Donate

Monday, March 7, 2016

Ted Cruz: Neither a Natural Born Citizen Nor “TrusTed”



Ted Cruz:  Neither a Natural Born Citizen Nor “TrusTed”

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 5, 2016

Image result for constitutional convention of 1787  


“TrusTed” (one of his campaign slogans) Ted Cruz, born in a foreign nation to an alien father, is running for President.  Eligibility to be elected President is found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 which 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."  Since Cruz was born in 1970, he must be not only a “citizen” of the United States, but a “natural born citizen” of the United States in order to be eligible to be elected President.  So, is Cruz a natural born citizen?  The answer is “no.” 

Rules of Constitutional Construction

In interpreting what natural born citizen means, we should be reminded of what Thomas Jefferson said regarding how the Constitution should be interpreted regarding the jurisdiction of the states versus the jurisdiction of the national government:  

It may be impracticable to lay down any general formula of words which shall decide at once, and with precision in every case, this limit of jurisdiction, but there are two Canons which will guide us safely in most of the cases . . . . 2 on every question of construction [of the Constitution] carry ourselves back to the time when the constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, & instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was past" [sic]. 

Thomas Jefferson, in his letter to William Johnson, dated June 12, 1823 from Monticello.   https://www.loc.gov/resource/mtj1.053_0998_1005/?sp=7  . 

"It is never to be forgotten that in the construction of the language of the Constitution here relied on, as indeed in all other instances where construction becomes necessary, we are to place ourselves as nearly as possible in the condition of the men who framed that instrument." Ex Parte Bain, 121 U.S. 1, 12 (1887).  "[T]he enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said." Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U. S. 1, 188 (1824).  

Chief Justice John Marshall in his dissent in Ogden laid out the rule of constitutional interpretation thus: 

Much too has been said concerning the principles of construction which ought to be applied to the Constitution of the United States.

On this subject also, the Court has taken such frequent occasion to declare its opinion as to make it unnecessary, at least, to enter again into an elaborate discussion of it. To say that the intention of the instrument must prevail; that this intention must be collected from its words; that its words are to be understood in that sense in which they are generally used by those for whom the instrument was intended; that its provisions are neither to be restricted into insignificance nor extended to objects not comprehended in them, nor contemplated by its framers is to repeat what has been already said more at large and is all that can be necessary.

Odgen v. Saunders, 25 U.S. 213, 332 (1827).  The key to interpreting the Constitution and its natural born citizen clause is finding sources that are relevant to informing on the meaning the Framers and Ratifiers gave to its words and phrases and particularly that clause and how that meaning thus shaped the understanding of the people for whose benefit the Constitution was ratified.

There are also some rules that our U.S. Supreme Court has established to accomplish the task.

“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it….” Marbury v. Madison. 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1803). “In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force and appropriate meaning, for it is evident from the whole instrument that no word was unnecessarily used or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution have proved the correctness of this proposition and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning, and this principle of construction applies.”  Holmes v. Jennison, 39 U.S. 540, 570-71 (1840).  Our Supreme Court has consistently expressed "a deep reluctance to interpret a statutory provision so as to render superfluous other provisions in the same enactment." Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare v. Davenport, 495 U.S. 552, 110 S.Ct. 2126, 2133, 109 L.Ed.2d 588 (1990); International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Uaw v. Johnson Controls, Inc, 499 U.S. 187, 111 S.Ct. 1196, 1204, 113 L.Ed.2d 158 (1991) .

Hence, the “natural born citizen” clause of Article II must be given independent effect and meaning from an English “natural born subject” and from the “citizen” of the United States clause of Article I and II itself, the Fourteenth Amendment, and naturalization Act of Congress.  All Presidents must qualify as Article II natural born citizens, not only as Fourteenth Amendment or statutory citizens of the United States.  The two clauses have different and distinct meanings or they would not have their own independent life in the Constitution and Acts of Congress.  Article II says natural born citizen and the Fourteenth Amendment and Acts of Congress say citizen of the United States.  If being a citizen of the United States at birth had the same meaning as being a natural born citizen, then the natural born citizen clause would have no effect and be written out of the Constitution.  Such a construction is not admissible. If we were not to give special meaning to the clause “natural born citizen” and conclude that natural born citizen and born citizen of the United States mean the same thing, the clause natural born citizen would be superfluous. Hence, we have to give special meaning to the clause natural born citizen. 

The U.S. Supreme Court case of District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637 (2008) is very instructive in providing a list of relevant sources and methodology that our U.S. Supreme Court uses for interpreting the Constitution.  There the Court looked to the text of the Constitution itself.  It looked to the structure of the Constitution.  It looked at what state constitutions said and also the Federalist Papers.  It said that debates on the Constitution (pre-enactment statements) are not reliable when interpret the text of the Constitution.  The Court said the debates are not reliable because they do not necessarily reflect the “general understanding of disputed terms.” Rather, the Court said debates can be persuasive given that it can be argued that the people who voted on the legislation probably voted with that understanding in mind.  Id.  The Court said that post ratification commentary are “sources to determine the public understanding of a legal text in the period after its enactment or ratification.” Id.  This inquiry “is a critical tool of constitutional interpretation.”  Id.  This understanding is provided by interpreters of the constitutional provision being examined in the years following its enactment and ratification.  Id.  Apart from analyzing the text of the natural born citizen clause, the structure of the Constitution, and case law, here I will present historical evidence of the type that our courts and legal profession have always relied upon when trying to determine the meaning of a specific clause in the Constitution.  This evidence shows that the Framers and Ratifiers relied upon American common law, which incorporated the citizenship principles of the law of nations and not those of the colonial English common law, for their definition of an Article II natural born citizen.  This evidence shows and the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) confirmed that the definition under that common law upon which the Framers relied for their definition of a natural born citizen was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.  This evidence also shows that neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) or any other decision of the United States Supreme Court has ever changed that definition and therefore it still prevails today.

The Purpose of the Natural Born Citizen Clause

The original Constitution neither defines a citizen nor a natural born citizen.  The debates at both the Constitutional Convention and in the state ratifying conventions also give little information on the meaning of a natural born citizen.  As Jefferson explained in his letter of June 12, 1823, the clause’s meaning can be found in the historical context of English history and the American Revolution and what the Framers sought to accomplish through the clause.  Hence, a correct understanding of a natural born citizen cannot be had unless we analyze the purpose for which the Framers required all persons born after the adoption of the Constitution to be natural born citizens and not just citizens in order to be eligible to be President.  Any reasonable interpretation of the natural born citizen clause cannot thwart the purpose for which the Framers required future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military to be natural born citizens.  Let us now examine what that purpose was and which still has relevance today.  

During the Constitutional Convention, the delegates relied heavily upon historical precedent, emanating from ancient Greece and Rome, the English Glorious Revolution, and recent events from Holland and Germany. 

In England, because of the rules of royal succession, it was not uncommon for the King to be foreign born and therefore a foreigner. In the 1600s, the English crown was held by foreigners.  From the Stuart House, King James VI, was born in Scotland, and by succession became James I, King of England, Ireland, and Scotland.  His son, Charles I, was also born in Scotland.  The Protestant William III, from the German House of Hanover, who came to power during the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and thereby deposed the Catholic James II, was born in Holland.  Following the Glorious Revolution in 1688, two Stuart queens ruled Great Britain, Mary II and Anne (Prince Anne of Denmark), the daughters of James II and VII.  Because of their family's Catholic ties, under the provisions of the 1701 Act of Settlement and the 1704 Act of Security, the crown passed from the House of Stuart to the House of Hanover, which had its seat in Hanover, Germany.  King George I and II were both born in Hanover, Germany.  King George II was the last English monarch to be born out of Great Britain.  The colonies were under the authority of King George III, who was a descendant of the House of Hanover, but born in England.  George, in his accession speech to Parliament, proclaimed: "Born and educated in this country, I glory in the name of Britain".[1] He inserted this phrase into the speech to demonstrate his desire to distance himself from his German
forebears, who were seen as caring more for Hanover than for Britain.[2]

The English did not trust their foreign monarchs.  They deposed James II, who was a Catholic and closely allied with his cousin, Louis XIV of France.  Parliament declared in the Act of Settlement: 

2.  That in case the crown and imperial dignity of this realm shall hereafter come to any person not being a native of this kingdom of England, this nation be not obliged to engage in any war for the defence of any dominions or territories which do not belong to the crown of England, without the consent of parliament.    
     
3.  That no person who shall hereafter come to the possession of this crown shall go out of the dominion of England, Scotland, or Ireland without the consent of parliament.

***

5.  That after the said limitation shall take effect as aforesaid, no person born out of the kingdoms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, or the dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a denizen, except such as are born of English parents) shall be capable to be of the privy council, or to enjoy an office or place of trust, either civil or military, or to have any grant of lands, tenements, or hereditaments from the crown to himself or to any other or others in trust for him. [3]

Under the Act of Settlement anyone who became a Roman Catholic or who married one was disqualified to inherit the English crown.  The act also placed limits on the role of foreigners in the British government.[4]   Founders and Framers who were lawyers would have been familiar with these English statutes and come to learn how the British looked upon persons who were  foreigners.   

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 and perpetuation 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. It is not up to us now to second-guess the Framers’ policy decision.  Some want us to believe that after having fought a bloody revolution with Great Britain in order to constitute a republic based on the consent of the governed, and not wanting to return to monarchical rule, the Framers would have allowed children born after the adoption of the Constitution in the United States to British natural born subject parents or out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States to be eligible for the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military. We can ask ourselves whether the Framers would have allowed a child born after the adoption of the Constitution in the United States to English parents or out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States to be eligible to be President. It is highly unlikely that they would have.  The only way they could have prevented that was to maintain that only those children born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents were natural born citizens.  Hence, that was the Framers’ definition of the clause.  As we shall see below, the historical and legal record confirms that the Framers’ definition of a natural born citizen was just that.

The Constitutional Convention and the Natural Born Citizen Clause

The Constitutional Convention took place in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania at the Pennsylvania State House and lasted from May 25 (when a quorum of seven states was secured) to September 17, 1787.[5]  Alexander Hamilton gave a speech to the Convention on June 18, 1787.  He read to the Convention his Propositions for A Constitution of Government.  See Works of Alexander Hamilton  (page 393); 3 Max Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 617 (1911)  (Farrand).  This speech contained a sketch of a plan which has become known as the English Plan.  This plan can be read here, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_618.asp .  Hamilton’s plan was not considered because it resembled the British system, with a strong centralized government, an executive serving for life which resembled a monarch, and virtually did away with state sovereignty and consolidated the states into a single nation.  James Madison informed us in his Convention notes that “[i]t meant only to give a more correct view of his ideas, and to suggest the amendment which he should probably propose to the plan of Mr. R. in the proper stages of its future discussion.  Although this plan was not formally before the Convention in any way, several of the delegates made copies . . . Farrand.  at 617.  Hamilton proposed in his Propositions that the "supreme executive authority of the United States to be vested in a Governor. . ." and that he also be the "commander-in-chief. . ."  In this initial sketch, Hamilton did not include any eligibility requirements for the supreme executive authority who he would call the President rather than Governor in his later draft of the Constitution.  In his speech to the Convention, Hamilton advocated an executive for life.  The reason that he gave for such a life position was the following:  “The Hereditary interest of the King was so interwoven with that of the Nation, and his personal emoluments so great, that he was placed above the danger of being corrupted from abroad-and at the same time was both sufficiently independent and sufficiently controuled, to answer the purpose of the institution at home. one of the weak sides of Republics was their being liable to foreign influence & corruption. Men of little character, acquiring great power become easily the tools of intermedling Neibours.”  Id.  Here we can see that Hamilton was very concerned with the harm that could be done to the nation by an executive who was corrupted by foreign influence and intrigue.

This “sketch of a plan of government” was not formally presented to the Convention, but delegates, including James Madison, had various copies of this plan.  Farrand, at 617.  This plan does not include Hamilton’s “born a citizen” language which he included in his later draft of a constitution. 

Before we go forward, let us consider who John Jay is.  John Jay (1745-1829) was a Founding Father who served as the first chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.  He also held other top government posts.  He was a native of New York and drafted that state’s first constitution in 1777.  The following year, he was chosen president of the Continental Congress. He then became U.S. minister to Spain.  He also helped broker the 1783 Treaty of Paris which ended the Revolutionary War. President Washington appointed Jay the Supreme Court’s first chief justice in 1789.  With the 1794 Jay Treaty he was able to avert war with Great Britain.  He also served as governor of New York for six years and then retired from public office.

A Committee of Detail met during the July 4 recess and produced a rough draft of the Constitution. 

On July 25, 1787, about five weeks after Hamilton’s June 18 speech, John Jay wrote a letter to then-General Washington, who was acting as president of the Constitutional Convention, stating:  "Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen" (“born” underlined in the original).
http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29 .  John Jay reminded George Washington of the importance of remanding back to the original concerns of the people and offered his presentation, to which George Washington offered, verbatim, to the convention.  Alexander Heard and Michael Nelson, Presidential Selection 123 (Duke University Press 1987) via Google Books.

Jay demanded that there be a "strong check" on foreign influence infiltrating the national government in general and the Office of Commander in Chief of the Military specifically.  A natural born subject, whether under English common law or naturalization Acts of Parliament, both of which permitted dual and conflicting allegiance at birth, did not provide that strong check on foreign influence for which Jay was looking.  

On July 26, 1787, the Constitutional Convention instructed the Committee of Detail to come up with qualifications for the offices of members of Congress and the President.  2 Farrand, at 116-17, 121-25.  The Committee produced a report on August 6, but it only contained qualifications for Representatives and Senators, and the President was elected by the Legislature.  Id. at 177-79, 185.  The Convention took these issues up again on August 13.  Elbridge Gerry expressed his concern over foreigners allowed into the new government.[6]  Mr. Gerry made a motion which the Convention adopted on August 20 that the Committee be instructed to report back qualifications for the Office of President.  Id. at 337, 344.   On August 22, the Committee proposed that the President “shall be of the age of thirty five years, and a Citizen of the United States, and shall have been an Inhabitant thereof for Twenty one years.”  Id. at 366-67.  The Convention did not act upon the Committee’s report regarding eligibility for the Office of President.  On August 31, the Convention agreed to refer all open matters that had yet to be agreed upon to a Committee of Eleven, which had one member from each of the represented states.    


The Committee of Eleven presented a draft of the Constitution on September 4, 1787, about six weeks after Jay’s letter and just two days after Washington wrote back to Jay.  For the first time, it was proposed in a draft of the Constitution that the President be elected by the Electoral College, and not by the legislature.  This was seen as a way to protect the Office of President from foreign influence and corruption to which the legislature was subject.  It was believed by Madison that it would be much more difficult for the Electoral College to be so corrupted.  But the Committee of Eleven went even further.  While the Committee on Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a “Citizen of the United States,” as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven in a proposal that immediately followed that of the Electoral College (that of the Electoral College was number “(4)”) only grandfathered the status of a "Citizen” of the United States and required future presidents to be a "natural born citizen."  This was a stronger form of citizenship which the Committee linked only to the singular Office of President and Commander in Chief, to be satisfied by those born after the adoption of the Constitution.  There is no recorded explanation for the addition of natural born citizen.  Here is the first style of the clause as presented by the Committee of Eleven:

(5) 'Sect. 2. No person except a natural born citizen or a Citizen of the U. S. at the time of the adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the office of President; nor shall any person be elected to that office, who shall be under the age of thirty five years, and who has not been in the whole, at least fourteen years a resident within the U. S.'

Id. at 493-94, 498;  Madison's notes of the Convention http://www.nhccs.org/dfc-0904.txt .

The natural born citizen proposal passed unanimously without debate on September 7 (Id. at 536), which does not mean that the proposal was not discussed, for the convention meetings were conducted in secrecy. 

The draft of the Constitution then passed to the Committee on Style which was tasked with producing the final version of the Constitution.  The Committee of Style then gave the finishing touches to the clause and adopted it without debate.  The Convention then accepted it on September 17, 1787 and sent it to the states for ratification.  Id. at 574, 598. 

Yinger provides this summary of what transpired at the Convention: 

In one sense, the switch to the Electoral College lowered the need for explicit presidential qualifications because it minimized the line of potential foreign influence running through the Legislature. In another sense, however, this switch broke the clear connection between the citizenship requirements of legislators and the selection of the President, and therefore boosted the symbolic importance of a citizenship requirement for the President. This change in context, along with the Convention's decision to make the President the commander-in-chief of the army, gave new weight to the arguments in Jay's letter, and in particular to the suggestion in that letter that the presidency be restricted to "natural born" citizens. When Jay's letter arrived, probably sometime before August 13, the Convention was not ready to deal with it, and indeed was somewhat hostile to its ideas. But between August 31 and September 4, when the Committee of Eleven did its work, the context changed and the seed that Jay had planted bore fruit.(37)

Yinger, at 5-6. 

At the close of the Convention, Hamilton gave to Madison another document which does contain in Article IX provision for the election of a President and the “born a citizen” language for eligibility.  Ferrand wrote that Hamilton gave this “paper” to Madison at the end of the Convention and that Hamilton “would have wished to be proposed by the Convention:  He had stated the principles of it in the course of the deliberations.”  p. 619.   Farrand also wrote that Hamilton’s paper “was not submitted to the Convention and has no further value than attaches to the personal opinions of Hamilton.”  p. 619.  This draft of the Constitution is not to be confused with his sketch of a plan of government (the British Plan) which he read to the Convention on June 18, 1787.

Elliott’s Debates has additional information on this proposed constitution.  He explains: 

No. 5.

Copy of a Paper communicated to James Madison by Col. Hamilton, about the close of Convention in Philadelphia, 1787, which, he said, delineated the Constitution which be would have wished to be proposed by the Convention. He had stated the principles of it in the course of the deliberations.

Note.— The caption, as well as the copy of the following paper, is in the hand-writing of Mr. Madison, and the whole manuscript, and the paper on which it is written, corresponds with the debates in the Convention with which it was preserved. The document was placed in Mr. Madison’s hands for preservation by Col. Hamilton, who regarded it as a permanent evidence of his opinion on the subject. But as he did not express his intention, at the time, that the original should be kept, Mr. Madison returned it, informing him that he had retained a copy. It appears, however, from a communication of the Rev. Dr. Mason to Dr. Eustis, (see letter of Dr. Eustis to J Madison, 28th April, 1819,) that the original remained among the papers left by Col. Hamilton.

