did not naturalize during their children’s years of minority, their children remained aliens unless they naturalized on their own during their years of majority. 

As we can see, the Acts’ language was broad and applied to both children born in or out of the United States.  These Acts explained that a child born in the United States to alien parents could become a citizen of the United States only if his or her parents naturalized during the child's minority and when the child shall be dwelling in the United States, and if not done during that time period, only upon the child-turned adult's own naturalization petition. Hence, there is no question that when the Framers drafted and adopted the Constitution and when it was ratified by the states, a child born in the United States to alien parents was not a natural born citizen.  Such a child could become a “citizen” of the United States, but only after birth and only through naturalization of the parents if done during the child’s minority or upon the child’s personal naturalization petition upon reaching the age of majority (which was 21 years of age). 

We have further evidence of the need, not only that the child be born in the country, but also that the child be born to U.S. citizen “parents” in order for the child to be a natural born citizen, from our Congress.  The Civil Rights Act of 1868 was passed in that year.  It provided:  “All persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.” In 1862, Representative John Bingham said on the House floor:

The Constitution leaves no room for doubt upon this subject.  The words “natural-born citizen of the United States” occur in it, and the other provision also occurs in it that “Congress shall have power to pass a uniform system of naturalization.”  To naturalize a person is to admit him to citizenship.  Who are “natural-born citizens” but those born within the Republic?  Those born within the Republic, whether black or white, are citizens by birth—natural born citizens.  There is no such word as “white” in your Constitution.   Citizenship, therefore, does not depend upon complexion any more than it depends upon the rights of election or of office.  All from other lands, who by the terms of [congressional] laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens. Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.” (emphasis in the original).

John A. Bingham, Cong. Globe, 37th, 2nd Sess., 1639 (1862).

Note that in defining a natural born citizen, at first he said that “[t[hose born within the Republic . . . are  . . . natural born citizens.”  Then he said “all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.”  So in his second statement he was more complete in his definition, adding birth to “parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty.”  The record does not contain any indication that any member of Congress disagreed with Bingham’s statements on the House floor regarding the definition of a natural born citizen.

Then in 1866, 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, and on the meaning of a natural born citizen paraphrased Vattel’s definition of the clause 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, Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866).

Here he explained that a natural born citizen was a child born in the United States to parents who did not owe any allegiance to any foreign power.  That was a correct definition of an Article II natural born citizen and a repeat of what he had said in 1862.  The record does not contain any indication that any member of Congress disagreed with Bingham’s statements on the House floor regarding the definition of a natural born citizen.

Then in 1867, Bingham made another statement, saying:

“Who does not know that every person born within the limits of the Republic is, in the language of the Constitution, a natural-born citizen.”

John A. Bingham, Cong. Globe, Cong. Globe, 40th, 2nd Sess., 2212 (1867).  He made this statement with reference to the right to vote and not in reference to defining a natural born citizen.  Here, Bingham, in defining a natural born citizen, only mentioned birth “within the limits of the Republic.”
In 1872, Bingham again addressed the meaning of a natural born citizen.  He made more statements on the floor of the House.  On April 25, 1872, he addressed the case of Dr. John Emilio Houard being incarcerated in Spain for allegedly having committed a criminal offense there.  Bingham demanded that the government of Spain afford Dr. Houard due process of law under Spanish law.  During the debate, the issue was raised on the floor of the House whether the doctor was a citizen of the United States, for if he was not such a citizen, the United States would have nothing to do with the matter.  Bingham argued:

As to the question of citizenship I am willing to resolve all doubts in favor of a citizen of the United States.  That Dr. Houard is a natural-born citizen of the United States there is not room for the shadow of a doubt.  He was born of naturalized parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, and by the express words of the Constitution, as amended to-day, he is declared to all the world to be a citizen of the United States by birth.”

John A. Bingham, Cong. Globe, 42nd, 2nd Sess., 2791 (1872).

Bingham said that what made Huard a natural born citizen was being born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents.  So, here, as before, he defined a natural born citizen as someone born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents.  Again, the record does not contain any indication that any member of Congress disagreed with Bingham’s statements on the House floor regarding the definition of a natural born citizen.

One can argue that Bingham’s 1867 statement contradicts his two previous and one subsequent statements, because in that statement he only refers to birth in the United States and makes no mention of having to be born to parents who were citizens of the United States.  But actually they are not contradictory if we analyze what Bingham probably meant to say in his 1867 statement and conclude that it is not what appears on the surface.  We can see in his statement of 1862, that first he only called for birth in the United States.  But then later in his statement he said that only those born in the United States to parents who owed no allegiance to any foreign power were natural born citizens.  So, when he first mentioned just birth in the country, he was only saying that it was necessary to be a natural born citizen.  But then later he provided the full definition of a natural born citizen which included birth in the country to parents who were its citizens.  The same can be said for what Bingham said in 1867.  In mentioning birth in the country, he was only saying that it was a necessary condition for being a natural born citizen.  We know that he did not mean to say it was sufficient, because then in 1872, he again explained that a natural born citizen was a child born in the United States to parents who did not owe any foreign allegiance to any foreign power.

So, Bingham provides a look into how the House of Representatives defined a natural born citizen in the 1860’s and 1870’s.  Bingham’s statement of 1872 was also made by him after the Fourteenth Amendment had been passed and still, he included in the definition of a natural born citizen not only birth in the country, but also birth to U.S. citizen parents.  This information is valuable because it tells us how Congress was defining a natural born citizen before the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment, and then shortly thereafter.  There is little doubt that the House defined a natural born citizen as a child born in the country to parents who were its citizens.  Also, the U.S. Supreme Court in The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) agreed with Bingham, stating that a child born in the United States to alien parents was not a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.  Hence, a natural born citizen could be only a person born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents, which is what Bingham has said as early as 1862.

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868 and replaced the Civil Rights Act.  The Amendment was passed to provide through the Constitution and not only through an Act of Congress for the citizenship of recently freed slaves and to protect their civil rights.  It provided: “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.”  The Fourteenth Amendment should not be read any further than providing for the remedy of making all persons born in the United States while subject to its jurisdiction "citizens" of the United States, not Article II "natural born citizens" of the United States.  A plain and simple reading of its text shows that it only defines a “citizen” of the United States, not an Article II “natural born Citizen” of the United States.  As far as the debates on the Fourteenth Amendment go, we have to understand the first principle which is that that the text of that Amendment concerns a “citizen” of the United States, and not a “natural born citizen” of the United States.  Plainly on its face and except for those born before the adoption of the Constitution, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 informs that being a citizen of the United States is not sufficient to be eligible to be President.  Rather, it demands that one be a natural born citizen.  Those who rely on the comments made in debate during the adoption of the Amendment fail to demonstrate with those comments by members of Congress that they were defining an Article II natural born citizen as opposed to who was to be a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.  After all, the issue before them was who was to be a citizen under that Amendment, not who was to be an Article II natural born citizen.

Additionally, what those debate comments show is that those commentators all agreed that to be a natural born citizen and eligible to be President, it was necessary that one had to be a “native-born citizen,” meaning one was born in the United States and a citizen.   So birth in the United States was a necessary condition of being a natural born citizen and eligible to be President.  There is nothing in those statements to indicate that they were saying that birth in the United States was sufficient to be a natural born citizen and eligible to be President.  And to the degree that such a position can be inferred from what they said, whether they thoroughly studied and considered whether birth in the United States was sufficient is another story.  But in any event, those commentators agreed that birth in the United States was a necessary condition of being eligible to be President.  That alone shows that Senator Ted Cruz, born in Canada, is not eligible to be President.

As we saw from Wong Kim Ark, the Fourteenth Amendment abrogated Congress’s naturalization Acts that applied to children born in the United States and any conflicting treaties.  Wong Kim Ark informed that birth in the country while subject to its jurisdiction, when it is through birth in the United States to one or two alien parents, is strong enough to produce U.S. citizenship at birth and only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment (under English common law called a “natural-born subject”).  But such birth circumstances are not strong enough to produce a natural born citizen under American common law (not to be conflated, confounded, and confused with an English “natural-born subject” under the English common law).  That a person born in the United States to one or two alien parents satisfies the material elements of the Amendment does not make the very Amendment, the source of the citizenship, disappear. It is still by virtue of the Amendment itself, and not by virtue of birth alone, which is the case for a natural born citizen, that one becomes a citizen of the United States at birth.  

Rubio was born in the United States to alien parents (they were both citizens of Cuba when Rubio was born).  If born after Congress passed its first naturalization Acts and before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, at best, he could have naturalized under a naturalization Act of Congress to become a citizen of the United States after his birth, either by his parents naturalizing during his minority or upon his own personal naturalization as an adult.  Having to naturalize by either method in order to become at best a citizen of the United States after his birth, he surely could not be a natural born citizen. 

Rubio was born in 1971 and therefore gets the benefit of the Fourteenth Amendment.  But the Fourteenth Amendment also does not make Rubio a natural born citizen.  Only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was passed so that freed slaves could become citizens of the United States, which abrogated Congress's naturalization Acts as they applied to persons born in the United States, which came 81 years after the adoption of the Constitution, which did not repeal the natural born citizen clause nor amend it, and which only grants entry-level membership in the United States to children born in the United States to aliens who are domiciled and permanently residing in the United States and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders, hence, children born in the United States while subject to its jurisdiction, Rubio became a "citizen" of the United States "at birth," but not a natural born citizen.  Rubio, only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment (a positive law), became a citizen of the United States before both of his birth parents did.  It is not possible that he is a natural born citizen, who, by reason of his or her birth circumstances, i.e., birth in the country to parents who were its citizens, needs no law to be a natural born citizen.  
  
So, Trump should do more than just retweet that he is not sure whether Rubio is a natural born citizen.  Trump should forcefully expose Rubio for not being one, as he has done with Ted Cruz.

Finally, South Carolina Governor, Nikki Haley, recently endorsed Marco Rubio. But the endorsement by one who like Haley, born in the United States to alien parents like Rubio, who is like Rubio not a natural born citizen, does not nor can it convert Rubio into a natural born citizen.  
     
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
February 22, 2016
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Copyright © 2016
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved   


47 comments:

cfkerchner said...

Another excellent timely piece. I reposted and excerpt and link to your new piece in my blog and tweeted it and facebooked and eBlasted it out to the world. Keep up the good work. Bravo Zulu!

Donald Trump Is Right to Retweet that Marco Rubio Is NOT a Natural Born Citizen | by Atty Mario Apuzzo | CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/02/22/donald-trump-is-right-to-retweet-that-marco-rubio-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen-by-atty-mario-apuzzo/


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

Cox'n Don said...

Thanks counselor! I hope you're wearing a flak jacket. What has come of the Mark Levin vs Apuzzo debate?

Don Parker
Annapolis MD

ajtelles said...

"...birth alone..."

Mario,

In your third paragraph you accurately state "...birth alone. ... birth does not exist in a vacuum."

>> "A natural born citizen is a citizen by virtue of birth and birth alone.
>> "But birth does not exist in a vacuum.
>> "There are circumstances that exist at the time of birth.
>> "Those circumstances are, among many, the parents to whom one is born
>> "and the place where one is born. ..."

One of the circumstances as you mention in this article, and in the previous two articles, is the citizenship of both parents and where the child is born.

I have a suggestion for Mr. Trump about how to clarify who a "natural born Citizen" is that will get the respect of the Cruz birthers, the Rubio birthers, etc., and that is to bring into the eligibility conversation the naturalization date of his first wife, Ivana and the birth dates of his own children with Ivana.