In a letter to Mr. Pickering, dated Sept. 16 1803, (see Pitkin’s History, Vol. 2, p. 259—60) Col Hamilton was under the erroneous impression that this paper limited the duration of the presidential term to three years. This instance of the fallibility of Col. Hamilton’s memory, as well as his erroneous distribution of the numbers of the “Federalists” among the different writers for that work, it has been the lot of Mr. Madison to rectify; and it became incumbent, in the present instance, from the contents of the plan having been seen by others, (previously as well its subsequently to the publication of Col. Hamilton’s letter,) that it, also, should be published.

Elliott’s Debates:  Volume 5 Appendix to the Debates of the Federal Convention, Note 5.  http://teachingamericanhistory.org/ratification/elliot/vol5/appendix/

This subsequent draft of a constitution provided that the President be then a citizen of one of the States or thereafter be “born a citizen of the United States.”  Article IX Sec. 1 in Appendix F of the Hamilton Plan of 1787 read:  “No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a citizen of the United States.”

Hamilton gave his paper to Madison before the convention came to an end which we know occurred on September 17, 1787, the date the delegates signed the Constitution.  Hamilton served on committees that drafted convention rules and provided for writing style.  We can reasonably assume that since the document was in the hands of these two influential Founders and Framers, they would have discussed Hamilton’s presidential citizenship proposal with others making decisions at that time.  While we do not know exactly what happened during the convention regarding Hamilton’s “now a citizen of one of the States” and “hereafter be born a citizen of the United States,” we do know that they were both rejected and “natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution[]” was accepted.  We can see that the Framers did not accept merely being a citizen of a state.  They required that for those who could demonstrate that they had that status as of the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the President at a minimum had to be a citizen of the United States.  For those born after the adoption of the Constitution, their standard was more stringent than Hamilton’s born a citizen of the United States.  They required more than just being born a citizen of the United States.  Rather, they demanded that future presidents and commanders be natural born citizens of the United States.  As we can see from the Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, Congress was given naturalization powers which included the power to make citizens of the United States from the moment of birth and after birth.  But Congress was not given any power to make actual “natural born citizens.”  Hence, a natural born citizen would have to come into being through no positive law.[7]  A natural born citizen would have to come into being through his or her birth circumstances alone.  Congress could extend the privileges, immunities, and rights of a natural born citizen to persons that it would naturalize in the future.  But Congress could not extend to those persons the privilege of being eligible to be President which the Constitution only granted to actual natural born citizens.  

Hamilton did provide his paper containing the “born a citizen of the United States” language to James Madison.  Additionally, he most likely also discussed his paper with other Convention delegates, even if he did not submit his paper to the Convention.  Ferrand stated that Hamilton “had stated the principles of it in the course of the deliberations” of the Convention.  Id. at 619.  It is hard to accept that Hamilton would have gone through all that effort to draft that proposed constitution and not share its principles with the Convention delegates prior to the end of the Convention.  Hence, enough delegates probably knew about Hamilton’s “born a citizen of the United States,” but no one made any suggestion that the Constitution read “born a citizen of the United States” rather than “natural born citizen.”

Additionally, it does appear as though the Committee of Eleven was influenced by Hamilton’s language or his ideas given that it did add a grandfather clause (Hamilton said “now a citizen of one of the States”) which, while not accepting “now” a citizen of one of the states, allowed for a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution to be eligible to be President.  It also appears as though the same Committee was influenced by his “born a citizen of the United States,” although they accepted Jay’s “natural born citizen” and not just “born a citizen of the United States.”  

What is critical to understand about the Hamilton “born a citizen” language is that it shows that he did not request that the President be a “natural born citizen.”  So he knew that the definition of the clause was a child born in the country to citizen parents.  By advocating born a citizen, anyone who was made a citizen from the moment of birth by positive law such as an Act of Congress would have been eligible to be President.  This would have included children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents and even children born in the United States to alien parents who should by positive law be made citizens from the moment of birth.  But the Convention adopted “natural born citizen,” a word of art, and not “born a citizen,” a mere description, which means that the delegates wanted a more stringent standard than just born a citizen.  Given the meaning of the word of art natural born citizen, that standard was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens. 

Defining a Natural Born Citizen and All Those Who Are Not

A citizen is a member of a nation originally made by associating with others to form that nation and thereafter by birth alone or by naturalization through positive law. As to those citizens made by birth alone, they are the natural born citizens, so made by their birth circumstances alone.  Given their birth circumstances, they do not need a nation to confer upon them at birth or after birth its nationality or citizenship by any means.  Those birth circumstances, as confirmed by the law of nations and American national common law, are birth in the county 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, 88 U.S. at 167-68) (“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.”  Minor held that a natural born citizen did not need the Fourteenth Amendment or any other law to be a citizen of the United States); accord Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S.  at 665) ("The child of an alien, if born in the country, is [by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment] as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle").  As to the other citizens, they are so made by the naturalizing force of positive laws. In the United States, these positive laws are, in addition to the Fourteenth Amendment, naturalization Acts of Congress and treaties.

Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) provides:  “(a) As used in this chapter--. . . (23) The term ‘naturalization’ means the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever."  But this is a definition of naturalization only for purposes of “this chapter,” which has specific consequences connected to whether someone obtains U.S. citizenship at birth or after birth.  It is a definition of the term that Congress is applying to “a state,” which means to any nation in the world. This is not the broad definition of the term as used in the Constitution.  Under the Constitution, any person who is not a common law natural born citizen is an “alien or foreigner” and in need of naturalization by any means whatsoever.   Minor, 88 U.S. at 167-68.  This includes persons who are born in the United States to one or two alien parents or born out of the United States and its jurisdiction, regardless of the citizenship of the parents.  As to those children born in the United States to one or two alien parents, they are made citizens of the United States at birth specifically by the Fourteenth Amendment, which incorporates the English common law jus soli rule of citizenship and its naturalizing force.  See Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 214, called “Naturalisation,” where he stated:   “Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstances of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.”  As to those children born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, if born to one or two U.S. citizen parents, they are made citizens of the United States at birth by Congress through its naturalization Acts. 

Application to Ted Cruz

"Trusted" Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada in 1970, says he did not know until 2013 that he was a Canadian citizen.  The Dallas Morning News reported on August 19, 2013:  “Sen. Ted Cruz acknowledged late Monday that he probably has been a lifelong Canadian, and vowed to renounce that citizenship now that he realizes he’s had it.” “‘The Dallas Morning News says that I may technically have dual citizenship,’ he said in a statement. ‘Assuming that is true, then sure, I will renounce any Canadian citizenship. Nothing against Canada, but I’m an American by birth and as a U.S. Senator, I believe I should be only an American.’”  The newspaper further reported:  “Cruz was born in Calgary, Alberta, on Dec. 22, 1970. His mother is a lifelong U.S. citizen. His father, born in Cuba, remained a Cuban citizen until he was naturalized as an American in 2005. When Cruz was born, his parents were living in Canada, where they had opened a seismic-data business in the oil patch. Cruz lived in Canada until he was 4 years old, and spent the rest of his childhood in Texas. . . . Under Canadian law, his birth on Canadian soil made him a natural born Canadian.  Under U.S. law, his mother’s citizenship made him a U.S. citizen from birth. Both countries allow for dual citizenship.”  http://www.dallasnews.com/news/local-news/20130819-sen.-ted-cruz-to-renounce-canadian-citizenship.ece

Generally, under Canada's Citizenship Act of 1947, those born in Canada were automatically citizens at birth unless their parent was a foreign diplomat. So, Ted Cruz, the lawyer who graduated from Harvard Law School and who successfully argued cases before the U.S. Supreme Court, who got a passport in 1986 so that he could travel to Great Britain for a high school class trip, who is a U.S. Senator, who knew that one born in the United States while subject to its jurisdiction (which includes birth to alien parents) is a citizen of the United States, who knew that one who is born in the United States who leaves the U.S. even for one minute after his birth is still a U.S. citizen, who knew that in the United States one can get a U.S. passport by presenting a U.S. birth certificate showing that one was born in the United States, who knew that his father was born in Cuba and that his place of birth made him a Cuban citizen, who knew that his mother was born in the United States and that her place of birth made her a U.S. citizen, and who knew that he himself was born in Canada (the place of his birth) to parents neither of whom were foreign diplomats, did not know that his being born in Canada made him a Canadian citizen? Now really? 

Furthermore, maybe Senator Cruz, Chairman of the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Space, Science and Competitiveness, can tell us what he knows about persons born in foreign countries getting a security clearance from the U.S. Government. Cruz said that “as a U.S. Senator, I believe I should be only an American,” but he did not disclose to the people of Texas that he was a citizen of Canada at birth when he ran for that office.  This is even with U.S. Senators, among the various responsibilities they have relative to U.S. relations with foreign nations, being called upon to vote on treaties with foreign nations.  In 2014, after being confronted by the public media about his Canadian birthright citizenship, Cruz did renounce that Canadian citizenship with which he was born.  That was 18 months after he took the oath of office as a U.S. Senator.  But Cruz, born to a Cuban citizen father, was also born potentially a Cuban citizen at birth.  To date, he has not mentioned his potential Cuban citizenship at birth, even though he could have qualified through his Cuban father for that citizenship under the Cuban Constitution.[8] What have Cruz’s activities been in the U.S. Senate relative to the United States normalizing relations with Cuba?  I am not faulting and never would fault Cruz for his birth circumstances.  But a U.S. Senator and President, acting in a public capacity, has to disclose to the public what his or her private interest via-a-vis a foreign nation may be. 

Regardless of what Cruz knew or did not know about his Canadian citizenship, Cruz was born in Canada presumably to a U.S. citizen mother, but to a non-U.S. citizen father.  Hence, he was not born in the country to parents who were its citizens, which means that he is not nor can he be a citizen through his birth circumstances alone. Rather, he is what Minor called an “alien or foreigner” in need of naturalization.[9] Therefore, he is not nor can he be a natural born citizen. Not being a natural born citizen, for him to be a citizen he needed the aid of a positive law, which in his case is a naturalization Act of Congress.  He was not born in the United States and so he could not rely upon the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides the floor standard of citizenship for those born in the United States, requiring that they be at least born subject to its jurisdiction.  Being born in a foreign country, he had to rely upon a naturalization Act of Congress, without which Cruz would have been born an alien.  This means that Cruz is at best a naturalized "citizen" of the United States "at birth," so made only by a naturalization Act of Congress (in his case it is the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952[10]). Congress through a naturalization Act made Cruz a citizen of the United States “at birth,” meaning that he did not have to go through any naturalization process after birth.[11]  But still, it is only because of this naturalization Act that his birth circumstances allowed him to be a citizen of the United States at birth. In other words, Cruz's birth circumstances alone would have made him an alien and not a citizen. It is only by virtue of that naturalization Act which took up his birth circumstances and allowed him to become a citizen at birth.  He therefore is not and cannot be a “natural” born citizen.

Cruz and his supporters proclaim that the Framers would have accepted Cruz as a true natural born citizen because of how the First Congress treated persons such as him in the Naturalization Act of 1790.[12] First, Congress does not have the constitutional power to make anyone a natural born citizen.  In matters of citizenship, the Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 gives to Congress only the power [t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . throughout the United States.”  This naturalization power does not include the power to make anyone a natural born citizen, who does not need any naturalization Act of Congress or any other law to be a citizen.   Congress was not given any powers to bestow citizenship upon anyone through any process other than naturalization.  Hence, if Congress made those foreign-born children citizens of the United States, it did so only through its naturalization powers. 

Second, that Act is a naturalization Act of Congress and surely a natural born citizen does not need a naturalization Act of Congress to be a "natural" born citizen.

Third, the Act provided:  “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.  And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens.”  Congress treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens who could naturalize as citizens of the United States upon their parents naturalization if done during their children’s minority and when they shall be dwelling in the United States.  This was consistent with the definition of a natural born citizen which provided that only children born in the country to parents who were citizens were natural born citizens and therefore also ipso facto citizens of the United States.  As to children born out of the United States, the Act said that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents (both father and mother had to be U.S. citizens) "shall be considered as natural born citizens of the United States." Hence, it only treated children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents for all intents and purposes as natural born citizens, meaning that it gave by statute to those children the same privileges, immunities, and rights enjoyed by true natural born citizens which under the Constitution could not include the privilege of being President.

Fourth, Congress, under the leadership of James Madison and with the approval of President Washington, repealed that Act in 1795, when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1795,[13] which provided in Section 3:  “And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”  As we can see, Congress, again consistent with the definition of a natural born citizen, treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens, allowing them to become citizens of the United States upon their parents naturalizing if done during their children’s minority and if those children shall be dwelling in the United States.  It also surgically removed the "shall be considered as natural born citizens” language of the 1790 Act and replaced it with "shall be considered as citizens of the United States." What is critical to understand is that Congress treated children who naturalized after birth and those who became citizens at birth by birth out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents the same, i.e., as “citizens of the United States.”  Congress clearly informed that those children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents were not to be accepted as natural born citizens, but rather as citizens of the United States, like children who become citizens through naturalization after birth.  Congress has never again used the natural born citizen language in any of its naturalization Acts. Rather, it has since 1795 told us that any person becoming a citizen under one of its naturalization Acts is a citizen of the United States. It is amazing that those who rely upon the 1790 Act to demonstrate that Cruz is a natural born citizen omit from their story that Congress repealed that Act in 1795 and in the 1795 Act said that those children shall be considered as citizens of the United States and not as natural born citizens. 
  
Fifth, Cruz was born to an alien father which means that he could not benefit from the 1790 Act which required a child born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States be born, not only to a U.S. citizen mother but also to a U.S. citizen father to be bestowed U.S. citizenship at birth.  The 1790 Act, along with that of 1795 and 1802, also required that the citizen father be a resident of the United States prior to his child’s birth.  Not until 1934 could someone like Cruz, born in a foreign country to a U.S. citizen mother and alien father, become a citizen of the United States.[14]  Somebody born under the birth circumstances of a Ted Cruz, born in a foreign country presumably to a U.S. citizen mother and to an alien father, was not even a citizen of the United States let alone a natural born citizen of the United States until 1934, when Congress passed a naturalization Act for the first time allowing children born out of the United States to a U.S. citizen mother and to an alien father to qualify as a citizen of the United States.   Cruz and his supporters also hide this little inconvenient truth from the public. Surely, we are not to reasonably believe that someone born under the same birth circumstances as Cruz, who was under the Constitution and under the naturalization Acts of Congress an alien from 1776 until 1934 and only become a citizen in 1934, could be a natural born citizen. 

Cruz is correct that if he wants to be President and Commander in Chief, he has to be “only an American.”  But for a natural born citizen, that status starts at birth, not at age 43, which is when Cruz renounced the foreign citizenship with which he was born.  

The Founders and Framers wrote the Constitution in a way that best provided for the protection of our unalienable rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. They sought to do that by giving us a constitutional republic and providing for the survival and preservation of that republic. In the governmental scheme that they gave us, they provided for the Office of President and Commander in Chief, a singular and all-powerful office involving the concentration of both civilian and military power into one person. Because of such concentration of power in one individual, the Framers recognized that such offices also presented great risk to the republic and its people. They therefore gave us the “natural born Citizen” clause as one basis for eligibility to such offices. Through the natural born citizen clause, they instructed us that such power must fall into the hands of a person who can be trusted with it to the greatest degree possible and that such guarantee is of much greater importance to the survival and preservation of the constitutional republic than the fleeting politics and personal favor of having one person necessarily occupy that office. What is profound is that the Founders and Framers put their trust in “Nature and Nature’s God”[15] and not in political and legal institutions to accomplish that end. 

This historical and legal evidence, not meant to be exhaustive, provides a clear picture that Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President.[16]  So, is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen and to be “TrusTed?”  I think not. 

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
March 7, 2016
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Copyright © 2016
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved 
 



ENDNOTES:

[1] John Brooke, King George III 612 (1972). 

[2] Brooke, at 156; Simms, Brendan, Riotte, Torsten, The Hanoverian Dimension in British History, 1774-1837, p. 58 (2007). 

[3] 12 and 13 Will. III, c. 2. 

[4] Following the Perth Agreement in 2011, on March 26, 2015, legislation amending the act came into effect across the Commonwealth realms. Today people who marry Catholics are eligible to the British throne.

[5]  For an excellent discussion of the Constitutional Convention and the natural born citizen clause, see John Yinger, The Origins and Interpretation of the Presidential Eligibility Clause in the U.S. Constitution:  Why Did the Founding Fathers Want the President to be a “Natural Born Citizen” and What Does this Clause Mean for Foreign-Born Adoptees,? available at http://faculty.maxwell.syr.edu/jyinger/citizenship/history.htm

[6] Historian Richard B. Morris writes:  “Jay’s ‘anti-foreigners’ proposal appears to have been reflected in the motion that Elbridge Gerry made on the floor of the Convention in August.”  Richard B. Morris, Witnesses at the Creation:  Hamilton, Madison, Jay and the Constitution 189-90 (1985). 

[7] The concept of "positive law" has existed since the beginning of ordered legal systems. Positive law includes constitutions, statutes, case law, and any other law adopted by whatever sovereign has power to make law at any given moment in time.  It has been said by many political and legal philosophers throughout the ages that positive law has its origin in what man perceives to be natural law and God's law, or what Thomas Jefferson in The Declaration of Independence called “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God,” meaning the laws of nature and the laws of nature's God. 

[8]   The Cuban Constitution provides in pertinent part: 

CHAPTER II. CITIZENSHIP

Article 28: Cuban citizenship is acquired by birth or through naturalization. Article 29: Cuban citizens by birth are:
a) those born in national territory, with the exception of the children of foreign persons at the service of their government or international organizations. In the case of the children of temporary foreign residents in the country, the law stipulates the requisites and formalities;
b) those born abroad, one of whose parents at least is Cuban and on an official mission;
c) those born abroad, one of whose parents at least is Cuban, who have complied with the formalities stipulated by law;
d) those born outside national territory, one of whose parents at least is Cuban and who lost their Cuban citizenship provide they apply for said citizenship according to the procedures stated by law;
e) foreigners who, by virtue of their exceptional merits won in the struggles for Cuba’s liberation, were considered Cuban citizens by birth.