If Donald Trump were to simply state that his own children are not natural born citizens because, while they were born on U.S. soil, they were not born to two U.S. citizen parents, so they are not "...eligible to the Office President" according to the original intent of Article II Section 1 clause 5, so he, as a presidential candidate must insist that both Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio not pursue the presidency of the United States because they born are not natural born citizens.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

See Ivana's naturalization notice in the May 26, 1988 Lewiston-Auburn, Maine Journal. She naturalized 11 years after Don was born, 7 years after Ivanka was born, and 4 years after Eric Trump was born.

>> https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1899&dat=19880527&id=LiEgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YmYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5053,3823442&hl=en

"With her at Wednesday's ceremony was her husband, billionaire developer Donald Trump."

[...]

"Mrs. Trump, a 38 year-old, Austrian-born, former Czechoslovakian national, came to this country 10 years ago after working as a model in Montreal."

"Donald John "Don" Trump, Jr. (born December 31, 1977)...."
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump,_Jr.

"Ivanka Marie Trump (/iˈvɑːnkə/, born October 30, 1981)...."
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanka_Trump

"Eric Frederic Trump (born January 6, 1984)...."
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Trump

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Maybe Mr. Trump's friend, author Ann Coulter, could take the bull by the horns and write at least one entire article about how Mr. Trump's children are not eligible to be president of the U.S. for the same reason that Mr. Cruz and Mr. Rubio are not eligible: all 5 "citizens" do not fulfill the original genesis (birth) original intent (citizenship) of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY by birth to two (2) U.S. citizen parents.


Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

cfkerchner said...

Why the dogs of hell have been unleashed on Trump. Wayne Allyn Root on why they (the establishment) fear Donald Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aAI1iuslDs

cfkerchner said...

Art: Do it. Email or Tweet your idea and suggestion to Ann Coulter. http://www.anncoulter.com/ Or give her your idea in public on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/OfficialAnnCoulter where you can write a lot more in a post. In fact just cut and paste what you wrote to Atty Apuzzo and send it to Ann Coulter or post it on her Facebook page. CDR Kerchner (Ret) - http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

Leo Derosia said...

It is easier for levin to run his mouth and be a self righteous jerk than debate mario. I never gave it any thought but art is right, none of trumps kids are nbcs. It is interesting that someone who will probably be next CiC has no children who are eligible to be President even though they are patriotic like their dad.


John Regan said...

I have no agenda and care little who becomes president this cycle. But plainly neither Cruz nor Rubio are eligible:

https://strikelawyer.wordpress.com/2016/02/23/rubio-too/

It's all right with me if they change the constitution before the election to abolish the natural born citizen requirement, but this has not been an honest debate.

ajtelles said...

Are 4 of 5 Trump Children Not Eligible?

Mario,

While it is clear that Mr. Trump's three oldest children are "citizens" but not "natural born citizens" as I mentioned yesterday, February 22, 2016 at 6:59 PM, it is possible that his youngest son, Barron, is also not an nbC.

Free Republic had a post on April 14, 2011 with quotes from the HillaryNMe blog:
>> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2704935/posts

From the last paragraph of HillaryNMe.com - April 14, 2011:
>> http://www.hillarynme.com/2011/04/14/shocker-donald-trumps-children-ineligible-to-be-president-just-like-obama/

"The Donald’s fifth child with Melania is ineligible because his mother is a native of Slovenia. Barron Trump was born in April of 2006 and Melania’s naturalization as a U.S. citizen is unclear at this time."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

What is known is that Donald Trump married Melania on January 22, 2005 and Barron Trump was born March 20,2006.

The next quote below from the 2011 HillaryNMe post mentions the three-legged stool accurately as related to natural born citizenship:

>> "...there are three elements that complete the natural born citizen requirement.
>> Just like a three-legged stool requires three legs to stand upright,
>> all three elements are needed for the legal requirement for natural born citizenship to be perfected."

[...snip...]

"Natural born citizenship requires ... that BOTH parents are U.S. citizens at the time of the birth. ..."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Thanks CDR Kerchner for the suggestion about Facebook and communicating with Ann Coulter myself, but I have never wanted to be on Facebook or Twitter, so I don't have an account on either.

If you or other readers post on either forum, put what I wrote here on Mario's blog onto Facebook as you suggested and put a link to Mario's blog for a long term reference source. What he has written is certainly more important than my short comment.

"Ann Coulter, please write an article about how 4 of Mr. Trump's 5 children are not eligible to be president of the U.S. for the same reason that Sen. Cruz and Sen. Rubio are not eligible: all 6 U.S. "citizens" - 4 of Mr. Trump's children and the 2 U.S. Senators, do not fulfill the original genesis (birth) original intent (citizenship) of "natural born Citizen."

It is very simple to articulate what "born" means in "natural born Citizen" in a way that some constitutional "scholars" and WE the People can understand:

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship
ONLY by birth on U.S. soil
ONLY by birth to two (2) U.S. citizen married parents."

Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

ajtelles said...

"...two U.S. citizen married parents..."

Mario, one more comment about Donald Trump's 5 children.

It is my understanding that in 1787 America, when "born" in "natural born Citizen" could ONLY mean "born" to two (2) U.S. citizen married parents for the child to be eligible to be president, "born" could NOT also mean, for eligibility to be president purposes, born to two U.S. citizens who were NOT married to each other, whether they were both single at the time a child is born to them OR both were married to other spouses at the time a child is born to them.

Without a legal "marriage" BEFORE a child is born, what is the "legal" foundation of being a singular U.S. citizen?

With that understanding about the original intent of "born" meaning born to two (2) U.S. citizen married parents in 1787 America and continuing today into 2016 America, it seems that ALL 5 of Donald Trump's children are not natural born citizens.

In addition to the info about Mr. Trumps' other children on my previous posts here on your blog on February 22, 2016 at 6:59 PM and February 23, 2016 at 12:49 PM is this info about second daughter Tiffany Trump.

Tiffany Trump, daughter with Marla Maples, was born a U.S. citizen on October 13, 1993 and U.S. citizen Trump and U.S. citizen Maples were married on December 20, 1993.

Marla Maples on Wikipedia:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marla_Maples

"Maples and Donald Trump have one child together, Tiffany Ariana Trump, who was born on October 13, 1993.[5] In December, 1993 the couple married,...."

Chicago Tribune announcement of Trump and Maples wedding on Dec. 12, 1993, the day before the marriage:
>> http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1993-12-19/news/9312190244_1_marla-maples-donald-trump-david-dinkins

"NEW YORK — The middle-aged master builder finally decides to marry the actress-model mother of his infant child, a week after she unveils her new line of maternity clothes,...."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

With these facts about birth being true, I have another suggestion for Mr. Trump.

If Mr. Trump were to acknowledge that ALL of his own children, while born on the "land" as he likes to say, are not, as you have written in this post and the two previous posts, "by birth alone" natural born citizens because they do NOT have ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, a constitutional requirement that is ONLY possible by birth on U.S. soil ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents, so, for that common sense reason, he, as a presidential candidate can invoke the U.S. Constitution as the "law" that demands that Sen. Cruz and Sen. Cruz be disqualified from pursuing the presidency of the United States.

It would not be Mr. Trump the candidate demanding that they be disqualified, but the Constitution itself that is making the original genesis (birth) original intent (citizenship) demand.

In addition, Mr. Trump can challenge Sen. Cruz and Sen. Rubio to use the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" to defend dual U.S./foreign citizenship and birth to ONLY ONE U.S. citizen parent (Sen. Cruz) OR birth to ZERO U.S. citizen parents (Sen. Rubio).

Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

RodCrosby said...

Presumably President Trump is going to retroactively declare his predecessor ineligible?

cfkerchner said...

See my newly updated Euler Logic Diagram which shows even more clearly that the "Arguments" being made by Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio that they are "natural born Citizens" is a logical Fallacy: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/euler-logic-diagram-shows-logical-relationship-of-constitutional-article-ii-natural-born-citizens-to-other-type-citizens-of-the-united-states/

Leo Derosia said...

I forgot about Marla maples. Tiffany Trump, daughter of Donald Trump and Marla Maples, would be a natural born citizen.

Brianroy said...

Mario,
You have a lot of good articles and critical information on the United States Natural Born Citizen constitutional issue. If you have the time, would you consider making a few informational videos and posting them on the web for us to repost and share?

I did this repost of Publius Huldah on February 11, 2016 of a 12 minute video, which she approves of, and on Saturday, February 20, 2016, it was tweeted by way of Resis Tyr tweeting what Thomas Madison embedded at his site, and before we knew it, (from people I don't even as yet know, but who are fellow patriots) it was a national and international retweet issue because Donald Trump has said:

" I have 14 million people between Twitter and Facebook and Instagram and I retweet things, and we start dialogue and it’s very interesting,” Trump said."

Examples of coverage of the tweet and 12 minute Publius Huldah video are:

UK Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3457398/Now-s-Marco-Rubio-s-getting-birther-attack-Donald-Trump-refuses-say-Florida-senator-eligible-White-House.html


NewsMax
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/donald-trump-marco-rubio-gop-eligibility/2016/02/22/id/715510/?ns_mail_uid=98167764&ns_mail_job=1656385_02222016&s=al&dkt_nbr=nrq9yhb5


Foxnews
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/22/donald-trump-muses-about-marco-rubios-eligibility-to-run-for-president.html


New York Post
http://nypost.com/2016/02/21/trump-comes-for-rubio-questions-presidential-eligibility/

Maybe we can get videos of you being concise and to the point in a time limit format of say 12 to 14 minutes at a time and get that going in various repostings and sharing of those videos as well? Just a thought. Thank you kindly.

cfkerchner said...

Atty Mario Apuzzo “natural born Citizen” Expert Will Be On The Peter Boyles Radio Show – Thurs 25 Feb 2016 9 AM EST | CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/02/24/atty-mario-apuzzo-natural-born-citizen-expert-will-be-on-the-peter-boyles-radio-show-thurs-25-feb-2016-9-am-est/

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty/collections/
http://www.protectourliberty.org

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I very much enjoyed being on the Peter Boyles Radio Show this morning, discussing the meaning of a natural born citizen and whether Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and Nikkie Haley satisfy its definition. For those of you who listened or will listen, you can see that my conclusion is that none of them are natural born citizens and consequently none of them are eligible to be either President or Vice-President.

Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, one of the three requirements to be President of the United States and its Commander in Chief of the Military, for those born after the adoption of the Constitution, is not that the individual be a human. Nor is it that the individual be a citizen. Rather, the requirement is that the individual be a natural born citizen. (Under Article II, one was eligible to the Office of President if one was just a citizen if one had that status as of the time of the adoption of the Constitution.) That simple dichotomy tells us that a natural born citizen has birth characteristics which are not possessed by humans in general, or even citizens in general.

Of course, people who are natural born citizens are all human and citizens. But not all humans are natural born citizens nor even just citizens. Also, not all citizens are natural born citizens. The difference between humans, citizens, and natural born citizens is that only those who are born in the country to parents who were its citizens are natural born citizens. Those who do not have those birth circumstances, but who are still citizens under some positive law (e.g., the Fourteenth Amendment, naturalization Act of Congress, or treaty) are citizens. Those who are neither natural born citizens (not born in the country to citizen parents) nor citizens (they do not satisfy the Fourteenth Amendment, naturalization Act of Congress, or treaty) are just humans.

Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and Nikkie Haley are humans. They are also all (assuming Obama was born in the U.S.) citizens (all citizens only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, except for Cruz who is a citizen only by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress). But none of them are natural born citizens because none of them were born in the country to two parents who were its citizens at the time of their child’s birth. Hence being neither a natural born citizen nor a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, none of them are eligible to the office of President.