[9]  With respect to children born out of the United States, Wong Kim Ark explained that such children can be citizens of the United States only if Congress makes them so through a naturalization Act and if it does not, those children are aliens.  United States v. Perkins, 17 Fed. Supp. 177 (D.D.C. 1936); Schaufus v. Attorney General, 45 Fed. Supp. 61 (1942); Zimmer v. Acheson, 191 Fed.2d 209 (10th Cir. 1951); Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961); Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971); and Miller v. Albright, 523 U.S. 420 (1998), later all observed the same.  They all said that such children could be citizens of the United States only through a naturalization Act of Congress, and that without such Act, such children would be aliens.  

[10] The naturalization statute that made Cruz a citizen of the United States at birth, section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.  Section 301, effective on December 24, 1952, provided:  

SEC. 301. (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.

Sec. 301(a)(7) required a U.S. citizen mother when the father is 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 requirement remained in effect from 12:01 a.m. EDT December 24, 1952, through midnight November 13, 1986, and still applies to persons born during that period. Section 301(a)(7) was amended by Public Law 103-416 on October 25, 1994, creating section INA 301(g), which uses this language with respect to the amount of time that a person’s U.S. citizen mother has to be physically present in the United States prior to giving birth to her child out of the United States:  “not less than five years, at least two of which were after attaining the age of fourteen years.”  See 8 U.S.C. Section 1401(g). It is settled law that the naturalization statute of Congress that was in effect at the time of one's birth is the statute that controls whether one is a U.S. citizen or not.  Please note that given that Barack Obama was born on August 4, 1961 to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father, if he was not born in the United States he would be an alien, for his mother was only 18 years old at the time of his birth. 

[11] Under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 (Public Law No: 106-395) foreign-born adoptees become citizens of the United States as soon as their adoptions are finalized, with no need for them to go through any separate naturalization process after their birth.  Under the logic of the thesis that any person who becomes a citizen of the United States without having to go through any naturalization process after birth is a natural born citizen, these adoptees would not be “naturalized” citizens and therefore natural born citizens.  But still, S. 2128 was proposed to confirm that they were to be treated as natural-born citizens.  S. 2128 provided a definition of a natural born citizen that included foreign-born adoptees.  Congress never passed this bill.  This example further shows that we do not arrive at who is and who is not a natural born citizen by manipulating the definition of “naturalization.”  Rather, we arrive at it by showing that one does or does not satisfy the sufficient and necessary conditions of being a natural born citizen which are born or reputed born in the country to parents who were its citizens.   

[12] United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” (March 26, 1790).

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, 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.  And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens:  Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States:  Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any States, shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid, except by an Act of the Legislature of the State in which such person was proscribed.

Sess. II, Chap. 3; 1 stat 103, 1st Congress; March 26, 1790.

[13] United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform rule of Naturalization; and to repeal the act heretofore passed on that subject” (January 29, 1795).

For carrying into complete effect the power given by the constitution, to establish an uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States:

SEC.1.  Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any alien, being a free white person, may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States, or any of them, on the following conditions, and not otherwise: --

First.  He shall have declared, on oath or affirmation, before the supreme, superior, district, or circuit court of some one of the states, or of the territories northwest or south of the river Ohio, or a circuit or district court of the United States, three years, at least, before his admission, that it was bona fide, his intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce forever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly, by name, the prince, potentate, state or sovereignty whereof such alien may, at that time, be a citizen or subject.

Secondly.  He shall, at the time of his application to be admitted, declare on oath or affirmation before some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided within the United States, five years at least, and within the state or territory, where such court is at the time held, one year at least; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name, the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court.

Thirdly.  The court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States five years; and it shall further appear to their satisfaction, that during that time, he has behaved as a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same.

Fourthly.  In case the alien applying to be admitted to citizenship shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility, in the kingdom or state from which he came, he shall, in addition to the above requisites, make an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, in the court to which his application shall be made; which renunciation shall be recorded in the said court.

SEC. 2.  Provided always, and be it further enacted, That any alien now residing within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States may be admitted to become a citizen on his declaring, on oath or affirmation, in some one of the courts aforesaid, that he has resided two years, at least, within and under the jurisdiction of the same, and one year, at least, within the state or territory where such court is at the time held; that he will support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever, and particularly by name the prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty, whereof he was before a citizen or subject; and moreover, on its appearing to the satisfaction of the court, that during the said term of two years, he has behaved as a man of good moral character, attached to the constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same; and when the alien applying for admission to citizenship, shall have borne any hereditary title, or been of any of the orders of nobility in the kingdom or state from which he came, on his moreover making in the court an express renunciation of his title or order of nobility, before he shall be entitled to such admission; all of which proceedings, required in this proviso to be performed in the court, shall be recorded by the clerk thereof.

SEC. 3.  And be it further enacted, that the children of persons duly naturalized, dwelling within the United States, and being under the age of twenty-one years, at the time of such naturalization, and the children of citizens of the United States, born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, shall be considered as citizens of the United States:   Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons, whose fathers have never been resident of the United States:  Provided also, That no person heretofore proscribed by any state, or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war, shall be admitted a citizen as foresaid, without the consent of the legislature of the state, in which such person was proscribed.

SEC. 4.  And be it further enacted, That the Act intituled, “An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization,” passed the twenty-sixth day of March, one thousand seven hundred and ninety, be, and the same is hereby repealed.

Sess. II, Chap. 19, 20; 1 stat 414, 3rd Congress; January 29, 1795.

[14]   The Naturalization Act of 1790 required that the foreign-born child be born to “citizens” and that the father be a resident of the United States prior to the child’s birth, meaning that the child had to be born to a father and mother who were U.S. citizens in order for that child to be considered as a natural born citizen.  Cruz was born only to a U.S. citizen mother.  Not being born also to a U.S. citizen father, Cruz would not have been a citizen of the United States under the early naturalization Acts of Congress (1790, 1795, 1805, and 1855) and was made a citizen only because Congress eventually did away with the common law doctrine of coverture (allowing husbands and wives to have their own citizenship rather than wives acquiring that of their husbands) in 1922 with the Cable Act of 1922 (ch. 411, 42 Stat. 1021, "Married Women's Independent Nationality Act").  If born between 1802 and 1855 to U.S. citizen parents who acquired that status after 1802, Cruz, born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, would under the Naturalization Act of 1802 not even be a citizen of the United States, let alone a natural born citizen of the United States.  Cruz got lucky because Congress in 1934 passed a naturalization Act (Act of May 24, 1934, § 1, 48 Stat. 797) which for the first time allowed a person born in a foreign country to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father to be a citizen of the United States.  That naturalization rule was carried forward in the Nationality Act of 1940 (H.R. 9980; Pub.L. 76-853; 54 Stat. 1137, enacted October 14, 1940) and the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 (Pub.L. 82–414, 66 Stat. 163, enacted June 27, 1952), the latter being the statute in effect when Cruz was born and without which or without those of 1934 and 1940, Cruz would have been born an alien. 

[15] “When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.”  Declaration of Independence, Preamble. 

[16] Marco Rubio is also not a natural born citizen.  Somebody born under the birth circumstances of a Marco Rubio, born in the United States to alien parents, was not even a citizen of the United States, let alone a natural born citizen of the United States, until the 1898 U.S. Supreme Court decision of Wong Kim Ark, which made such persons citizens of the United States from the moment of birth. The U.S. Supreme Court in The Slaughterhouse Cases, 83 U.S. 36, 72-73 (1873) had said they were not even citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment. (“The phrase, ‘subject to its jurisdiction’ was intended to exclude from its operation children of ministers, consuls, and citizens or subjects of foreign States born within the United States.”)  Minor, which 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, had explained that "there have been doubts" whether such children were even just citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.  The purpose of this article has been to further focus on Ted Cruz’s ineligibility to be President rather than on Marco Rubio’s.  For full details on how Rubio is not a natural born citizen, see my many articles and comments at my blog, http://puzo1.blogspot.com

261 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   1 – 200 of 261   Newer›   Newest»
cfkerchner said...

Another excellent and powerfully written and accurate legal treatise by Atty Apuzzo on "natural born Citizen" (NBC) which thoroughly debunks Ted Cruz's deceptive and lying claim to being a "natural born Citizen" and Cruz's statements that it is settled law for hundreds of years that he is a NBC. Ted Cruz is NOT to be "TrustTed"! Bravo Zulu to Atty Apuzzo. Keep up the excellent writing. Submit one of your legal treatise or a specially written one to a couple of law college law journals. Your expertise on Article II Section 1 Clause 5 deserves publication in a peer reviewed law journal so all the academic legal world can learn of your wisdom on this subject an the truth about "natural born Citizen" to constitutional standards. CDR Kerchner (Ret) - http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

Leo Derosia said...

A ny judge threw out a ballot challenge case today, shocking. He did not want to cause chaos and confusion, glad to see our judges are such dishonest cowards. No judge will ever side against cruz, rubio or Obama

Robert Pilchman said...

I previously had posted "There’s some sort of challenge to Cruz / Rubio being on the ballot in NY. Wednesday, I submitted a request to the Court to submit an amicus brief regarding natural born Citizen. It was denied without prejudice; the Court apparently left open the possibility that if the Court should determine it has the authority to grant "the requested relief" - "the Court to direct briefing on the substantive issue" - then I may resubmit my request for Amicus brief. ... "

Leo --- Based on what you said the judge apparently dismissed the case. Although, I don't have the decision in front of me, I suspect the judge did NOT dismiss the case based on the meaning of natural born Citizen. Indeed, if the Republican party wanted to nominate a twenty year old etc. what law would prohibit them? I mean the U.S. constitution talks about eligibility for the presidency - not for some private organization. The Illinois decision was apparently egregious because of the erroneous elucidation of natural born Citizen. Perhaps that's why Trump only threatened a lawsuit but warned the democrats will sue because the general election is for the actual office of the presidency - not just for some private party's nomination. But ultimately, I plead ignorance because I haven't researched the election law of NY ( http://codes.findlaw.com/ny/election-law/eln-sect-6-122.html ). Another question I wonder is whether a state court can enforce federal law including U.S. Constitutional law. Sometimes federal courts apparently enforce state law via supplemental jurisdiction.

Another issue - Given a horrific scenario - if Hillary would be the Democrat nominee and Cruz the Republican nominee then what should a voter do? I mean the reason or a reason for natural born Citizen is reportedly because of national security; so if Hillary would win wouldn't it also be a major national security concern??? TO A CERTAIN EXTENT THE PEOPLE ARE RESPONSIBLE BECAUSE THE PEOPLE DON'T SEEM TO KNOW OR TO CARE. TRUMP RAISED THE ISSUE AND IT SEEMS LIKE MOST PEOPLE DON'T CARE. I MEAN VOTING FOR AN OFFICE - ESPECIALLY THE PRESIDENCY IS A CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY. THERE ARE WEB SITES LIKE MARIO'S ... WITH SOME INVESTMENT IN TIME AND A DESIRE FOR TRUTH PEOPLE SHOULD AT LEAST BE ABLE TO OBTAIN SOME SENSE - EVEN IF ONE JUST GOES TO WIKIPEDIA. Part of the problem is the living constitution perspective apparently allows judges to play games ...

Stan said...

Thank you for this article, Mario. Clear, and though not exhaustive, comprehensive enough to make the case undeniable.

We need to get the nation back under the rule of law just as soon as possible. The Usurper should not be given any more rope. Unless it is to hang himself by.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Robert,

State courts are bound by federal law that is controlling on federal law matters that impact their state. Hence, state courts have power to enforce federal law that impacts upon persons subject to its jurisdiction. At the same time, the U.S. Supreme Court is the final authority on the federal matter, just as it is for the lower federal courts.

The New York court decided the New York ballot challenge strictly on procedural grounds. It did not reach any substantive issue such as the meaning of a natural born citizen and whether Cruz or Rubio satisfy that definition. Of course, Cruz, Rubio, and Obama supporters will not tell the public that.

ajtelles said...

At Birth vs. Age 43

Mario,

Another excellent clarification with a pertinent and succinct conclusion.

In the third paragraph from the end you wrote:

>> "Cruz is correct that if he wants to be President and Commander in Chief,
>> he has to be “only an American.”

>> But for a natural born citizen,
>> that status starts at birth,
>> not at age 43,
>> which is when Cruz renounced the foreign citizenship with which he was born."

<<>>

My observation is also succinct.

Since a natural born citizen with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship does not need to renounce foreign citizenship at any age since natural born Citizen status is , isn't it a kissin' cousin to a lie, if not an outright lie, to say that renouncing foreign citizenship is good nuf' for government work, whether as a Supreme Court Justice, as former Justice Antonin Scalia said a few years ago concerning a decision of the Court that he said was "good enough for government work," or as a candidate for President of the United States?

Yes, it it seems to me that it is a kissin' cousin.

Art
http://original-genesis-original-intent.blogspot.com/2016/03/citizen-clarifies-born-in-natural-born.html

ajtelles said...

Justice Scalia,

Mario,

I need to clarify something.

Justice Scalia was not expressing a "kissin' cousin to a lie" when he said the decision of the Court was "good enough for government work" in a Supreme Court case from a few years ago.

The subject of my previous comment was the renunciation by Sen. Cruz of his foreign citizenship, and the renunciation was "good enough for government work," in which the "government work" was the presidency of the United States.

Art
http://original-genesis-original-intent.blogspot.com/2016/03/citizen-clarifies-born-in-natural-born.html

Leo Derosia said...

Bernie Sanders said people who question Obamas legitimacy and bc are hateful racists. He also said his father was born in Poland and that he was never asked to show his bc. It is appalling that someone this dishonest or ignorant is a us senator. People like him, obama, Clintons, bushes etc are the reason I hate many politicians and the corrupt beyond belief us govt. These state judges are a sad, pathetic lot as well. The only way we could get a judge to actually be honest and impartial on this subject is to slip them a very large stack of 100 dollar bills. You are a patriot Mario but we have no chance

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

A natural born citizen is a citizen at birth and by birth by virtue of his or her birth circumstances alone. No law is needed to make a natural born citizen a citizen at birth and by birth. This means that a natural born citizen is a child born or reputed born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. A child born under such birth circumstances needs no law to be recognized a citizen at birth and by birth, like a child born to his or her natural father and mother needs no law to be recognized as their natural child. As applied to the United States, an Article II natural born citizen is a child born or reputed born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens (citizens of the United States or natural born citizens of the United States) at the time of their child's birth.

Cruz was born in a foreign country to an alien father. Cruz was also born presumably to a U.S. citizen mother. The fact that he was born presumably to a U.S. citizen mother allows Cruz to be a naturalized citizen of the United States, but only by virtue of the adopting grace of Congress which it expressed through a naturalization Acts (the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952), This naturalization Act of Congress allowed his U.S. citizen mother to transmit U.S. citizenship to him as an act of naturalization at birth. Through this naturalization Act, the United States adopted Cruz as a citizen of the United States at birth. Prior to 1934, someone born under the circumstances as was Cruz was an alien and could become a citizen of the United States only through naturalization after birth granted by a naturalization Act of Congress. That Congress changed its naturalization policy by allowing also a U.S. citizen mother to transmit her U.S. citizenship to her child born to her in a foreign country does not nor can it constitutionally change the definition of a natural born citizen, which can be done not through a naturalization Act of Congress, but rather only by duly ratified constitutional amendment. If Congress were to pass a naturalization Act making a child born in Austria to Austrian parents a citizen of the United States at birth, would that make that child an Article II natural born citizen? Of course not. The same result follows from Cruz's birth in Canada presumably to a U.S citizen mother and alien father. This constitutional law and these fundamental facts lead to the inescapable conclusion that Cruz is an adopted citizen of the United States at birth, but not an Article II natural born citizen of the United States.

If Cruz is going to be true to and enforce the Constitution as he says he would if elected President, he will have to start by kicking himself out of the White House.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

William St. George said...

Years ago my interest in knowing what "natural born citizen" meant led me to the blog of Leo Donofrio; he resigned from maintaining his blog about four years ago. He did a good job. Some where along the way I found this blog. Both have presented compelling argument and facts to support born of two citizen parents in the land. In fact what else could it mean? But I am surprised at how many people apparently can not make the effort to do some research and would rather just cobble bits and pieces together from ill informed journalists or legal experts with hidden motives.

Now Joseph Farah of WND is endorsing Ted Cruz while contending that Rubio is not eligible having for years maintained that Obama was not a natural born citizen! He claims that Cruz does not display any loyalty to Canada, so it does not matter he was born there; and having a Cuban parent is not interesting. This is an example of where journalism can lead. Rubio is at least a 14th Amendment citizen who did not need to be naturalized. Cruz is a naturalized citizen. Presumably Obama is also a 14th Amendment citizen who just can not come by a valid birth certificate.

Well, some people will go to very great lengths to find an authentic item whether a Rolex or an antique car. Others are happy with a counterfeit. Fortunately Cruz does not seem likely to become even the Republican nominee. Since according to Prof. Francis Boyle Hilary is a psychopath and a war criminal, it looks increasingly like we had better support Trump.

ajtelles said...

Dittos to "...what else could it mean..."
1/

Mario,

In his comment above, on March 9, 2016 at 7:13 PM, William St. George wrote in his first paragraph "... to support born of two citizen parents in the land. In fact what else could it mean?"

Dittos.

For "nbC" new meaning neo-birthers who say that the framers and ratifiers of 1700s America did not define the original intent of "born" in the eligibility clause 5 in Article II Section 1 to mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, so that is why they are willing to give Sen. Cruz and Sen. Rubio the benefit of the doubt because they both have dual U.S./foreign citizenship, here are some helpful clarifying questions.

Question:
In 1787 America did the framers intend for "born" and "Citizen" in the Article II Section 1 clause 5 eligibility clause to be perpetual or temporary?

Question:
If temporary, where is it recorded in the archives that the framers and ratifiers debated that the connection between "born" and "Citizen" was to be temporary?

Since there is no record in the national archives of the framers and ratifiers debating perpetual or temporary, the obvious conclusion is that the connection between "born" and "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen" was intended to be perpetual, not temporary.

Common sense. Right?

Question:
What is the connection between "born" and "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen?"

The connection is very simple to articulate.

Question:
When John Jay underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington, did Jay mean and did Washington agree that "born" meant "born" ONLY in the United States OR "born" in ANY nation on earth?

Question:
When Jay connected the word "born" with "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to Washington, which Washington passed on to the framers, what did the word "Citizen" mean to the 1787 framers and 1787-1790 ratifiers?

Question:
Did John Jay mean to imply that "born" in "natural born Citizen" meant "born" ONLY in the United States OR "born" anywhere on earth?

ajtelles said...

Dittos to "...what else could it mean..."
2/

Question:
Did John Jay mean to imply that "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen" meant a "citizen" of ONLY the United States OR a "citizen" anywhere on earth?