Too bad that Mark Levin has not accepted my acceptance of his challenge that he expressed on his radio show to millions across the globe that he is willing to debate any attorney, authority, or scholar on the meaning of a natural born citizen and that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen under that definition. He has not accepted my acceptance to do the debate on his radio show. Maybe with the new Levine TV, he will be willing to do the debate on his television channel. We can do it at a college or university. I think the College of William and Mary would be a great place to do it, assuming the college would allow it. If not, we can find another college or university.

Maybe followers of my blog who have access to Mr. Levin can communicate with him and advise him of my suggestion.

cfkerchner said...

My Euler Logic Diagram visually shows the Supersets and SubSets logic concepts that Atty Apuzzo is describing: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/euler-diagram/ CDR Kerchner (Ret) - http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

P.S. For people who cannot grasp the different terms for different kinds of Citizens try it with trees. All trees are plants but not all plants are trees. All Blue Spruce Trees are Trees but not all Tress are Blue Spruce Trees. It s basic logic and set theory. The politicians, political parties, and major media are all trying to deceive the American Electorate and pawn off on us the logical fallacies at to who are the "natural born Citizen" citizens. They got away with it with the defacto occupier of of the Oval Office - Obama (thus far). They cannot be allowed to get away with again with Cruz and Rubio, or Nikki Haley or Jindal for VP, etc. The President and Commander in Chief of our military (and the VP) cannot be someone born with Divided Allegiances and Citizenship in more than one country. Sole allegiance and unity of citizenship to the USA and only the USA is what the founders and framers understood NBC to mean and why it was put into the Constitution, a national security clause.

William St. George said...

There are intellectual ideas which can be difficult to follow like those found in the the calculus. But these ideas are simple and easily understood by any child of the age of say nine or ten. So the barrier to understanding is psychological to the extent that there is a real difficulty. Otherwise, it simple dishonesty. Those with the psychological difficulty might try psychotherapy. Those that are dishonest are reprobates and not worth our time.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

William St. George,

I am reminded by your comment of the client who hired the lawyer to defend him in court. The lawyer studied the case for a real long time, determining what it would take to win the case. They got to court and it was the lawyer's turn to speak. He only said one word and on that one word he won the case for his client.

Then it was time for the client to pay the lawyer's bill. Given the amount of time the lawyer spent studying the case, the bill was large. The client objected, telling the lawyer that the only thing that he did was say just one word. The lawyer then told the client that he studied for a real long time so that he could know that it would only take that one word to win the case which he did. The client then paid the bill happily.

Unknown said...

Mr. Apuzzo, you can improve the punch line. When the client sees the bill for $25,000, he objects and demands it itemized. The lawyer accedes, and submits: "Speaking one word in Court: $1.00. Picking the right word: $24,999.00"
We engineers tell that one too.

Robert said...

If Obama, Cruz, and Rubio are successful in their deceptions we can only wonder how much this ruse might develop. Eventually we could expect a person of unknown parentage adopted by persons of Australian and Norwegian citizenships and raised and schooled in France, Cuba, China, and Italy will claim to be a natural born citizen of the USA simply because he has flown over the USA, visits US based web sites occasionally, collects US postage stamps, and has a USA bred dog. Oh, and for the clincher, he's now married to a woman whose cousin's aunt was a naturalized US citizen originally from Canada and he can quote most of the US Constitution from memory.

No, if Cruz and Rubio were truly patriots, they would have used their own situations to prevent Obama from ever taking the oath of office and they would be working to help us get a better slate of candidates for POTUS.

Cox'n Don said...

I suspect it will be more successful for Trump to proclaim that he would love to see his kids qualify as NBCs, but "great lawyers and scholars tell me they cannot". "If my kids aren't eligible then, obviously, neither Cruz nor Rubio can be, which is why I think the Courts must clarify this issue." An evidently selfish interest may offset negative reactions to his attack on the Cubans. Yet, if successful, one wonders how SCOTUS would rule relying on Kennedy without Scalia.

cfkerchner said...

The Who, What, When, Where, Why, and How of the “natural born Citizen” Term In Our United States Constitution | CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/02/28/the-who-what-when-where-why-and-how-of-the-natural-born-citizen-term-in-our-united-states-constitution/


CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org
http://www.scribd.com/user/16744365/cfkerchner

Robert Pilchman said...


Part I

Kudos to Trump!!! Rubio and especially Cruz do not appear to be NATURAL born citizens. (Also, I believe Katrina Pierson (Trump spokeswoman) should have said natural - not naturalized - at approximately 1:12 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOnk5yZpPro ).

Regardless of whether or not Cruz is a "born Citizen", Cruz is clearly NOT a "natural born Citizen".

One question seems critical to not lose focus on: What's the difference between a "born Citizen" and a "natural born Citizen"?

In the Naturalization Act of 1790 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 ) it apparently states that ‘And the children of citizens of the United States, that mayibe born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, …’ ( http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg103.pdf ). Some attempt to argue that this means that it is not necessary to be born in the United States to be a natural born Citizen. However, even in the Naturalization Act of 1790 it apparently states “children of citizens” – citizens in the plural (i.e. both parents). Moreover, the expression “shall be considered as” implies a leniency (and thus actually supports that “natural born Citizen” as used in the U.S. Constitution is more stringent (i.e. it is also necessary to be born in the United States)). In any event, in 1795, the Congress apparently repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790 (while George Washington was still the president) as elucidated in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1795 ( http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg414a.pdf ). Furthermore, prior to the 14th Amendment, it seems clear that the prevailing understanding of born Citizenship (let alone natural born Citizenship) required more than just being born in the United States or why else would the (Citizenship clause of the) 14th Amendment have been necessary?

Natural law seems to imply obviousness and thus a “natural born Citizen” seems to mean a born Citizen so obvious as not to require a statute. Apparently, the requirement for the president to be a “natural born Citizen” is a safeguard to maximize allegiance for this unique position (which includes the military role of Commander in Chief). There also seems to be a “widespread and long-standing” tradition (prior to Barack Hussein Obama II) of adherence to the requirement of a president being born in the United States to both parents who are U.S. citizens (unless someone managed to deceive us regarding his background) as apparently documented in http://www.votefortheconstitution.com/natural-born-citizen1.html .

Indeed, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html ), "MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting" stated:
“Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:

"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."”

Robert Pilchman said...


Part II

Furthermore, even the majority opinion ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html ) did not seem to decide on “natural born citizenship” – rather only on “born Citizenship”. Furthermore, in Wong Kim Ark the case involved someone BORN IN THE UNITED STATES to parents legally allowed to be in the United States. The majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court (in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html ), stated “The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative.”



Indeed, in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874), it states “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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” ( http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/88/162.html , https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/case.html )

BOTTOM LINE: IS THERE ANY LEGITIMATE SOURCE THAT SUGGESTS THAT SOMEONE BORN BOTH OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND WHEN HIS FATHER WAS NOT A CITIZEN WOULD BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN??? As for 8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth‏ (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401 ), I didn’t see the expression “natural born Citizen” used in 8 U.S. Code § 1401, and thus 8 U.S. Code § 1401 clearly does NOT appear to even allege any relevance to being NATURAL.

Thus, while Cruz may conceivably be a “born Citizen” it APPEARS INCONCEIVABLE THAT HE COULD BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!!! BY THE WAY, IS IT REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THAT SOMEONE COULD NOT ONLY BE A BORN CITIZEN OF THREE COUNTRIES (I.E. CANADA, CUBA, AND THE UNITED STATES) BUT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THREE COUNTRIES (I.E. CANADA, CUBA, AND THE UNITED STATES)??? THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!!

THUS, SUPPORTING ELECTING SOMEONE TO BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF WHO IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN SEEMS TO BE FACILITATING VIOLATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!!!

FURTHERMORE, HOW COULD ONE EXPECT SOMEONE LIKE SENATOR CRUZ TO NOMINATE TO THE SCOTUS JUDGES, LIKE SCALIA, WHO SINCERELY BELIEVE IN FOLLOWING THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION WHEN SUCH A JUDGE WOULD HOLD THAT CRUZ IS INELIGIBLE TO BE POTUS?

INDEED, SICK AS IT MAY SEEM, TO THE EXTENT OF POPULAR VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE(S) CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBLE TO BE POTUS SO COULD CONCEIVABLY DISREGARDING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE BECOME LESS REPUGNANT.

Robert said...

Mark Levin can't afford to debate you. Surely, he's read your site. As a gifted debater and Constitutional scholar, he knows that you hold all the cards. As a lawyer he knows to never ask a question in court unless you already know the answer is in your favor.

To debate you would lead to the questions, "How did you (Levin" not know this?", "Why didn't you (Levin) tell us the truth sooner?" and "Who's side are you (Levin) really on?". It would destroy his credibility and, thus, his push for an Article V Convention wherein he and his puppet masters wish to completely rewrite our Constitution to legalize all the criminal activities that our government is currently engaged in and set up a statist empire where the people would return to being subjects of the state as they were under English rule.

cfkerchner said...

Atty Apuzzo and CDR Kerchner (Ret) this Monday will be on Ringside Radio Show hosted by Jeff Crouere on WGSO 990 AM of New Orleans LA | CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/02/28/atty-apuzzo-and-cdr-kerchner-ret-will-be-on-ringside-radio-show-hosted-by-jeff-crouere-on-wgso-990-am-of-new-orleans-la/

CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org
http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty/collections/

cfkerchner said...

The difference between a "born Citizen" and a "natural born Citizen" shown pictorial via a simple Euler Logic Diagram. Common sense, some basic logic, and a picture are worth a thousand words against the disinformation put out by Cruz and Rubio and their backers and enablers ... who are just as bad as the OBOTS were. Load this link and then scroll down just a wee bit to see the Euler Diagram. Feel free to circulate it and pass it along: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/euler-logic-diagram-shows-logical-relationship-of-constitutional-article-ii-natural-born-citizens-to-other-type-citizens-of-the-united-states/

Unknown said...

Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"Too bad that Mark Levin has not accepted my acceptance of his challenge that he expressed on his radio show to millions across the globe that he is willing to debate any attorney, authority, or scholar on the meaning of a natural born citizen and that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen under that definition."
I think this is what I warned you about. Arguing that Marco Rubio and two actual U.S. Presidents are not eligible takes you out of any serious debate.

"Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida. He is a natural born United States citizen. And if I get any more of this Birther crap up there. . . This is a warning, and I don’t care who you are; you’re going to be banned. Okay? This is a site I put up for rational people. Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida in 1940, excuse me, 1971. He’s 40. There’s no debate. So take that Birther crap somewhere else. Just a warning. Got it? I’m not into all that crap." -- Mark Levin, 28 September 2011

Mick said...

7 FAM 1131.6-2 "Eligibility for Presidency" was scrubbed from the internet on 2/24/16

They did not even change the numbering!! They even added, in 1131.6-3, the statute that naturalized Ted Cruz (8 US Code 1401(g)), as some sort of basis that 8 US Code "citizen at birth benificiaries are "Not Citizens by Naturalization."

Here is the screen shot WAYBACK from Feb 20, 2016

https://web.archive.org/web/20160119170238/https://fam.state.gov/fam/07fam/07fam1130.html

Here is the current version

https://fam.state.gov/fam/07fam/07fam1130.html

Do you know how these entries are made Mr. Apuzzo?

I undestand that the INS is now the USCIS under Homeland Security. The question is why would the State Dept. want to help Ted Cruz?

Hmmm....