Question:
Did the 1787 framers imply that the original intent of "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen" was to perpetually mean a "citizen" of ONLY the United States OR a "citizen" of ANY nation on earth?

Well, obviously, the ONLY original intent meaning possible in 1787 America, only four years after the war of independence was ended at the 1783 Treaty of Paris of which John Jay was a signatory, could ONLY be a "citizen" of the United States alone and NOT a "citizen" of ANY other nation on earth alone.

Question:
Both ONLY the U.S. "alone" and ANY nation on earth "alone" can not be the original intent of the framers, right?

Question:
Does the connection of "born" and "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen" mean either ONLY singular U.S. citizenship or ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship?

The common sense perpetual original intent connection could obviously NOT be BOTH singular OR dual. Right?

So, "born" and "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen" can mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone, NOT either/or, not either a "citizen" of another nation alone or a "citizen" of both the U.S. and a "citizen" of another nation, aka dual U.S./foreign citizenship. Right?

The constitutional "scholars" and politicos need to remember that the framer's language was eventually accepted without debate or disagreement by the ratifiers of the several states.

Since September 17, 1787 when the Constitution's language was adopted by the framers and sent to the states to be ratified, if a person is born ONLY on U.S. soil and born ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, then that person is a U.S. natural born citizen "by birth alone" and has ONLY singular U.S. citizenship which can NOT be affected by an Act of Congress.

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship is indefeasible because U.S. citizenship "by birth alone" on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents can NOT be annulled or made void by a law passed by Congress.

A positive law (statute) can NOT annul a natural law (nature).

Art
http://original-genesis-original-intent.blogspot.com/2016/03/citizen-clarifies-born-in-natural-born.html

Carlyle said...

I guess it is hard for modern Multi-Culti people to wrap their head around this, but we must always remember that, first and foremost, the NBC clause was meant to be exclusionary - to the max.

William St. George said...

We live in a very sloppy intellectual age. Persons like our host are rare. Just consider all the work he has done in order to research this issue and write long and detailed essays! Tonight's Republican debate was full of mistaken information. It was boring and tedious. I had to turn it off in order to preserve emotional balance. 'Why do the Muslims or at least some of them hate the US?' That question is very easy to answer if one can recall at least the last ten or fifteen years. If one's memory or knowledge goes back to WWII then it becomes even easier. To ask people now days to go all the way back to the 18th century at least for some would be enhanced interrogation. A good justification for smelling salts and then a mood stabilizer. A great mental and emotional strain. Why, I am sure some regard our host as a domestic terrorist with his outlandish ideas. But now even Obama has entered the game on the attack side: "Obama Mocks Cruz: 'Where Else Could a Boy Born in Calgary Run for President of the United States?'" -- Weekly
Standard This is a 14th Amendment citizen letting a naturalized citizen know what's what? Although as usual the statement is a bit strange linguistically.

Chief said...

Question: Mario, your opinion on this;

As we looking further into that question and do the research and consider the following we see Rafael Edward Cruz had the opportunity to become a US citizen upon his birth, but not an NBC, had his mother followed required US protocol below:

A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain ‘statutory’ requirements are met.

“The child’s parents should contact the nearest U.S. embassy or consulate to apply for a Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a Citizen of the United States of America (CRBA) to document that the child is a U.S. citizen. If the U.S. embassy or consulate determines that the child acquired U.S. citizenship at birth, a
consular officer will approve the CRBA application and the Department of State
will issue a CRBA also called a Form FS-240, in the child’s name.”

(The above is what we were taught in the US military before we traveled overseas)

The question then is did Cruz’s mother take the necessary steps to do this?

If so where are the documents verifying this took place? They should still be on file at the US State Department since Form FS-240 was issued by them.

Also was this accomplished, if required?

Since Ted returned to the USA at age 4 who’s passport did he travel back to the US on?

Or did his parents simply schlep him across the Canadian border?

In view of this, is Ted really a US citizen?

I addition, a person born abroad who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth but who is over the age of 18 (and so not eligible for a CRBA) may wish to apply for a Certificate of Citizenship to document acquisition pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1452.

Visit USCIS.gov for further information.

Ray said...

Pennsylvania judge orders Cruz's name remain on ballot


http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/resource-760668/file-5051.pdf

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Chief,

One acquires U.S. citizenship at birth either through birth circumstances alone, or through positive law acting upon birth circumstances. The former is a natural born citizen, by virtue of his or her birth circumstances alone, and the latter is a citizen of the United States at birth, only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment acting upon one's birth in the United States or naturalization Act of Congress acting upon one's birth out of its territory and jurisdiction.

The Cruz alleged CRBA (FS-240) is only proof that he was a citizen of the United States at birth, by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress acting upon his birth in a foreign country presumably to a U.S. citizen mother and alien father. It does not determine that citizenship, which only a naturalization Act of Congress can do by accepting his birth circumstances as being sufficient to bestow upon him and to retain the status of a citizen of the United States at birth. More importantly for our purposes, the CRBA is not nor could it be proof that Cruz, needing a naturalization Act of Congress to be adopted as and to retain the status of a citizen of the United States at birth, is a natural born citizen.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Ray,

Senior Judge of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Dan Pellegrini, gets it right in Elliott v. Cruz, No. 77 M.D. 2016, that it is not an impermissible political question for a court to analyze and determine what an Article II natural born citizen is. I have so maintained for almost 8 years. Note that the New Jersey Federal District Court in Kerchner v. Obama and some other federal and state courts have ruled that it was a political question. Judge Pellegrini does an excellent job in demonstrating through a simple presentation that the courts when presented with a case or controversy involving the question of what is an Article II natural born citizen are not only constitutionally obligated to decide the meaning of the clause, but also well-equipped to do so. It is a breath of fresh air to be vindicated in my position on this issue.

Where Judge Pellegrini errs is in placing his reliance for his definition of a natural born citizen upon Charles Gordon, Jack Maskell, Paul Clement, and Neal Katyal rather than on primary historical and legal sources. As I have demonstrated in by briefs to the courts and in my many articles on this blog, the arguments of these commentators are highly flawed and cannot serve as any reasonable basis for defining a natural born citizen. Also, note how Judge Pellegrini quotes extensively from these commentators (who support his conclusion), but only mentions Professor Mary McManamon (who does not support his conclusion) briefly and states without evidence that hers "is a minority view among legal scholars."

Leo Derosia said...

Dan Pelligrini, why would jack maskells opinion carry more weight than a plain statement in a unanimous supreme court opinion?

Unknown said...

Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:
"It is a breath of fresh air to be vindicated in my position on this issue.
Where Judge Pellegrini errs is in placing his reliance for his definition of a natural born citizen upon Charles Gordon, Jack Maskell, Paul Clement, and [...]."

You see the results and think that they vindicate you, and that listening to Charles Gordon was an error? You tell us that you have maintained for 8 years that it is not impermissible for a court, such as the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, "to analyze and determine what an Article II natural born citizen is".

Gordon nailed the whole thing in 1968. Gordon wrote that in the federal practice, the issue of standing would seem fatal. He saw state courts and various ballot challenges as a mixed bag. Gordon also nailed the merits, as measured against what courts and other legal forums have actually found. See: “Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 28-31 (1968).

Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:
"Also, note how Judge Pellegrini quotes extensively from these commentators (who support his conclusion), but only mentions Professor Mary McManamon (who does not support his conclusion) briefly and states without evidence that hers 'is a minority view among legal scholars.'"

McManamon's position got a paragraph. The Court reviewed the articles on the topic in the legal literature, and thus had evidence that McManamon in undoubtedly in the minority. That is *reproducible* evidence. Anyone who bothers can tell she's in a small minority.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Unknown,

Are you going to add something of value here or are you just going to repeat what others say without any supporting sources and analysis?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Unknown said:

Gordon also nailed the merits, as measured against what courts and other legal forums have actually found. See: “Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,” 28 Md. L. Rev. 1, 28-31 (1968).

~~~~~

This statement is funny, given that Gordon said that neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark defined an Article II natural born citizen, which is the heart and soul of your argument, You lose again, Unknown. But then your are used to that.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Leo,

Judge Pellegrini bought into the Obot misinformation campaign which promotes that Minor v. Happersett (1875) left open the question of what is a natural born citizen. He quotes Minor saying that "[r]esort must be had elsewhere," meaning that we "must" look to the common law for the definition of a natural born citizen, but he says that it was only a "suggestion" of the Court. He then writes "Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167, 22 L.Ed. 627 (1874) (suggesting this approach to interpretation but ultimately not reaching the issue)." So, according to Judge Pellegrini, not only did Minor only make a suggestion that we look to the common law for the definition of a natural born citizen (but the Court said that resort "must" be had elsewhere), but the Court also did not reach the question of what is a natural born citizen under that common law (when in fact it did).

A plain and simple reading of Minor shows that the Court left no question open about what the definition of a natural born citizen is and who is included and excluded from that status, when it held: "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." The only question that the Court left open was whether a child born "within the jurisdiction" to alien parents was a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, an amendment which both Minor and Wong Kim Ark said did not define a natural born citizen. Virginia Minor was born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents. Hence, she was without any doubt a citizen of the United States. Since she was a natural born citizen and therefore ipso fact a citizen of the United States, there was no need for Minor to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment as did Wong Kim Ark with respect to Wong, who was not a natural born citizen because while he was born in the U.S., he was born to alien parents. So, Wong Kim Ark answered the Fourteenth Amendment question left open by Minor. Wong Kim Ark, in interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship sentence, did not define a natural born citizen any differently than did Minor.

This is easy stuff, but judges like Judge Pellegrini continue to get it wrong.

Leo Derosia said...

I think Pelligrini is a liar mario, maybe you are not allowed to call a judge that but i will. I am not a attorney like you or a Penn judge but I knew immediately when I read minor that something was terribly wrong in this country when a ineligible fraud like Obama was allowed to hold same office as Washington and Lincoln. These state judges can read minor or law of nations just as easily as I can and yet everyone of them has been complicit. Being highly educated certainly does not make one highly moral.

RodCrosby said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
RodCrosby said...

Surely, if more proof were ever needed that Minor is not a "suggestion", or dicta, the very language of the court tells us.

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

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ascertain
1 archaic : to make certain, exact, or precise
2 : to find out or learn with certainty

And they proceed to ascertain...

"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."

Carlyle said...

It is a continual source of amazement and wonder to me that NO ONE will look at this. It is hard to understand. It is easy to come up with speculation as to why a majority of the authorities will not touch this. But shouldn't there be some righteous official somewhere? Some young reporter looking to become famous? Someone? Somewhere?

Even Joe Arpaio is flabbergasted. He says he has a "a warehouse full of information" but no federal authority will take it - even though he has canvassed it about quite a lot.

It is also very stressful and frightening that a highly likely fraud of this nature - against the nation, against the constitution, against all of us - should go unresolved. Things with this much "probable cause" should be thoroughly and publicly investigated and put to rest one way or another.

Cox'n Don said...

Indeed it's amazing that no 'righteous official' has stepped up. As depressing is Joe Farah's decision to give up the fight - http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/what-is-a-natural-born-citizen/

Unknown said...

Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:
"This statement is funny, given that Gordon said that neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark defined an Article II natural born citizen, which is the heart and soul of your argument,"

Mr. Apuzzo, you know better. I have agreed, many times over the years, that the Fourteenth Amendment does not define the Article II term "natural born citizen". I've conceded that the one place where Wong arguably defines the term -- that quote of British jurist A.V. Dicey [United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 654 (1898), at 657]-- is not, in context, conclusively dispositive for the case of a foreign-born citizen-from-birth such as we now have with Ted Cruz.

As obots told you all along, Wong is dispositive in flushing the theory you put forth against Obama. In the very first article in the archives of this blog, dated 20 Dec 2008, you wrote, Mr. Apuzzo:

"Some argue that the decision of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898) is the final word on 'natural born Citizen' and that under that decision, as long as Obama was born on U.S. soil, he is a 'natural born Citizen.'" As we now know from actual court results, those "Some" were correct on the stated issue of Obama. Were they correct about Cruz? Silly question. There was no Cruz issue in 2008.

Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:
"You lose again, Unknown. But then your are used to that."

Your theory loses yet again in Court, but still wins in your head. Yes, I think we're all used to that.

RodCrosby said...

In other words, the SCOTUS said:- "We are going to tell you precisely, exactly and with certainty what an NBC is..."

Only if you follow Pelligrini down some wormhole do you arrive at a place where the SCOTUS judges don't understand the words they are using, or don't mean what they say, or both.

At such desolate place there is no law, only "suggestions".

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

brygenon, who has been posting as "Unknown" here, just posted at Western Free Press:

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania provides the clearest yet on-the-merits decision in a case about Ted Cruz.

"Having extensively reviewed all articles cited in this opinion, as well as many others, this Court holds, consistent with the common law precedent ant the statutory history, that a 'natural born citizen' includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth."

http://www.pacourts.us/assets/files/resource-760668/file-5051.pdf

~~~~~

First, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania had no problem finding that the Objector had standing.

Second, it also had no problem finding that the question of what is a natural born citizen does not present a nonjusticiable political question.

Brygenon has always maintained that I was wrong for taking the same stance as the court on the standing and political question issues.

Third, regarding the court reaching the merits of the meaning of a natural born citizen, what a joke that brygenon finds the court's decision to be the "clearest" merits decision on the meaning of a natural born citizen. Maybe brygenon can tell us who the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers considered to be "a United States citizen from birth" and what they called such citizens. While he is doing that, maybe he can also provide for us the common law precedent and the statutory history which supports the position that a natural born citizen includes "any" person who is a United States citizen from birth. Finally, maybe brygenon can tell us what the court meant by "from birth." Did it mean from the moment of birth or did it mean because of birth alone?

Brygenon never ceases to amaze me with his pretend or shallow knowledge of the meaning of a natural born citizen.

Unknown said...

Cox'n Don wrote:
"As depressing is Joe Farah's decision to give up the fight - http://www.wnd.com/2016/03/what-is-a-natural-born-citizen/"

Perhaps you mistook for what Joseph Farah was actually arguing.

Leo Derosia said...

Maybe Pelligrini can explain why children of us citizens born outside of the only became citizens by the Naturalization Act of 1795. Such children were naturalized not natural born.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

There is no modern-day policy reason that can justify Judge Pellegrini's expanded meaning of an Article II natural born citizen. Surely, a personal desire that Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio be eligible for the Office of President is not such a policy reason.

Judge Pellegrini's holding is also in direct violation of binding precedent of the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett (1875). The Court there said that at common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution, children who were born in a country to parents who were its citizens were not only “citizens” like their parents, but “natives, or natural-born citizens,” and that all the rest of the people were “aliens or foreigners.” The U.S. Supreme Court expressly informed that that was the Framers' constitutional definition of a natural born citizen and lower courts are not free to disregard that U.S. Supreme Court precedent.

Judge Pellegrini’s definition of a natural born citizen which includes any person who is a United States citizen “from birth” has no constitutional validity and is to be rejected.

tymsync said...

The worst thing about all these defective rulings is they expose the country to the very fraud Article 2 Section 1 was supposed to prevent. A clever ISIS terrorist could seduce and impregnate a nit-witted US citizen college co-ed (somebody like Ann Dunham) and his offspring would be eligible to run for POTUS with all the conflicting allegiances unchallenged. The shortsightedness of all the legal and so-called scholarly opinions completely undermining the intent of the founders to remain vigilant and selective of who we allow to lead us. Trump is right, we are so stupid to let this happen. Cruz and Rubio have proven themselves to be a complete fraud as to claims of "constitutional conservative"... along with a lot of other who will emerge from this election cycle with damaged reputations. Common Judge, The simple fact that Cruz could choose what citizenship he wanted precludes him from being NBC.

Unknown said...

Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:
"This statement is funny, given that Gordon said that neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Wong Kim Ark defined an Article II natural born citizen, which is the heart and soul of your argument,"

Mr. Apuzzo, you know better. I have agreed, many times over the years, that the Fourteenth Amendment does not define the Article II term "natural born citizen". I've conceded that the one place where Wong arguably defines the term -- that quote of British jurist A.V. Dicey [United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 654 (1898), at 657]-- is not, in context, conclusively dispositive for the case of a foreign-born citizen-from-birth such as we now have with Ted Cruz.

As obots told you all along, Wong is dispositive in flushing the theory you put forth against Obama. In the very first article in the archives of this blog, dated 20 Dec 2008, you wrote, Mr. Apuzzo:

"Some argue that the decision of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898) is the final word on 'natural born Citizen' and that under that decision, as long as Obama was born on U.S. soil, he is a 'natural born Citizen.'" As we now know from actual court results, those "Some" were correct on the stated issue of Obama. Were they correct about Cruz? Silly question. There was no Cruz issue in 2008.

Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:
"You lose again, Unknown. But then your are used to that."

Your theory loses yet again in Court, but still wins in your head. Yes, I think we're all used to that.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Mr. Bryan Gene Olson (Unknown),

You said the same with respect to standing and political question, but yet Judge Pellegrini comes out on my side. My position on the meaning of a natural born citizen does not lose until you can show that you have a better position than mine.

Mr. Olson, thanks for the demo, but you lose again.

4zoltan said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

Will you be offering your services to the plaintiffs? Even if only in the form of an amicus brief?

tymsync said...

Mr Unknown is lost in the minutia. I can here the founders screaming from the heavens, "Be vigilant! Carefully vet and scrutinize who you would allow to lead you. Be doubly certain they have no conflicting allegiances through their birth circumstances and no other country can claim them as either citizens or subjects through conflicting parentage."

Can't all the genius jurists who look at this figure out the intent of Article 2 or are they actually becoming the "enemy within" undermining their own constitution which they supposedly swore an oath to?

Unknown said...

Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:
"Third, regarding the court reaching the merits of the meaning of a natural born citizen, what a joke that brygenon finds the court's decision to be the 'clearest' merits decision on the meaning of a natural born citizen."

That is not what I wrote. I find it, "the clearest yet on-the-merits decision in a case about Ted Cruz." It's not true without the qualifier, "about Ted Cruz". Please correct the false attribution.
-Bryan

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

People like Bryn Gene Olson insist on transforming the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, and the naturalization Acts of Congress into something they are not as they relate to an Article II natural born citizen. Clearly, their ilk seek to amend the Constitution through illegal and surreptitious means.

ajtelles said...

Rebut and Refute...