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Unknown,

I do not know who you are, but you coming on here and telling me that you warned me in some way about the meaning of a natural born citizen is ludicrous. You make no argument. You delude yourself into thinking that you can convince us that we are wrong based on some secret knowledge that you possess.

As far as Mark Levin is concerned, he made the debate challenge and I accepted. Rather than show us how mindless you are, why do you not contact Mr. Levin and ask him why he has not chosen to go forward with his challenge. We can even do the debate at the College of William and Mary, if they permit it, on Levin TV.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Mick,

Thank you for catching that and sharing it with us. Here is provision that was scrubbed:

7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency
(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)

a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.

b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.”

c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”

d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.

Now, as you asked, why would the State Department remove that statement? I am not aware of any U.S. Supreme Court addressing their previous question that it was not sure that a person born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents was a natural born citizen and thereby eligible to be President.

We need to do some investigation on how the State Department has come to make this significant change to its policy manual.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”
(CT:CON-474; 08-19-2013)

Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) provides that the term "naturalization" means "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever." Persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the applicable statutory transmission requirements are not considered citizens by naturalization.

This statement is also not correct given the decisions of our U.S. Supreme Court. What the State Department should add is that the fact that someone is not considered to be naturalized pursuant to a statute does not mean that he or she is not naturalized under the Constitution.

Mick said...

Mario,

See Thomas' statement about 8 US Code 1401 (g) in Zivotofsky. All part of the plan. Of course that issue was not before the court.

Robert Pilchman said...


Kudos to Mick – Thanks for sharing!!!


Mick – The Screenshot - SUPERB CATCH!!! ( https://web.archive.org/web/20160119170238/https://fam.state.gov/fam/07fam/07fam1130.html vs. https://fam.state.gov/fam/07fam/07fam1130.html - “7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency” was apparently deleted !!!)


Mick - Another EXCELLENT catch you made “See Thomas' statement about 8 US Code 1401 (g) in Zivotofsky. All part of the plan. Of course that issue was not before the court.” – Apparently you are referring to “It has determined that children born abroad to U. S. parents, subject to some exceptions, are natural-born citizens who do not need to go through the naturalization process. 8 U. S. C. §§ 1401(c), (d), (g).” ( --- https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-628#writing-13-628_CONCUR_5 ). OMG OMG OMG. Is this why the pillow was reportedly found above Scalia’s head?


It’s also noteworthy that former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is apparently pressing for a replacement pronto ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sandra-day-oconnor-scalia_us_56c5313be4b0c3c55053c6d9 )

In http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/29/ny-judge-to-hear-case-on-cruz-eligibility/ (“NY Judge To Hear Case On Cruz Eligibility”) it states “A New York Judge will hear arguments Tuesday on a lawsuit” … This afternoon (Mon 2/29/16) I called 518-285-8989 ( https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/3jd/albany/3JD-Albany%20Supreme%20Court.shtml ) and was told that the hearing was adjourned. I’m also curious if there is an option for a member of the public to submit some type of amicus curiae and if so what the procedure would be.

Unknown said...

Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"I do not know who you are, but you coming on here and telling me that you warned me in some way about the meaning of a natural born citizen is ludicrous."

Ah, it's brygenon. Thought you could tell. What I wrote was, "I think this is what I warned you about. Arguing that Marco Rubio and two actual U.S. Presidents are not eligible takes you out of any serious debate." For example at WesternFreePress I had noted, "Arguing that candidates cannot be President for the same reason that the actual President cannot be president takes you out of any serious debate."

Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"As far as Mark Levin is concerned, he made the debate challenge and I accepted. Rather than show us how mindless you are, why do you not contact Mr. Levin and ask him why he has not chosen to go forward with his challenge."

I expect that pursuing Levin will not be a productive avenue for you and I will not be encouraging it.

Robert Pilchman said...


Unknown - There was reportedly a pillow found above Scalia’s head, and you are making allegation(s ) about ‘serious debate’? If the powers that be would ignore a complaint about 2+2=5 what would that prove? Lack of standing, gross incompetence, corruption, and/or coercion/pressure? "He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors." (--- Thomas Jefferson - http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff157254.html )

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Unknown is taken out of any serious debate because he has no knowledge or reasoning power needed for him to construct any serious argument.

Unknown said...

Robert Pilchman wrote:
"There was reportedly a pillow found above Scalia’s head, and you are making allegation(s ) about ‘serious debate’?"

Well, sort of. I am aware that writers for this site expressed great hatred for the federal judiciary's modern doctrine on standing, but I don't think you guys actually murdered its author.

-brygenon

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Unknown,

I know that you suffer from mindlessness, but have you seen how many split U.S. Supreme Court decisions there are on standing?

Robert said...

So, if I read Levin's challenge along with Unknown's rational it means that "The Great One", Mark Levin, will debate any lawyer, scholar, etc. on the topic of Natural Born citizen only as long as they are in agreement with his position.

I'm not familiar with this debate format. But, I would like to use it the next time I "negotiate" a contract.

Unknown said...

Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"I know that you suffer from mindlessness, but have you seen how many split U.S. Supreme Court decisions there are on standing?"

Sure. I'm a fan of the Justices who *opposed* recently-deceased AJ Antonin Scalia on the precedents that trashed half your efforts or so. I would not have made the same choices as did the Republican Presidents who put now-retired justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor on the bench of our highest court, but you will not find me disrespecting them.

There are no split decisions in your eligibility cases, Mr. Apuzzo. You lost each and every time. On the issue here you lost all your cases and all your appeals, and every verdict was unanimous.

I used to say that all Birther verdicts were unanimous, but I had to stop a couple years ago. McInnish v. Chapman, Ala case 1120465, March 2014. In the Supreme Court of Alabama, on the issue of mootness, Birthers lost 7-to-2. I can still say that birthers lost all their cases and all their appeals, but 7 to 2 is not obviously not unanimous.

Unknown said...

Oops: Typo/edit-error in last sentence. I meant:
I can still say that birthers lost all their cases and all their appeals, but 7 to 2 is obviously not unanimous.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Unknown,

You have no refutation to my position which shows that you lose and you want to talk about standing. Really?

Unknown said...

Robert wrote:
"So, if I read Levin's challenge along with Unknown's rational it means that 'The Great One', Mark Levin, will debate any lawyer, scholar, etc. on the topic of Natural Born citizen only as long as they are in agreement with his position."

I am that "Unknown". I do not speak for Mark Levin. Speaking for myself about Mr. Levin, of whom I know but little, I would guess that he and I never vote for the same candidates. In so far as I have predicted how your pursuit of some engagement with Mr. Levin would go, that is all my own.

That said, I did here represent Mr. Levin's opinion on the particular issue. I quoted him exactly, to the best of my ability, from a clip of his radio show about which obots and birthers were talking. Transcribed it myself:

"Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida. He is a natural born United States citizen. And if I get any more of this Birther crap up there. . . This is a warning, and I don’t care who you are; you’re going to be banned. Okay? This is a site I put up for rational people. Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida in 1940, excuse me, 1971. He’s 40. There’s no debate. So take that Birther crap somewhere else. Just a warning. Got it? I’m not into all that crap." -- Mark Levin, 28 September 2011

On that one point -- Marco Rubio is so clearly eligible that contrary positions are crap -- I'm pretty sure that Mark Levin and I agree.

Robert, you somehow got the idea that Levin's challenge and/or my rational means that Mark Levin is, as you put it in quotes yourself, "The Great One". Well, that sure was not me. I'm not a fan. Thing is, little as I know of Mr. Levin, I don't think it was him either. All you.

Robert wrote:
"I'm not familiar with this debate format. But, I would like to use it the next time I 'negotiate' a contract."

How you negotiate is entirely up to you, Robert. For my part, I expect what you described will not be a productive approach and I will not be encouraging it.

Reynaldo Mercanto said...

For Mario Apuzzo:

I recently read that at the time of the ratification of the Constitution the citizenship of a wife was always that of her husband, that the woman became a citizen of his country by virtue of the marriage. If this is so, the argument could be made that, for example, all Trump's children are nbc's because they were born in America to an American father and that whoever was his wife, by the standards of 1790 she was an American also, her citizenship being "by nature" the same as her husband's, although not by current US law. This does not, of course, affect Rubio, Cruz, or Obama/Soetoro, all of whom had foreign born fathers.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Reynaldo Mercanto,

You are correct. Under the common law doctrine of coverture, the wife, upon marriage to the husband, automatically took on her husband's citizenship.

johnny m said...

Amendment XIV


Section 1.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.


(Note that the 14th Amendment quoted above does not specifically grant any kind of citizenship to those born OUTSIDE of the US. However it does clearly deny birth citizenship to those born OUTSIDE of the US regardless of American parentage. The Constitution of 1787 only references one form of birth citizenship, Natural Born. All other forms of citizenship (except the now moot Revolutionary Generation citizenship) are classified as Naturalized in the 1787 and still current US Constitution. The 14th Amendment of 1868 follows the two 1787 Constitutional divisions, Birth citizenship and Naturalized Citizenship.

Canada granted Ted Canadian citizenship at the time of his birth in Canada. At that point Ted violated the Jurisdiction phrase of the 14th Amendment and thus did not have Birth or Naturalized US Citizenship. The 1873 Slaughterhouses case discusses the legality of foreign nations to claim all persons born on their soil as citizens. The 1873 Supreme Court concluded that the US had no power to change the internal citizenship law of a foreign nation.

Ted's Canadian citizenship was proven when he had to renounce it 2 to 4 years ago. In other words Ted had Canadian citizenship until he was about 40 years of age. His US citizenship started about 2 to 4 years ago. Clearly it is impossible for Ted to have had US Birth citizenship.

He was required to renounce his Canadian citizenship because of the Jurisdiction phrase of the 14th Amendment.

References to "Original Intent" of Natural Born in 1787 became moot once the 14th Amendment's clear definition was passed in 1868. Our common legal opinions of Original Intent of Natural Born are irrelevant if they conflict with the 14th Amendment. The definition of birth citizenship is now in the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, which is the highest law in the US, by definition in the Constitution also.

The 14th Amendment was written to solve a couple of problems. The 13th Amendment while it freed the slaves it did not give them US Citizenship. The 14th was passed to correct that problem AND also to give a clear definition of US Citizenship. The Supreme Court Justices in the Slaughterhouses case specifically said the 14th was also written to solve the controversy of US Citizenship which had raged in the press, law and US politics since 1790.

The very controversy we engage here was settled in 1868.

I have read many recent articles from legal experts from several different sources and the vast majority never mention the 14th Amendment. Remember all Federal Law is subject to the Constitution and so is 1787 Original Intent.

The highest US Law on US Citizenship is the 14th Amendment. Yet it is almost universally overlooked in today's legal articles.

The "invisibility" of the 14th Amendment on Sen. Cruz and Sen. Rubio is a reflection of a general trend to ignore the Constitution on many other issues. The most prominent being Presidential Executive Orders or Presidential Directives or Executive Directives.

Federal Regulations derive their authority from Federal Legislation and permission of Congress. When our legislators become lazy they permit unelected bureaucrats to write detailed instructions that implement the spirit of certain parts of Legislation.

It is not clear that Congress ever reviews the Regulations which are usually written after the Legislation is passed by Congress. For example the Dodd-Frank Act had 2,500 pages of Legislation when passed in 2010. Yet it's Regulatory writing continues. The last time I looked DF was 14,500 pages long. 14,500 - 2,500 = 12,000 pages of Regulatory Text.


Congress has the power to remove or modify Regulation without cause or permission from any Federal Regulatory body. The President specifically lacks this power according to the Constitution.)