Mario,

Here is a very simple challenge for Bryan Gene Olson, aka Unknown, or for his friend PhD mathematician Kevin, aka Slartibartfast, or for their friend Kevin Davidson, host of ObamaConspiracy.org:

Rebut and refute a natural law with a positive law.
Rebut and refute nature with a statute.

Since September 17, 1787 when the Constitution's language was adopted by the framers and sent to the states to be ratified, if a person is born ONLY on U.S. soil and born ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, then that person is a U.S. natural born citizen "by birth alone" and has ONLY singular U.S. citizenship which can NOT be affected by an Act of Congress.

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship is indefeasible because U.S. citizenship "by birth alone" on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents can NOT be annulled or made void by a law passed by Congress.

A positive law (statute) can NOT annul a natural law (nature).

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario, if this challenge is too onerous for Bryan and PhD mathematician Kevin or Kevin D., well, that's reality.

Since 2012, whenever I've challenged them with a similar challenge, they have NEVER responded, either here on your Natural Born Citizen blog, or Kevin Davidson's blog or on BirtherReport.com.

Regarding eligibility to be POTUS, ONLY singular U.S. citizenship as the ONLY original genesis original intent for the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" can NOT be rebutted and can NOT be refuted with dual U.S./foreign citizenship.

That is reality.

Art
http://original-genesis-original-intent.blogspot.com/2016/03/citizen-clarifies-born-in-natural-born.html

George Turner said...

The judge completely misconstrued what can be learned from the 1790 Naturalization Act which said that children born to US citizens abroad shall be considered as natural born citizens. Congress couldn't have written such sentences if such children were already considered natural born citizens when the Constitution was written and adopted. That would make no sense.

It's like reading a law stating that a mother's adopted children shall be considered as her natural-born children. Without knowing anything else about children and adoption, the mere context tells you that the two type of children must be distinctly different categories.

There was some debate about whether Hillary was still eligible to be President if she's convicted of violating one of the federal records statutes that prohibits offenders from holding any public office in the United States. Eugene Volokh and several other legal scholars weighed in and said she could still be President because the Constitution doesn't grant Congress the power to expand or restrict the Constitutional qualifications for the office of President. That alone means that any citizenship status granted and recognized through legislation cannot be applied to the Presidency, and thus the 1790 Naturalization Act dooms Cruz's eligibility because it shows citizens born abroad to US parents were not recognized as natural born citizens when the Constitution was adopted, and were only granted equivalent status through legislation. If Congress could change the rules for Presidential eligibility McConnell would just pass a law saying that the President has to be a Republican and be done with it.

thalightguy said...

Judge Pellegrini’s Opinion is Deductively Unsound

"Significantly, no Constitutional provision places such power in Congress to determine Presidential eligibility." - Judge Pellegrini

Judge Pellegrini, what Constitutional provision places such power in Congress to add to or take away from who is a Constitutional “natural born Citizen”?

The U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, it is not a dictionary. During the Convention, the Framers discussed/knew/understood the precise meaning/definition of every word/phrase/term of art/provision they inserted within. To protect against transient changes and to ensure its endurance the strenuous provisions found within Article V. was provided as the only means to amend.

The Congress is bound by the Constitutional definition of who is a “natural born Citizen”; through legislation, Congress may acknowledge this definition, but is given no power to change it. As such, anyone born since the adoption of the Constitution fulfilling this definition has been born a citizen of the United States and eligible to be President.

Ted Cruz is not a Constitutional "natural born Citizen". If he were, then, persons born like him prior to 1934 would also be, but they were not even born citizens of the United States. See: Montana v. Kennedy 366 U.S. 308 (1961)

The Naturalization Act of 1790 did not define a proper subset of the Constitutional term “natural born Citizen”. If it had, then, the Supreme Court would have cited Wisconsin v. Pelican Ins. Co. 127 U.S. 265 (1888); therefore, nullifying all subsequent laws in contrast. And, Bellei, Miller, Flores-Villar would have been found to be natural born citizens of the United States. But, the Supreme Court in all three cases found them not to be citizens of the United States.

cfkerchner said...

Links to the reply brief filing in the appeal in NY state re challenging Ted Cruz's constitutional eligibility:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/305146663/Korman-Gallo-v-NY-State-BOE-Reply-Brief-for-3rd-Dept-2016-03-16-Final-Filed-for-Petitioners-Appellants
And also an Amicus Curiae Brief filed by a Harvard Law Professor in the same appeal:
https://www.scribd.com/doc/305065217/Korman-Gallo-v-NY-State-BOE-re-Ted-Cruz-Ballot-Challenge-in-NY-Supreme-Court-Amicus-Brief-of-Professor-Einer-Elhauge-FINAL-SIGNED

Good reading and discussion therein about the 1790 Naturalization Act and its repeal and Cruz's misrepresenting American common law and even misquoting court decisions and laws.

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

George Turner said...

I think I can better cut to the heart of the 1790 Naturalization Act issue. If children born abroad to US citizens were also understood to be natural born citizens of the United States when the Constitution was written and adopted, then the 1790 Act would translate as:

Natural born citizens of the United States shall be considered natural born citizens of the United States.

Why would they bother writing that, much less voting on it?

But aside from the simple logic of it, one can also look at the situation when the Constitution was written - by American patriots who'd fought in a war against the British Empire. British armies were sitting up in Canada, just waiting for the American experiment in democracy to fail so they could sweep down and restore proper rule to their rebellious colonies. Also living in Canada were countless British loyalists who had left the United States after the Revolution. They were all born in states like Virginia and Massachusetts yet retained fierce loyalty to the Crown and to England. There was little chance any of them could ever get elected in the US, having picked up stakes and moved away, and they wouldn't stand a chance running against heroes of the Revolution and all the Founding Fathers. Any of the prominent ones would be known and be well disregarded upon return.

But the loyalists' children, born and raised in Canada by British loyalist parents who were natural born in any of the several states, wouldn't be running against the Founding generation, wouldn't be stained by having left the US, would come from good and powerful families (which is why their parents stayed loyal to Britain), and could enjoy strong political and financial backing from London, things no American candidate could hope to match.

Such a person, if push came to shove, would dither and delay as British troops swept south. Though a US citizen by blood, such a one would seek accord with his fellow British subjects, the people he was born and raised with, exchanging letter after letter seeking accommodation and understanding instead of properly directing the US Army and militia forces into the enemy's flanks. And then the British would march into our capitol and the Canadian born President would seek terms according to his true and eternal sympathies for the British Empire.

What the natural born citizen requirement did was make sure the War of 1812 didn't end like that.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

George Turner,

"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." Minor v. Happersett (1875), at 167. Minor also explained that persons not born in the country to citizen parents could be naturalized to be citizens of the United States by naturalization Acts of Congress. Id. at 168. Hence, the U.S. Supreme Court explained that at common law, persons born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States were "aliens or foreigners" who needed to be naturalized by an Act of Congress in order to be adopted as a citizen of the United States. Being born aliens or foreigners and needing a naturalization Act of Congress in order to be made as a citizen of the United States, such persons were not nor could they be natural born citizens.

The Constitution gave to Congress in matters of citizenship only the "Power to . . . establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . throughout the United States." Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. Such power does not include the power to make anyone a natural born citizen, since such person, given his or her birth circumstances alone, does not need to be made a citizen by naturalization by Congress. Hence, a person born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States could only be what Congress's naturalization power allowed them to be, i.e., either a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth or if it so chose, even after birth.

Given these fundamental constitutional principles as confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor, the question of whether Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen has an easy answer. It is not so difficult as some experts would like us to believe. The difficulty in the issue is created by the experts themselves, who tell us the issue is not clear only because they desire that the meaning of the natural born citizen clause be changed. Some of these experts are more intellectually honest than others. Some at least admit that a constitutional amendment is needed to change its meaning. Others simply say that there exists a "consensus of scholars" (whoever that may be) who have the more enlightened understanding of the meaning of the clause and therefore the meaning of the natural born citizen clause has been magically changed without constitutional amendment. The latter experts push the revisionist definition of a natural born citizen that any person who is a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth without having to go through any naturalization process after birth, regardless of how the status was obtained, where born, or to whom born, is a natural born citizen. Again, there is no constitutional support for such a revisionist definition. The definition is nothing more than the personal wish of these experts.

Getting back to constitutional reality, Ted Cruz was born in a foreign nation presumably to a U.S. citizen mother and alien father. By the sufferance of Congress, acting through its naturalization powers and naturalization Act, he is a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth ("at birth"). But needing Congress's exercise of its naturalization power and its passage of this naturalization Act for him to be a citizen of the United States, without which at common law to which the Framers looked for the definition of a natural born citizen he would have been an alien or foreigner, he is not nor can he be a natural born citizen.

prsmith said...

Montana v. Kennedy

'Petitioner's mother is a native-born citizen of the United States, and his father is an Italian citizen who has never been naturalized. They were married in the United States, and their marital relationship has never been terminated. Petitioner was born in Italy in 1906, while his parents were residing there temporarily, and his mother brought him to the United States later in the same year. He has since resided continuously in the United States, and has never been naturalized.'

Held: Petitioner is not a citizen of the United States. Pp. 366 U. S. 309-315.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/366/308/

In case you missed it, petitioner was not a 'born citizen' or 'born a citizen' or a 'natural born citizen', he had to be NATURALIZED in order to be a citizen. Ditto for Cruz.

Unknown said...

For reasons all his own Ajtelles wrote:
"Here is a very simple challenge for Bryan Gene Olson, aka Unknown, or for his friend PhD mathematician Kevin, aka Slartibartfast, or for their friend Kevin Davidson, host of ObamaConspiracy.org:
Rebut and refute a natural law with a positive law.
Rebut and refute nature with a statute."

Why is it *my* challenge to support things that you believe while I argue they are silly?

As I've pointed out several times, only in man-made law are there citizens or nations that could have citizens. I don't hear anyone disagreeing on that. You think there's a law of natural on who is and is not a natural-born citizen? If so, and you accept that nations are man-made, then you necessarily believe in laws of nature that depend upon human inventions.

It makes no sense to me. You cannot defend a ludicrous position by assigning me the challenge of finding evidence for it.

thalightguy said...

Prsmith,

The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization. As such, When Congress enacts rules to govern acquisition of citizenship, it acts pursuant to this constitutional authority. See: Miller v. Albright 523 U.S. 420 (1998) at 434 n.11 (opinion of Stevens, J.) (“ Though petitioner claims to be a citizen from birth, * * * citizenship does not pass by descent. * * * Thus she must still meet the statutory requirements set by Congress for citizenship.”); see also id. At 453 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment) (“Petitioner, having been born outside the territory of the United States, is an alien as far as the Constitution is concerned.”). Therefore, the Constitutional word “Naturalization” means to confer citizenship upon a person
(at birth or after) who otherwise would not be a citizen.

Montana, born in 1906, in Italy did not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth because he did not fulfill the Naturalization Rules that were in effect at that time.

Ted Cruz, born in 1970, in Canada only acquired U.S. citizenship at birth because he fulfilled the Naturalization rules that were in effect at the time of his birth.

Ted Cruz is not a “natural born Citizen”. If he were, then, Montana also would be, but the Supreme found him not even to be a citizen of the United States.

Ted Cruz is U.S. citizen by Naturalization, not a Constitutional “natural born Citizen” and not eligible to be President.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Bryan Gene Olson (Unknown),

You mock Ajtelles for challenging you to compare natural law and positive law. Rather than answer his challenge, you dismiss it as “silly” by arguing that a "citizen" and "nation" do not exist other than in man-made law. Given your answer, please answer four questions:

(1) From where did man get the idea of a citizen and nation?

(2) What did Thomas Jefferson mean by "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" when he wrote in The Declaration of Independence, that given the conduct of the British King, Parliament, and people, it had become necessary that the American people break their political connection with the British people and assume among the nations of the earth their "separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them"?

(3) What did Jefferson mean in The Declaration of Independence when he said that even though the American people had "appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity" and despite the "Ties of our common Kindred" and the "Voice of Justice and Consanguinity," the British people did not come to the aid of the American people?

(4) Judge Dan Pellegrini in Elliott v. Cruz, No. 77 M.D. 2016 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, March 10, 2016), held: “Having extensively reviewed all articles cited in this opinion, as well as many others, this Court holds, consistent with the common law precedent and statutory history, that a ‘natural born citizen’ includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth.” I again ask you what does Judge Pellegrini mean by "from birth?" Does he mean from the moment of birth or by birth alone?

It is my hope that you will provide serious answers to these questions rather than evade them as you normally evade my questions by not acknowledging them at all or answering them with one of your stupid riddles.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

The New York Times reports on March 19, 2016:

In his remarks Friday evening, Mr. Trump also criticized Mr. Cruz. “Is he really a natural born citizen? I mean, give me a break,” Mr. Trump said, referring to Mr. Cruz, who was born in Canada and recently renounced his Canadian citizenship.” He was a citizen of Canada, can you believe it?

He was a joint-he was U.S. and he was Canada,” Mr. Trump continued. “And you know, that’s not the way it’s supposed to work. You’re supposed to be born, like, here.”

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/19/donald-trump-on-mitt-romney-are-you-sure-hes-a-mormon/

Mr. Trump is correct. One of the necessary conditions of being a natural born citizen is that one be born or reputed born in the United States. Not satisfying that condition, one is not nor can one be a natural born citizen. Ted Cruz is not a natural born citizen on this basis alone and that is all Mr. Trump needs to establish.

The other necessary condition to being a natural born citizen is being born to U.S. citizen parents (father and mother). Likewise, one who is not born to two U.S. citizen parents is not nor can one be a natural born citizen. Cruz also fails to meet this requirement, for while he was presumably born to a U.S. citizen mother, he was born to an alien father.

Hence, Cruz strikes out every which way. He is lacking both birth in the country and birth to U.S. citizen parents. Cruz is not nor can he be a natural born citizen. Consequently, he is not constitutionally eligible to the Office of President.

William St. George said...

"For Aquinas, there are two key features of the natural law, features the acknowledgment of which structures his discussion of the natural law at Question 94 of the Prima Secundae of the Summa Theologiae. The first is that, when we focus on God's role as the giver of the natural law, the natural law is just one aspect of divine providence; and so the theory of natural law is from that perspective just one part among others of the theory of divine providence. The second is that, when we focus on the human's role as recipient of the natural law, the natural law constitutes the principles of practical rationality, those principles by which human action is to be judged as reasonable or unreasonable; and so the theory of natural law is from that perspective the preeminent part of the theory of practical rationality." Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The above is not too far from what the Founders believed. Modernism though has sought to replace this with something else which is not entirely clear. When for example Prof Trieb tries to slip around natural-born citizen by saying the Founders were paranoid, he may be demonstrating his independence from natural law. Actually we are in an even more dangerous situation now than back then. Obama does come across like a Manchurian Candidate. I am not surprised that Sanders wants to confiscate all self defense weapons and thinks Obama is qualified. Sanders and Trieb are functioning from a very different idea of the order of things. Is that the Jewish background they both share? Or is it some version of relativism? I wonder what the typical law school makes of rights? They can hardly talk about rights being God given in the present atmosphere. Without some additional education why it matters that people have rights and that natural born has a distinct meaning is lost on most people. My mind would rebel if it were given the kind of liberty/license that these people want it to have, and my life would be chaotic!

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

William St. George,

Indeed, Thomas Jefferson ended The Declaration of Independence thus:

And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.

Note Jefferson's appeal to "Divine Providence."

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

William St. George,

Indeed, Thomas Jefferson ended The Declaration of Independence thus:

'And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.'

Jefferson acknowledged God's role as the giver of natural law. According to Aquinas, natural law is just one aspect of divine providence, i.e., "just one part among others of the theory of divine providence." So, God gave us nature, which gave us divine providence, which gave us natural law. Note Jefferson's reference to "Nature's God" and appeal to "Divine Providence," the producing causes of the laws of Nature's God and the laws of nature.

William St. George said...

Atheist and agnostics may have real problems with the Constitution since it is based on natural law. Without natural law as the basic moral theory America just may not work. Since it does not seem to be working very well at present that must be the cause. I am not sure the Constitution can even really be grasped as an idea without natural law. After decades of relativism the nation has become unhinged. My thinking is that just as the human body must follow certain basic rules of hygiene or become ill, human behavior has a similar requirement for a sane and productive society. Hopefully the Constitution outlines one of several acceptable governmental forms. Under some conditions a monarchy might be preferred. But it does matter what structure is subscribed to. In which case the natural born citizen requirement falls nicely into place as a sine qua non for this system to work smoothly. Of course there are many others. Respect for the law by all citizens and not just those in the lower ranks. But we are living at a time when forces certainly wish to generate more and more discord and conflict. Now at least the American College of Pediatricians is condemning transgenderism for children. This idea certainly struck me as a bad one. This would be a good example of society violating my sense of natural law. Even in nations like Sweden where such things are widely accepted it leads to a very high suicide rate. I intend to look further into natural law and see how it worked out in the 18th century. I just read that Thomas Hobbes embraced it.

Pixel Patriot said...

...needs to win before eligibility may be determined

http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/559776/news/nation/poe-needs-to-win-before-eligibility-may-be-determined-by-pet-ibp-panel

"For this issue to be finally settled, the decision of the Supreme Court posits that, it is apparently necessary, for the eligibility of Poe to be determined with finality, that she must first win in the May 9 presidential election and someone must file a quo warranto petition against her with the Supreme Court sitting as Presidential Electoral Tribunal, for this tribunal to rule on this matter with authority, with jurisdiction and with finality," the IBP said.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/304953792/Republic-of-the-Philippines-8-March-2016

"The ascertainment of that intent is but in keeping with the fundamental principle of constitutional construction that the intent of the framers of the organic law and of the people adopting it should be given effect. The primary task in constitutional construction is to ascertain and thereafter assure the realization of the purpose of the framers and of the people in the adoption of the Constitution. It may also be safely assumed that the people in ratifying the Constitution were guided mainly by the explanation offered by the framers."

CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, it is hereby certified that the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court.
MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Chief Justice

Carlyle said...

"Founders were paranoid" - EXACTLY! - That is precisely the point.

If not paranoid, they were certainly careful, prudent, and maybe even afraid. NBC was meant to be exclusionary to the max.

Perhaps we can argue that Prof Trieb is correct and there is no modern need to be quite so paranoid. Or some may wish to argue that there is even more need now than then. But the Prof's assertion simply means that the constitution should be amended. That is the proper mechanism for change - not just ignoring or re-interpreting it. That way lies total chaos.

There is no rational argument or disagreement about what it meant, and why. The only intelligent and reasonable argument is whether or not the requirement has outlived it's usefulness and should be repealed.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Carlyle,

The questions regarding the natural born citizen clause are:

1. What is the original meaning of a natural born citizen?

2. Should the natural born citizen clause have a different meaning today?

3. How do we change the natural born citizen clause's original meaning?

The Obama/Cruz/Rubio/Jindal/Haley (OCRJH) eligibility pushers deny the correct answer to Question 1 so they do not have to address and answer Questions 2 and 3. They surreptitiously offer a revisionist definition of the clause which is any person who acquires the status of a citizen of the United States at birth or by birth without any naturalization process after birth, regardless of how the person acquired the status, to whom the person was born, or where the person was born. They put forth this revisionist definition as the original meaning of a natural born citizen. By fooling the people as to the original meaning of a natural born citizen, they avoid having to justify changing its meaning and then ultimately having their changed meaning accepted through a duly ratified constitutional amendment.

The problems is compounded given that there are OCRJH eligibility pushers who do not know what the original meaning of a natural born citizen is or know it, but for political, economic, or personal reasons, suppress the reality of the definition or do not believe that the original meaning should be enforced.

William St. George said...

Regarding 1. there are experts, scholars, in early American literature who have successfully deciphered far more obscure expressions than "natural born". Since none of the group OCRJH qualify as an expert, what they think and say is really not of any value. Even law professors would probably lack the skill to go through 18th century American literature and accurately define words and phrases of use at that time. And I doubt that any of them would even claim that expertise.

If I am not mistaken Cruz's US citizenship at birth was provisional in that he had to live in the nation for a time before reaching the age of majority. If his mother or father failed to fill the required form(how long could they wait?) he would, I guess, still have been a Canadian.
People who lie to themselves eventually come to believe their own lie. Of course they have to keep some memories repressed and probably seem awkward when the subject comes up.

Here is a nice quote from Personal Narrative by Johnathan Edwards (1703 -- 17580):
"But yet it seems to me that I sought after a miserable manner, which has me sometimes since to question whether ever it issued in that which was saving, being ready to doubt, whether such miserable seeking was ever succeeded." This is not a particularly easy quote to grasp; but I am sure there are even harder ones as I just picked this quickly out of an American Literature Anthology. Generally when we read an article we do not run into such complex compositions and have to reread them a time or two to figure them out. Our expert though would have no problem due to years of familiarity with that time period and its writings. I doubt even the Christian Cruz is well read in the religious writings of the 18th century. Obama certainly wouldn't be. Edwards was a brilliant and educated man; my guess is that there were wills written at that time which would make one feel like pulling one's hair out!

Still . . . after Obama published his long form birth certificate the forensic document expert used by the very law firm which Obama uses declared the document to be an amateurish forgery! And few took notice.

tymsync said...

I would add one more item to your list. What was the Framers intent to include the NBC clause?

Of course when you ask that question all these others come into play:

What was their motivations? What were they trying to protect the country from? Why was the 1790 Naturalization Act repealed and replaced with the 1795 Nat Act?

The OCRJH eligibility pushers who claim to be strict "Constitutional Conservatives" will have a lot of explaining to do to address these concerns. With the loosey-goosey interpretations now popular Fidel Castro could be Cruz's father and he still would be eligible for POTUS.

tymsync said...

Mario,

I would add one more question to this list:

What was the Framers intent of including the NBC clause?

Of course this question cascades into more historical inquiry:
What were the Framers trying to protect the country from?
What language did the Framers use to insure the allegiance of who they were going to allow to be POTUS?
Why was the 1790 Nat Act Repealed and replaced by the 1795 Nat Act?

When you step back a minute from the minutia of seeking historical definitions and look to the context of what drove the motivations and concerns of the Framers, historical definitions become more clear.

The OCRJH eligibility pushers arguments crumble when historical context is brought into the discussion. With the loosy-goosey definition of NBC they are trying to foist upon us, Fidel Castro could be Cruz's father and he still would be eligible for POTUS. Without the strict scrutiny and interpretation of NBC, any foreign fool, born anywhere in the world, who’s mom or dad happened to be a citizen could run for POTUS. A stealth ISIS sympathizer who fathers a child with an American citizen woman born anywhere in the world would still be eligible. Do you think for one minute the Framers intended that vulnerability to the US to be allowed?

Many of the OCRJH eligibility pushers who claim to be "constitutional conservatives" would really begin to squirm when the question of WHY should we have a NBC POTUS is explored in depth. Ironically it is Cruz, the prodigy child of the CC crowd, the constitutional Mensa, who is betraying his own principled position on the Constitution.


Carry on...

Leo Derosia said...

Someone called into Hugh Hewitt last Tuesday night talking about vattel, minor, nbc etc and Hewitt cut him off and only wanted to talk about the results that night and not cruz s eligibility. I can understand staying on subject but I bet he will never talk about real meaning of nbc on his radio show or repeat a direct quote from minor in a national debate. I wish trump would start screaming about the alien father as well. In a honest world cruz would not be allowed on any state ballot and only vile hrc would be standing in trumps way. Luckily for cruz most Americans are comatose

4zoltan said...

Have you contacted the attorney of record David J. Farrell for Carmon Elliott? The appeal before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is next week IIRC. But briefs are required today. Perhaps they would appreciate an amicus brief written by you if it us not to late.

Unknown said...

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"You mock Ajtelles for challenging you to compare natural law and positive law."

No; I mock Ajtelles, and implicitly others, the way George Bernard Shaw mocked Theodotus and implicitly others, writing, "he is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature." [Caesar and Cleopatra, 1898] Except Shaw went ad-hominem in calling the man a barbarian. I ridiculed the stupid *argument* by Ajtelles and others.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. asked me:
"(1) From where did man get the idea of a citizen and nation?"

My guess would be that when first a society develops agriculture there's quickly a problem of defending the crops. Needed a bigger organization than did a hunter-gatherer tribe. If you are actually interested in the question I'm sure you could find better sources than asking me.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. asked me:
"(2) What did Thomas Jefferson mean by 'the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God' [...]
(3) What did Jefferson mean in The Declaration of Independence when he said that even though the American people had 'appealed to their native Justice and Magnanimity' [...]"

I assume he meant to write a document ahead of its time that could still win the support of people then around. There are some excellent biographies of Jefferson, so again, if you are interested I suggest that you should not limit your learning to probing me. I've never even read the Jefferson Bible.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. asked me:
""(4) Judge Dan Pellegrini in Elliott v. Cruz, No. 77 M.D. 2016 (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, March 10, 2016), held: "Having extensively reviewed all articles cited in this opinion, as well as many others, this Court holds, consistent with the common law precedent and statutory history, that a ‘natural born citizen’ includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth.” I again ask you what does Judge Pellegrini mean by "from birth?" Does he mean from the moment of birth or by birth alone?""

Of course I do not speak for the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, but I think this one is pretty clear: The Court means from the moment of birth. If you are unsure what that means, see the Opinion of Vermont Superior Court in Paige v. Obama.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"It is my hope that you will provide serious answers to these questions rather than evade them as you normally evade my questions by not acknowledging them at all or answering them with one of your stupid riddles."

Obviously you ask about these tangents just to distract.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Bryan Gene Olson (Unknown),

You really do think you are clever. On the contrary, it is clear that you are a know nothing.

ajtelles said...

Natural Law Precedes Positive Law
1/

Mario,

On March 16, 2016 at 11:49 PM I challenged Bryan/Unknown, one of your new meaning neobirthers, with something simple about natural law (nature) and positive law (statute):

Rebut and refute a natural law with a positive law.
Rebut and refute nature with a statute.


On March 19, 2016 at 2:27 AM Bryan/Unknown responded with a nonresponse again as he has done in the past to previous challenges to clarify how dual U.S./foreign citizenship is good 'nuf for government work, specifically eligibility to be chief executive of the United States, and why ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents is not the original intent for the words "born" and "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen".

For some reason Bryan/Unknown and all of the other "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers who espouse the 2000s myth about dual U.S./foreign citizenship is good 'nuf never, ever defend dual citizenship as equal to singular U.S. citizenship and simply ridicule ONLY singular U.S. citizenship as the first POTUS eligibility requirement, the first requirement that MUST precede "by birth alone" the fourteen years residence requirement in the United States up to and including the requirement to be at least thirty-five years of age.

Bryan/Unknown wrote:

>> "Why is it *my* challenge to support things that you believe while I argue they are silly?

>> "As I've pointed out several times, only in man-made law are there citizens or nations that could have citizens. I don't hear anyone disagreeing on that.

>> "You think there's a law of natural [sic] on who is and is not a natural-born citizen?

>> "If so, and you accept that nations are man-made, then you necessarily believe in laws of nature that depend upon human inventions.

>> "It makes no sense to me.

>> "You cannot defend a ludicrous position by assigning me the challenge of finding evidence for it."

<<>>

The pertinent sentence is this:

>> "If so, and you accept that nations are man-made,
>> then you necessarily believe in laws of nature
>> that depend upon human inventions."


Specifically pertinent is "...laws of nature that depend upon human invention."

All Bryan/Unknown and "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers need to do to advance (but never to win) their 2000s theory that dual U.S./foreign citizenship is, if not the only point at least one of the points, of "born" in "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 clause 5 and POTUS eligibility is to adduce only one "law of nature" that is said to "depend" on "human invention."

As usual, Bryan's/Unknown's comments are poorly written, and he does not explain his points. He simply throws out his comments that are intended to support dual U.S./foreign citizenship POTUS eligibility while driving by, so to speak, like throwing a molotov cocktail while driving by in a speeding vehicle.

The reality is that ALL positive law (statute) is dependent on natural law (nature).

Absolutely NO natural law is dependent on positive law, what Bryan/Unknown in his comment calls "human invention".

ajtelles said...

Natural Law Precedes Positive Law
2/

What "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers seem to never want to admit regarding POTUS eligibility is that nature is not dependent on statute, which means that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth alone ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents is NOT dependent on a old or new statute about dual U.S./foreign citizenship.

The pertinent example that Bryan/Unknown probably thinks makes his positive law case that "...laws of nature...depend upon human invention" is the language of the U.S. Constitution itself.

I'm sure that Bryan/Unknown and "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers who promote the 2000s theory, the 2000s myth that dual U.S./foreign citizenship makes a person eligible to be president would agree with the next paragraph, and yet it defeats their position that positive law determines natural law. The consequence of saying that positive law, what Bryan/Unknown calls a "human invention", informs natural law, what Bryan/Unknown calls the "laws of nature", and that dual U.S./foreign citizenship is sufficient for POTUS eligibility, is affirming that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship is not a superior higher hurdle to POTUS eligibility because ONLY singular U.S. citizenship is exclusive and not inclusive, inclusive being said to be superior to exclusive.

The natural law reality about positive law reality (yes, it's a play with words, but it is stated that way so that people who are not constitutional scholars can explain it to constitutional scholars) is that the language of the constitution is "positive law" written by humans who are the product of natural law (aka, the unified congress of two bodies and then birth). Also, the language of the written constitution written by humans expresses the "natural law" reality that "birth" is a "natural law" activity of the unified congress of two bodies that necessarily precedes a "positive law" declaration by humans who are members of the unified Congress of two bodies, aka the House and Senate.

In other words, it is "natural" law that "born" precedes positive law "Citizen" and so positive law POTUS eligibility.

If the humans, the result of natural law, did not exist first, the positive law language of the constitution could not be written.

In this obvious sense, existence of humans precedes existence of human law, this is what is meant with natural law precedes positive law and positive law is dependent on natural law.

What Bryan/Unknown identifies as the "...laws of nature that depend upon human invention..." is really the positive law of the constitution that is dependent on the natural law prior existence of the humans who express their positive law thought by writing their common sense positive law declaration that ONLY a "natural born (a natural law birth) Citizen (a positive law declaration)" could be "...eligible to the Office of President" because "ONLY by natural law alone", also known as ONLY "by birth alone" to two U.S. citizen (positive law) married (positive law) parents (natural law), could a person (natural law) be a "natural born Citizen" with ONLY singular (positive law) U.S. citizenship (positive law).

ajtelles said...

Natural Law Precedes Positive Law
3/

In other words, birth alone, which is the result of a act of congress, determines natural born citizenship. For that natural law reason a law, a positive law, a statute passed by an Act of Congress, is not necessary.

The positive law "Citizen" designation is dependent on the natural law "born" activity that is necessary before a "natural born Citizen" can even exist to become "...eligible to the Office of President."

Since 2012, whenever I've challenged "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers who promote the 2000s theory, the myth, with a similar challenge to defend dual U.S./foreign citizenship as sufficient for POTUS eligibility, they have NEVER, ever responded in depth with substance, either here on Mario Apuzzo's Natural Born Citizen blog, or Kevin Davidson's ObamaConspiracy.org blog or BirtherReport.com, or AmericanThinker.com, or TheRightScoop.com.

Regarding eligibility to be POTUS, ONLY singular U.S. citizenship as the ONLY original genesis original intent for the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" can NOT be rebutted and can NOT be refuted with dual U.S./foreign citizenship.

That is reality.

Singular U.S. citizenship is the POTUS eligibility reality that Bryan/Unknown and "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers NEVER rebut and NEVER refute by explaining in depth the 2000s myth and theory of the sufficiency if not superiority of dual U.S./foreign citizenship. Instead, "nbC" new meaning neobirthers respond in a ways that are similar to Bryan/Unknown. They either say something like, "well, we don't know what "natural born Citizen" means" so that is why dual U.S./foreign citizenship looks ok to them, or they say something similar to what Bryan/Unknown wrote — they simply throw their ideological molotov cocktails as they drive and say something like "...laws of nature...depend upon human invention" without explicating their point with substance.

Bryan/Unknown wrote about my natural law and positive law comment:

>> "It makes no sense to me.

>> "You cannot defend a ludicrous position by assigning me the challenge of finding evidence for it."

What Bryan/Unknown wrote about "...laws of nature...depend upon human invention" makes no sense to me for the same reason that it would not have made sense to original birther John Jay and original birther George Washington and the original birther framers and ratifiers of the constitution who understood that the laws of nature and nature's God preceded the language and the intent of the constitution.

"Natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers who promote the 2000s theory, the 2000s myth that dual U.S./foreign citizenship is sufficient for POTUS eligibility, and that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship is NOT the ONLY meaning, NOT the ONLY original genesis original intent for the word "born" in "natural born Citizen", cannot defend a ludicrous position by denying the natural law reality that precedes positive law reality—nature and birth precede statute and declaration about eligibility to be president.

That is natural law reality about positive law reality.

Art
http://original-genesis-original-intent.blogspot.com/2016/03/citizen-clarifies-born-in-natural-born.html

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Bryan Gene Olson (Unknown) has already conceded that that the natural born citizens is a proper subset of the born citizens. Now he concedes that Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and Nikki Haley “depend on human inventions” to be citizens. Let us examine what this means.

Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, today one must not only be a "citizen" of the United States in order to be eligible to the Office of President. Rather, one must be a "natural born citizen" of the United States.

In matters of citizenship, the Constitution gives to Congress only the "Power To . . . establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . throughout the United States." Article I, Section 8, Clause 4.

A natural born citizen is a child who becomes a citizen from the moment of birth by virtue of his or her birth circumstances alone. Like a couple’s natural child needs no law to be that couple’s child, a natural born citizen needs no law to be a nation’s citizen. In contrast, a born citizen (who is not a natural born citizen) or a citizen after birth is a person who becomes a citizen "at birth" or after birth by virtue of some law such as the Fourteenth Amendment, Act of Congress, or treaty.

So what are the birth circumstances which alone make one a natural born citizen? Under the common law which borrowed from the law of nations, a natural born citizen is a child born or reputed born in a country to parents (father and mother) who were both its citizens at the moment of the child's birth.

Under the Constitution, a natural born citizen of the United States is a person born or reputed born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth.

Let us apply these principles to Ted Cruz. Cruz is not nor can he be a citizen by his birth circumstances alone. He needs a law to make him a citizen of the United States. He therefore cannot be a natural born citizen. Ted Cruz might have been born to a U.S. citizen mother, but he was also born in a foreign country to an alien father. Hence, Cruz is not a natural born citizen under the common law and consequently under the Constitution. Not being a natural born citizen and being born in a foreign country, he must look not to the Fourteenth Amendment, which bestows the status of a "citizen" of the United States only upon persons born in the United States, but rather to Congress to be a naturalized citizen of the United States.

Unlike many persons born before him, Cruz is lucky that Congress decided for policy reasons to have a naturalization Act in place when Cruz was born in 1970 that made him a "citizen" of the United States. In fact, it was not until 1934 that Congress allowed a child born in a foreign country to a U.S. citizen mother and alien father to be a citizen of the United States "at birth." Only by virtue of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1952 and not only by virtue of his birth circumstances, Cruz at the moment of his birth became a naturalized born citizen (a "citizen" of the United States "at birth"). He therefore was not born a natural born citizen. Consequently, his is not eligible to the Office of President.

Cruz is banking on American voters not knowing or not caring about this information in order to become President.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

We have seen that a natural born citizen becomes a citizen at the moment of birth by virtue of his or her birth circumstances alone. Hence, a natural born citizen does not need any positive law in order to be a citizen, either at birth or after birth. Only a child born or reputed born in the country to two parents who were its citizens becomes a citizen from the moment of birth by virtue of his or her birth circumstances alone and therefore without the aid of any positive law.

Barack Obama, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Nikki Haley, and Ted Cruz were not born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents. Barack Obama (presumably born in the U.S. to a U.S. citizen mother but to an alien father), Marco Rubio (born in the U.S. to two alien parents), Bobby Jindal (born in the U.S. to two alien parents), and Nikki Haley (born in the U.S. to two alien parents) are all citizens of the United States at birth, but only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Ted Cruz (born in a foreign country to an alien father and presumably to a U.S. citizen mother) is a citizen of the United States at birth, but only by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress. None of them became a citizen of the United States by virtue of his or her birth circumstances alone. Each one needed a positive law to become a citizen of the United States. Hence, they may be "citizens" of the United States at birth, but they are not nor can they be "natural born citizens" of the United States.

Unknown said...

tymsync wrote:
"Mr Unknown is lost in the minutia. I can here the founders screaming from the heavens, 'Be vigilant! Carefully vet and scrutinize who you would allow to lead you. Be doubly certain [...]'"

In a later comment, tymsync asked:
"I would add one more item to your list. What was the Framers intent to include the NBC clause?
Of course when you ask that question all these others come into play:
What was their motivations?"

With all due respect to the voices in Tymsync's head, I'll take recorded history over psychic channelling every time. Here is the non-imaginary evidence we have that goes directly to his questions on the motivation and intent of the Founders and Framers for including the NBC clause in Article II:


"One question on the qualifications of the president was among the last to be decided. On the twenty-second of August the committee of detail, fixing the requisite age of the president at thirty-five, on their own motion and for the first time required that the president should be a citizen of the United States, and should have been an inhabitant of them for twenty-one years. On the fourth of September the committee of states who were charged with all unfinished business limited the years of residents to fourteen. It was then objected that no number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for that place; but as men of other lands had spilled their blood in the cause of the United States, and had assisted at every stage of the formation of their institutions, on the seventh of September it was unanimously settled that foreign-born residents of fourteen years who should be citizens at the time of the formation of the constitution are eligible to the office of president." George Bancroft; /History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States/; Volume 2, Fifth Edition; D. Appletion and Company, NY, 1885; pages 192-193.

"Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural _born_ Citizen. ['born' underlined in original]" Letter from John Jay to George Washington, 25 July 1787.


The Framers intent and motivation around the Article II NBC clause, according to the evidence, was: "No number of years could properly prepare a foreigner for that place", and, "A strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government". That much is historical fact.

Now here is my analysis with justification from the facts: What little direct evidence we have indicates that with the exception of those who were citizens at the time, the Framers intended to exclude from the presidency anyone who was ever a foreigner. That seems clear, and the historical record of the Framers on the NBC clause goes no farther. It contains nothing about place, nor parentage; only birth itself. It contains no definition of "natural born citizen", nor note of any discussion on the meaning of the term, yet the known and stated issues tell which definition prevails. Consistent with what we have from the historical record of the framing, "natural-born citizen" means citizen from birth.

R. Ted Cruz is a United States Citizen who became a United States Citizen at the moment of his birth. He was never a foreigner. He is a natural-born citizen, over 35 years old, who has resided in the U.S. for more than 14 years. He is constitutionally eligible to be President. I will vote against R. Ted Cruz every chance I get.

-Bryan

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Bryan,

If Tymsync has voices in his head, what do you have in yours, you big jerk?

tymsync said...

Blogger Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
Bryan,

If Tymsync has voices in his head, what do you have in yours, you big jerk?

That would be 'merda', Mario. Bryan is the type who is too smart by half. Redefining things so he's happy in his little bubble world. The rewrite of the 1790 Nat. Act., striking the NBC language and replacing with simply, "citizen" in the 1795 Nat Act., preserved the exclusionary definition within Article 2's more stringent NBC eligibility requirement for POTUS.

In merda-for-brains Bryan's world he would happy to have any world dictators spawn be his POTUS for that is EXACTLY what reverse-engineering and reducing NBC definition to only mean "citizen from birth" (a near meaningless phrase without context) does.

A stealth ISIS warlord could rape an American citizen anywhere in the world and his spawn could be Bryan's POTUS. I'm sure that would make Bryans little bubble world a very happy place.

It's stupid fools like Bryan, the enemy within, who are tearing at the fabric of the Republic and presenting half-baked arguments with little to no foresight for the ramifications of their idiotic premises which only serve to further undermine protections the framers intended. Of course Bryan doesn't think those protections should even be there. Do you Bryan?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

First, Bryan Gene Olson has conceded that he does not know how the Framers defined a natural born citizen. Second, the First and Third Congress carefully distinguished in the Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795 between a "Citizen of the United States" and a "natural born Citizen." Yet Bryan Gene Olson offers not explanation why, with then-Rep. James Madison and the rest of the Founders and Framers who were in the Third Congress, and with the approval of President George Washington, the Third Congress in the 1795 Naturalization Act removed the language "shall be considered as natural born Citizens" when describing children born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States to U.S. citizen parents who included a father who had been a resident in the United States, which language had been used in the Naturalization Act of 1790, and replaced it with language which when referring to those same children said they "shall be considered as citizens of the United States." In the end, Mr. Olson does not know anything about how the Framers defined a natural born citizen, but yet he wants to tell us what the definition of a natural born citizen is and that people who hold ideas different from his on the meaning of a natural born citizen hear voices in their heads.

William St. George said...

We have in America at this time a very low level of education. Americans do not pride themselves on knowing much of anything unless it has to do with sports or perhaps financial investments. Thus something like what is a natural born citizen strikes most people as very arcane and obscure. Best to shake the head and change the subject. Difficult topics are no fun! They might think let the brilliant guys and girls who went to Harvard Law School like Obama and Cruz figure it out. Precisely; and these guys do figure it out deceptively.
It is easy to see why teachers are delighted when they have good students who are eager to learn; also ones who value virtue. With America's vast population one might think there would be plenty of highly qualified persons for the presidency; but a closer look reveals that only pretty dirty types are likely to apply, and then only those that can be blackmailed or bribed stand much of a chance. Outsiders like Trump and Sanders threaten to upset the Elite's carefully arranged apple cart.

ajtelles said...

Place—Parentage—Birth
1/

Mario,

On March 27, 2016 at 5:27 PM Bryan/Unknown wrote:

"...the Framers intended to exclude from the presidency anyone who was ever a foreigner.
>> That seems clear, and the historical record of the Framers on the NBC clause goes no farther.
>> It contains nothing about place,
>> nor parentage;
>> only birth itself.
>> It contains no definition of "natural born citizen",
>> nor note of any discussion on the meaning of the term,
>> yet the known and stated issues tell which definition prevails.
>> Consistent with what we have from the historical record of the framing,
>> "natural-born citizen" means citizen from birth."


So, Bryan is definite that "which definition prevails" is "citizen from birth" because, well, he doesn't clarify why, how, when.

Here is a short clarification to help Bryan and other "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers who promote the 2000s theory, the 2000s myth that dual U.S./foreign citizenship was the "original genesis original intent" of John Jay and the framers of the 1787 POTUS eligibility clause 5 and ONLY singular U.S. citizenship was NOT the original intent.

From September 17, 1787 until the day before the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act was passed, "at birth" baby Rafael Edward 'Ted' Cruz would have been considered to be a citizen only of Canada and an alien, and from the day the 1952 Act was passed, when baby Rafael was born, he was a citizen of Canada according to Canadian law and, by U.S. statute, not "by birth" but "at birth," baby Rafael was a U.S. citizen according to U.S. law and not "by birth."

ajtelles said...

Place—Parentage—Birth
2/

Bryan wrote:
>> It contains nothing about place,
>> nor parentage;
>> only birth itself.

Since Bryan has still not responded to my previous comment on March 23, 2016 at 7:20 PM about natural law reality and positive law reality, here is a simplified clarification using his "place" and "parentage" and "birth itself" points. All three points related to Ted Cruz, "place", "parentage" and "birth itself" are all references to positive law, a 1952 statute passed by the U.S. Congress.

Bryan says that the historical record "contains nothing about place".

Well, "place" is where "birth itself" happens. Right?

So, is "born" in "natural born Citizen" a reference to "birth itself" on U.S. "place" or "birth itself" on foreign "place"?

Bryan says the historical record "contains nothing about...parentage".

Well, without "parentage" "birth itself" can not happen. Right?

So, is "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen" a reference to "birth self" to two U.S. "citizen" married parents or is it a reference to "birth itself" to foreign "citizen" parents (married or not married)?

Bryan says explicitly that it contains a reference to "only birth itself".

So, is Bryan saying that it is a reference to "birth itself" from 1787, BEFORE the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act was passed, or to "birth itself" AFTER the 1952 Act was passed?

"By birth" is 1787 Article II Section 1 clause 5 natural law reality while "at birth" is positive law reality from 1795.

Bryan has been promoting "at birth" positive law (statute) while ignoring "by birth" natural law (birth).

Ted Cruz was a U.S. "citizen" "at birth" with dual U.S./foreign citizenship with only one U.S. citizen parent by 1952 citizen law and he was not a U.S. "citizen" "by birth" with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship with two U.S. citizen married parents by 1787 POTUS eligibility law.

Art
http://original-genesis-original-intent.blogspot.com/2016/03/citizen-clarifies-born-in-natural-born.html

thalightguy said...

It seems Prof. Elhauge is just another Obama Loyalist. Here’s an excerpt of his Amicus Curiae Brief for Elliott v. Cruz Appeal: : http://ssrn.com/abstract=2748863

“….Nor does this case have anything to do with far-fetched legal claims that even Presidents or Presidential candidates who were born in the United States, such as President Obama, Charles Evan Hughes, and Marco Rubio, are not natural born citizens because their father was not a U.S. citizen when they were born….”

Unknown said...

Oops, minor transcription error. It was I and not George Bancroft that wrote, "years of residents". Bancroft's /History of the Formation of the Constitution of the United States/ has it right: "years of residence". That's from:

"On the fourth of September the committee of states who were charged with all unfinished business limited the years of residence to fourteen."

-Bryan

Mick said...

If anyone born in the US is a natural born Citizen then why was there a need to naturalize the children born in the US of alien parents by the Naturalization Act of 1802 S. 4 and (which was carried into Rev. Stat. 1993 in 1878-- after the 14th Amendment, and after Minor v. Happersett)?

Congressional Globe of the 28th Congress, pg. 129, June 1845. Romulus Saunders, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee gives a synopsis of the first 50 years of Naturalization law of the Republic. In it he absolutely says that NA 1802 S. 4 covers the children of aliens born in the US after the parents naturalized. Right hand column near the top.

https://books.google.com/books?pg=PA129&dq=congress+globe+1845&ei=VytzTfSfBoGDgAe3vfjjBw&ct=result&sqi=2&id=YWEUAAAAYAAJ&hl=en#v=onepage&q=congress%20globe%201845&f=false

Saunders, when speaking specifically about NA 1802, says "it further provides for the children of aliens, whether born within or out of the United States." That one sentence proves that in the early Republic children born within the US of alien parents were NATURALIZED upon the naturalization of their parents. Therefore natural born Citizen must mean one born in the US to US citizen parents.

Mr. Appuzo, please do a blog post on Romulus Saunders' 1854 report. It blows up all the Obot disinformation.

Cox'n Don said...

What unimaginably potent power is it that so effectively stifles so many Americans from ending this travesty? The most accurate investigative strategy I've ever known is "follow the money". I suppose it follows that open borders globalists would want to see the US Presidency staffed by multi-ethnic, multi-national personalities un-aligned with the traditional middle class 'Americans' they've tried to impoverish. As the standard of living goes down and Americans are no longer affluent, the bribing power of the oligarchs rises. Especially with Scalia gone I fear it may be too late. If so, history will reflect how mistaken it was to ignore Obama's impersonation of an NBC.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

A natural born citizen 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. Yet, we notice that today the "news" reporters (probably political operatives or government agents working for a "news" outfit) who just happen to cover stories on permanent residents becoming naturalized citizens of the United States after birth will refer to their children previously born to them in the United States as "natural born citizens." We never had the public media, politicians, courts, etc. in the past be so concerned about the use of the clause "natural born citizen." I've seen these "reporters" now call the children of these aliens natural born citizens in many recent stories covering naturalization proceedings. Given the fraud that the nation has suffered at the hands of Barack Obama and now at the hands of Ted Cruz, neither of whom are natural born citizens, and which was allowed and is being allowed to occur by these types, they now cover for what they have done and bless everything that moves as "natural born citizen." How absurd, the father is just becoming a citizen of the United States and the son is supposed to be a natural born citizen. Well, to whom then was the son born?

This story, "Now, it feels right': After 18 years in U.S., Fargo business owner, family become citizens, by Dave Olson, at http://www.inforum.com/news/4001965-now-it-feels-right-after-18-years-us-fargo-business-owner-family-become-citizens , is one example of this shameless propaganda.

Doublee said...

I recently discovered a picture posted on the Internet that contains a picture of Prince Hashim of Jordon and Sen. Ted Cruz of Canada. Below the pictures is the following text.

Quote:
THESE MEN HAVE IDENTICAL BIRTH STATUS
Prince Hashim of Jordan Sen. Ted Cruz of Canada
American Mom American Mom
Foreign Dad Foreign Dad
Born Abroad Born Abroad

Question: Would America's Founding Fathers have found both men equally eligible to be President of the U.S. and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces under Article II of the U.S. Constitution?
End quote

I don't think it could be explained more simply than that.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

There are three different ways to be born a citizen of the United States:

(1) One way is to be born or reputed born in the country to parents who were both citizens of the United States at the time of the child’s birth. These persons are citizens of the United States by their birth circumstances alone. Hence, they do not need any positive law to make them citizens of the United States. They are the “natural born citizens” of the United States.

(2) Another way is to be born in the country to one or two qualifying alien parents. These persons are not citizens of the United States by their birth circumstances alone. Hence, they need a positive law to make them citizens of the United States. They need the Fourteenth Amendment or a naturalization Act of Congress (8 U.S.C. sec. 1401(a)) to make them citizens of the United States. These persons are “citizens” of the United States “at birth.” They are not “natural born citizens” of the United States.

(3) Another way is to be born in a foreign nation, i.e., out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States to one or two parents who were citizens of the United States at the time of the child’s birth. These persons need a positive law to make them citizens of the United States. They need a naturalization Act of Congress to make them citizens of the United States. These persons are “citizens” of the United States “at birth.” They are not “natural born citizens” of the United States.

Category 2 and 3 are born citizens, but not natural born citizens. Only category 1 are natural born citizens.

Ted Cruz falls into category No. 3. He was born in a foreign nation, i.e., out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States to a mother who was presumably a citizen of the United States and to an alien father. He needed a positive law to make him a citizen of the United States when he was born in 1970. He needed a naturalization Act of Congress to make him a citizen of the United States. He is a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” under the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. He is not a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

William St. George said...

Presumably Ted Cruz could prove he has American citizenship by showing naturalization papers. To date he has not released such. What if they do not exist? I suppose one of these would be a CRBA. Since he maintains that naturalization suffices to make him a natural born citizen I can see no reason for this document not to be released? I believe he got a passport while a teenager. To get one his parents would need some sort of document unless they were allowed to make an affidavit to the effect? I am surprised that these would not be publicly available as part of the vetting of a candidate.

William St. George said...

How many law schools are there in America? How many departments of American history? And yet we are in the eighth year of not knowing what natural born citizenship means or even! that a naturalized citizen can not possibly be a natural born citizen. The courts apparently find dealing with the matter way beyond their scope. And only the occasional law professor will venture an opinion. When first Obama swore to uphold the Constitution on the day he was inaugurated as President who in their right mind could believe him when his very act was a betrayal of that document?

William St. George said...

The fact the Ted Cruz is only a citizen from birth (with several provisos of which we have no proof of his parents having fulfilled them) in virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress ought to be self evident proof that he is not a natural born citizen, since the latter are such without any act of Congress at all. Thus, those that linger on in their opinion using the 1790 naturalization act as ammunition, though in that act his father being a Cuban would jinx matters, have departed from reason and can not be brought to any enlightenment on the subject by any intellectual efforts. Hopeless cases beset by invincible ignorance. These persons have adopted a kind of religious attitude regarding their opinions which they deem send from some higher realm of wisdom unknown to those who resort to history, logic and other such human devices. These are the sort of people who would rather arrive on time in the wrong place than a bit late in the right one!

RTM9999 said...

This is a very simple argument that actually can't be disputed ( Since the US Constitution limits the power given to Congress in regards to US citizenship to only Article 1 Section 8 Clause 4. ) that you can use against BOTH Cruz and Obama.


Article I Section 8 clause 4 states that "Congress shall have power "to establish uniform rules of naturalization" the 10th Amendment limits the powers of each branch to those specifically stated w/in the US Constitution ( And so even the 14th Amendment falls under that limited power given to Congress since the language of the 14th does not expand that power given to Congress it's obvious that the 14th cannot give natural born citizenship to anyone including Obama. Gray in US vs WKA merely ruled WKA a "citizen" and even the notes in Arkeny vs Daniels acknowledges that WKA was not ruled a "natural born citizen".

§ 214. Naturalization.(58)
A nation, or the sovereign who represents it, may grant to a foreigner the quality of citizen, by admitting him into the body of the political society. This is called naturalization. There are some states in which the sovereign cannot grant to a foreigner all the rights of citizens, — for example, that of holding public offices — and where, consequently, he has the power of granting only an imperfect naturalization. It is here a regulation of the fundamental law, which limits the power of the prince. In other states, as in England and Poland, the prince cannot naturalize a single person, without the concurrence of the nation, represented by its deputies. Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner.

“A denizen is an alien born, but who has obtained ex donatione regis letters patent to make him an English subject: A high and incummicable branch of the royal prerogative. A denizen is in a kind of middle state between an alien, and natural-born subject, and partakes of both of them. He may take lands by purchase or devise , which an alien may not; but cannot take by inheritance: for his parent, through whom he must claim, being an alien had no inheritable blood, and therefore could convey none to his son. And, upon a like defect of hereditary blood, the issue[Children] of a denizen , born before denization cannot inherit to him; but his issue[children] born after, may. A denizen is not excused from paying an alien’s duty, and some other mercantile burdens. And no denizen can be of the privy councill, or either house of parliament, or have any office of trust, civil or military, or be capable of any grant from the crown.” - Blackstone


§ 77. " In Great Britain, naturalization has existed from
an early period under two forms. It might be conferred : (1)
by the sovereign by virtue of the prerogative ; (2) by act of
Parliament. The first, as distinguished from the second, is
known under the name of denization, and persons acquir-
ing the character of subjects under it are termed denizens.
When the status of a British subject is conferred by act of
Parliament the proceeding is termed naturalization. Deniza-
tion can be effected only by letters patent from the sov-
ereign ; naturalization only by, or under, an act of the
legislature. The difference between the two in point of
effect is of a substantial character. Denization has no retro-
spective operation, while by naturalization, conferred by act
of Parliament, the alien is placed in exactly the same posi-
tion as if he had been born a subject. A denizen is thus in
an intermediate position between an alien and a natural-born
subject, and partakes of both these characters." ^


RTM9999 said...

Part ii

As citizens, who emigrate, carry with them their laws, their best birthright; so, as might be expected, they transmit this best birthright to their posterity. By the statute 25. Edw. III. says my lord Bacon, which, if you believe Hussey,35 is but a declaration of the common law, all children, born in any part of the world, if they be of English parents, continuing, at that time, as liege subjects to the king, and having done no act to forfeit the benefit of their allegiance, are, ipso facto, naturalized. If divers families of English men and women plant themselves at Lisbon, and have issue, and their descendants intermarry among themselves, without any intermixture of foreign blood; such descendants are naturalized to all generations; for every generation is still of liege parents, and therefore naturalized; so as you may have whole tribes and lineages of English in foreign countries. And therefore it is utterly untrue that the law of England cannot operate, but only within the bounds of the dominions of England.l - James Wilson Early American Founder. IOWs English practice naturalized both those born in and outside England. Parliament passed legislation that naturalized those born outside England and the king via decree naturalized those born in England to foreigners {Synonym to "aliens". } ) .

RTM9999 said...

part iii

Cruz needs legislation passed by Congress to make the claim that he "eligible" because he is a "citizen 'at birth' " even though the State Dept. website even states this ( Notice the words "may" and "if" in regards to children born abroad. :


https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/abroad/events-and-records/birth.html
Birth of U.S. Citizens Abroad
A child born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents may acquire U.S. citizenship at birth if certain statutory requirements are met.


http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/86755.pdf
................
(2)Jus sanguinis (the law of the bloodline)
-a concept of Roman or civil law under which a person’s citizenship is determined by the citizenship of one or both parents. This rule, frequently called “citizenship by descent” or “derivative citizenship”, is not embodied in the U.S. Constitution, but such citizenship is granted through statute. As U.S. laws have changed, the requirements for conferring and retaining derivative citizenship have also changed.



Rep. A. Smyth (VA), House of Representatives, December 1820:
"When we apply the term “citizens” to the inhabitants of States, it means those who are members of the political community. The civil law determined the condition of the son by that of the father. A man whose father was not a citizen was allowed to be a perpetual inhabitant, but not a citizen, unless citizenship was conferred on him."


“What better way to insure attachment to the country than to require the President to have his American citizenship through his American Father and not through a foreign father. Any child can be born anywhere in the country and be removed by their father to be raised in his native country. The risks would be for the child to return later in life to reside in this country bringing with him foreign influences and intrigues.” - Charles Pinckney (Continental Congress (1777-78 and 1784-87) and S.C. state legislature (1779-80, 1786-89, and 1792-96) (signer of the Constitution of the United States)

RTM9999 said...

Of course these rulings only rule that "birth in country" is important . These certainly would rule out Cruz although Article I Section 8 clause 4 would also mean that the 14th was limited by that same Article I Section 8 clause 4 language. :


http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/gaynor/160217
In Zummer v. Acheson, 191 F.2d 209 (10th Cir. 1951), the meaning of the Constitution's "natural born Citizen" clause was indirectly involved and the types of citizenship were discussed.
............... In rejecting their appeal, the appellate court stated:
"There are only two classes of citizens of the United States, native-born citizens and naturalized citizens; and a citizen who did not acquire that status by birth in the United States is a naturalized citizen.".......... The appellate court further stated:
"Revised Statutes § 1993, in force at the time of the birth of Harry Ward Zimmer, provided: 'All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.' "If Werner Herman Zimmer, by virtue of his naturalization on October 30, 1896, was a citizen of the United States on August 9, 1905, the date of the birth of Harry Ward Zimmer, then the latter, at the time of his birth, became a citizen of the United States by virtue of the foregoing statute, but his status as a citizen was that of a naturalized citizen and not a native-born citizen."



RTM9999 said...

http://natural-borncitizens.com/nbcfiles/nbc_McElwee.pdf ..................... The Act of March 26, 1790 (1 S
tat 103) provides in pp 104: “And the children of
citizens of the United States that may be born beyond the seas, or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural-born citizens.”
In Osborn v. Bank 22 US (9 Wheat) 738, l.c. 827
, Chief Justice Marshall said:
“A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an Act of Congress, but the Act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing,
in the view of the Constitution, on the footing of a native.
The Constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights.
The simple power of the national legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it , so far as regards the individual. The Constitution then takes him up, and, among other rights, extends to him the capacity of suing in the Courts of the United States, precisely under the same circumstance under which a native might sue.
He is distinguishable in nothing from a native citizen, except so far as the Constitution makes the distinction . The law makes none.”
Thus the Act of March 26, 1790 would be unconstitutional if it attempted to enlarge the rights of a naturalized citizen to be equal to those of natural-born citizens under the Constitution."




http://famguardian.org/subjects/LawAndGovt/Citizenship/CitizenshipAndRomanLaw.htm
................
"`All political power is inherent in the people,' (Art. I, §2, of the Constitution,) and those who are not of the people can have no share in it. The People are such as are born upon the soil, by whom and for whom in the first place the government was ordained, and such persons of foreign birth as may elect to assume the obligations of a Citizen by complying with the laws of naturalization as enacted by Congress. If they desire to secure political rights they must become Citizens in the mode prescribed. Until then, they can neither vote nor hold office; they can neither choose nor be chosen, for that is the exercise of political power, and, they are not of the People, who alone may exercise this. In the nature of things this must be so, and cannot be otherwise, except by force of some positive law. None such exists. By section 17 of Article I of the Constitution, foreigners who were then or might thereafter become bona fide residents of the State, are vested with the civil rights of native born Citizens as to the possession, enjoyment and inheritance of property; but neither there nor elsewhere are they clothed with a share of the political power which is inherent in the people, or allowed upon any terms other than those of allegiance to participate in the management of public affairs.
"I concur in the judgment." Walther v. Rabolt (1866), 30 C. 185, 26 F. 849. (per J. Sanderson, concurring opinion.) See also Mason's California Constitution (1952 Ed.), p. 15.

RTM9999 said...

Concerning jus soli and the Edict of Caracalla in AD 212.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_soli
........
An early form of jus soli dates from Cleisthenes' reforms of ancient Athenian law in the 6th century BC. It developed further in the Roman world, where citizenship was extended to all free inhabitants of the Roman Empire by the Edict of Caracalla in AD 212.[9]


Of course the Edit of Caracalla would have made Roman citizens out of persons that had already been born before 212 AD which means that jus soli is a form of naturalization.

And the English despite for instance a reading of Blackstone required these
these 3 principles to be a "subject born". :


"There be regularly three incidents to a subject born.
(1) That the parents be under the actual obedience to the king
(2) That the place of birth be within the king's dominion
(3) The time of his birth is chiefly to be considered ; For he cannot be the
subject born of one kingdom that was born under the ligeance of a king of
another kingdom , albeit afterwards one kingdom descends to the king of the
other."

Carlyle said...

Just watched The Obama on Fox News Sunday, which was filmed at Univ of Chicago. They showed an office he used to occupy - and it had a plaque saying he had worked there and written a book. I was obviously struck, yet again, by the FACT that there is no hospital or even town/village in the world that has a plaque "Obama born here"! Just sayin - - -

4zoltan said...

Mr. apuzzo - how did the hearing go? Was it videoed?

William St. George said...

"Cruz and his lawyers argue that anyone who is a citizen at birth, who does not have to go through a naturalization process in order to become a citizen, is natural born."
--? This is a very tricky sort of argument. The lawyers are attempting to void the idea of naturalization in a somewhat slick way. But they are wrong. At a minimum his parents needed to fill out a form. Did he have to establish residency before the age of 18? Still it was in virtue of a Naturalization Act that he did, if he did, become a citizen and mere birth was not sufficient. These sorts of arguments are invalid though they do leave the mind puzzled. What they are saying is that a naturalization act is not a naturalization act if no process is required. But they just made that up because it sounded good and achieved their goal. Tricky, tricky, tricky. It is like a sentence which says 'this sentence is wrong'.

William St. George said...

Now I understand that both of Cruz's parents were Canadian citizens at the time of his birth. At that time Canada did not allow for dual citizenship, so I suppose his mother and father were asked to renounce their respective citizenships in their former countries in order to become Canadians. As a result his mother might have been in quandary regarding what to do about Ted. If she filled out the form as a Canadian that would not have worked; to fill it out as an American citizen might have gotten her into trouble with the Canadian gov. I can see why she might have decided to do nothing. So there may not be the form for him that she was supposed to fill out and file. If there were he would be able to show people, but then I suppose he would be drawing attention to his naturalization process which his attorneys are denying occurred. Or if his mother had renounced her American citizenship, and there would be a record of that, it would cast doubt on his citizenship. What a tangle! Apparently there is a legal group which has managed to gather some documents in Canada which will when they are published tip over Cruz's apple cart. So we may in the next week or so see apples all over the place in the primaries.

Samson said...

Judge Masin gets it wrong again. Really, this is unbelievable. Can a person be a natural born dual citizen? Anyway, this needs to go the Supreme Court with some 'respected' attorneys for both sides. I guess it is sad that I am even considering that perhaps the Supreme Court will choose political expediency over Constitutionality. Oh well.

Samson said...

Can a person who is natural born be a dual citizen? That seems the simplest reduction of this. The founding fathers undoubtedly meant for any future president past Constitution to be US only citizen.

Samson said...

This just needs to go to the Supreme Court somehow. It is sad that I am considering that they would choose political expediency over what is obvious in the Constitution and the law.

Teo Bear said...

Mario,

That son-of-a-bitch Masin did it again. In Purpura & Moran, Masin said Obama was a natural born citizen even though he allowed the COLB to be withdrawn rather than allow a forensic expert examine it, now with no proof Cruz's mother was an American at the time of Senator Cruz's birth, he declared her to be a citizen.

Still the judges are avoiding both Wong Kim Ark and Rogers v Bellei like the plague.


Teo

Ray said...

February 4, 1790, while discussing a bill to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, the U.S. Rep from South Carolina Aedanus Burke said: "The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for"

The foreign-born children of citizens where not citizens! Provision had to be made for them in a naturalization statute.

The foreign-born children of citizens have always required naturalization.

It's right there in the Annals of Congress. http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=580 Right column, fourth paragraph from the bottom.

Madison, who was not involved with the drafting of the 1790 Act, led the committee which drafted the 1795 Act which repealed the 1790 Act.

The controlling law in Mr. Cruz's situation grants the status "citizen", and his citizenship - like Bellei's - could have been revoked (a provision later repealed). Yet we're expected to believe that such a person is a "natural born citizen"?

What an absurdity. What a joke.

ajtelles said...

NO!!! to the Supreme Court

Mario,

Samsom made an excellent comment on April 12, 2016 at 7:47 PM:

>> "Can a person be a natural born dual citizen?
>> "Anyway, this needs to go the Supreme Court
>> "with some 'respected' attorneys for both sides.
>> "I guess it is sad that I am even considering that
>> "perhaps the Supreme Court will choose political expediency
>> "over Constitutionality.
>> "Oh well."


Respectfully to Samson and others who want the SCOTUS to define "born" in "natural born Citizen" in Article II: NO to the Supreme Court opining about the original genesis original intent of the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" regarding POTUS eligibility.

The SCOTUS got Dred Scott wrong in 1857--and a civil war began in 1861.

The SCOTUS got Wong Kim Ark wrong in 1898--and break-and-enter plop-n-drop "anchor babies" are accepted as Amendment 14 constitutional in 2000s America.

The SCOTUS got Roe v. Wade wrong in 1973 and +/- 50 million potential citizens have been killed since then.

The SCOTUS got the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), the Affordable Care Act (ACA) (aka Obamacare), wrong in 2010 and the "commune" concept of "equality" is creating chaos in the health care system.

With the lack of constitutional fortitude (aka "guts") by the supremes as expressed by Justice Clarence Thomas a few years ago when he said that the Court was staying away from defining "natural born Citizen" for constitutional clarity, we do NOT want the SCOTUS touching Article II Section 1 clause 5.

What we need is an Article V "convention of states to propose an amendment" so that WE the People can tell our gutless supremes and senators and representatives that "born" in "natural born Citizen" means ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, which is ONLY possible by birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.

Period.

Art
Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com/2016/03/citizen-clarifies-born-in-natural-born.html

Peter Lettkeman said...

Mario please please please STOP trying to prove he is NOT a natural born Citizen. In the case in NJ the ONLY person that talks about being NATURALIZED is the judge.

It is hard to prove a negative but very easy to prove a positive. There are MANY cases where the SCOTUS says those born abroad are naturalized in terms of the Constitution. PROVE THE POSITIVE!

Also if Cruz walked in to an AF recruiter tomorrow he would have to provide one of the following documents.

AFRSI36-2001 1 AUGUST 2012

2.19.5. An individual born abroad who acquired US citizenship at birth may use any of the
following documents, issued by the specified agency, for verification:
2.19.5.1. From the Department of State (DS):
2.19.5.1.1. A valid US passport (5 years for minors, 10 years for adults).
2.19.5.1.2. FS Form 240, Consular Report of Birth, or FS Form 545, Certification of Birth.
2.19.5.1.3. DS Form 1350, Certificate of Report of Birth.
2.19.5.2. From the US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS):
2.19.5.2.1. INS Form N-560A, Certificate of Citizenship.
2.19.5.2.2. INS Form N-561, Certificate of Citizenship (replacement for INS Form N-560A).

Without one of these documents he would NOT be enlisted as a U.S. Citizen. He would have been allowed to join as a Canadian had he not renounced his citizenship.

cfkerchner said...

Get copy of the judge’s it's a living Constitution faulty “reasoning” for his decision here: https://www.scribd.com/doc/308269472/NJ-Judge-Advisory-Opinion-Rules-Canadian-Born-Cruz-Eligible-To-Be-President-4-12-2016

Unknown said...

I have seen US v Wong Kim Ark cited in many of these cases, but the frustrating thing is they don't cite the most important part which definitively states that someone born outside of the US to a citizen parent is naturalized ( thus can't be NBC ) :

"Every person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization. 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...."

Add to that the Rogers v. Bellei case where Bellei has the EXACT birth circumstances as Cruz. The case wouldn't even exist if all 9 justices didn't concur that Bellei was a naturalized citizen ( otherwise they couldn't have stripped his citizenship from him for failure to comply with a naturalization requirement )

cfkerchner said...

Ted Cruz is at best a NATURALIZED Citizen per the Wong Kim Ark (1898) SCOTUS decision the judge briefly cited but failed to include that part of the WKA decision. The judge's decision was not based on originalism but instead on a living constitution, and it would be unfair in a sense to hold Ted Cruz as not being eligible. He tried to dance down the middle in a lot of his writings. And he couched a lot of his reasoning on ... well PA ruled OK for Cruz so I guess that carries weight with me to rule he's OK. And his brief mention of the Jay letter to Washington ignores totally that allowing a foreign born child to only one citizen parent to be considered a "natural born Citizen" is hardly a "strong check" against foreigners gaining command of our military. He wrote like he didn't believe what the real concerns were of Jay and Washington for putting the term in there. He must have never read the Federalist Papers and the discussion therein about the strong checks provided against foreign influence gaining access to our new office of President and Commander in Chief. The court did not consider the national security concerns of the founders and framers at all and the detriment to national security that will happen, by ruling like he did, if it is allowed to stand. Like the PA decision if the LtGov and SOS of NJ approves this judge's ruling, it must be appealed all the way up to SCOTUS. Standing and political question are not in the path this time. The judge really gave Vattel short-shrift. Ben Franklin didn't. Unbelievable how the judiciary has gone so, so far away from originalism as to understanding and intent for determining the meaning of a term in our constitution which has very important national security implications. CDR Kerchner (Retired)

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Peter,

What briefs of mine did you read?

Ray said...

Burke's February 4, 1790 comment, "The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th year of William III" presumably refers to "An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject", Stat. Realm Vol. 7, page 636 http://www.british-history.ac.uk/statutes-realm/vol7/pp636-638

[] no Person born out of the Kingdoms of England Scotland or Ireland or the Dominions thereunto belonging (although he be naturalized or made a Denizen (except such as are born of English Parents) shall be capable to be of the Privy Council or a Member of either House of Parliament or to enjoy any Office or Place of Trust either Civil or Military or to have any Grant of Lands Tenements or Hereditaments from the Crown to himself or to any other or others in Trust for him

Here the English law itself acknowledges that the foreign-born child of English parents is naturalized.

Chief said...

No mention of US State Department requirements for children of US citizens born abroad who want to establish US citizenship for their child. Consular Report Birth Abroad (CRBA)and Confirmation of US citizenship which produces a State Department Form FS240.

• A Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. citizen is only issued to a child who acquired U.S. citizenship at birth and who is generally under the age of 18 at the time of the application.
• The U.S. embassy or consulate will provide one original copy of an eligible child’s Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen.
• A more secure Consular Report of Birth Abroad of a U.S. Citizen was introduced in January 2011. This new CRBA has been updated with a variety of state of the art security features, and is printed centrally in the United States. U.S. embassies and consulates no longer print CRBAs locally, but you still must apply there. The central production was initiated to ensure uniform quality and reduce vulnerability to fraud. The previous version of the CRBA continues to be valid proof of U.S. citizenship.

Hope this helps nail this Obama coatailer.....

Leo Derosia said...

Wow, I am really shocked Jeff Masin said cruz is a natural born citizen. I do not know why mario thinks one of these controlled judges will rule against cruz...I do not think i can hack another phony, smarmy, lying, crooked ineligible junior senator usurping presidency. These elections are charades as it is and they could at least only allow a nbc to be on a ballot

cfkerchner said...

An open message to NJ LtGov Kim Guadagno:

I have read Admin Judge Masin’s decision. It is flawed. The “natural born Citizen” term in our U.S. Constitution was put there for national security reason as to who could be Pres and Commander in Chief of our military once the founding generation was gone. They knew the term meant a person with sole allegiance to the country at birth. Not just any sliver or partial allegiance such as being born a dual citizen or tri-citizen as Ted Cruz was. Ted was born with Canadian citizenship by soil, Cuban citizenship from his father, and U.S. citizenship via his mother if she had not at some point renounced that and became a Canadian citizen to register to vote up there, which she did. How is allowing a tri-citizen at birth to be eligible to be Pres and CinC a “strong check” against foreign influence in that office, as founders and framers John Jay and George Washington intended it to be. A natural born Citizen is one born with sole allegiance and singular citizenship to the USA and only the USA by being born in the USA to parents who are both citizens (born or naturalized citizen parents but citizens) when their child was born. See my white paper on this subject: https://www.scribd.com/…/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-Ho… Also see: https://www.scribd.com/…/Euler-Logic-Diagram-Shows-Logical-… and https://www.scribd.com/…/Papers-Discussing-Natural-Born-Cit…

This question of eligibility MUST be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court. Reject the recommendation decision by Judge Masin and do not allow the ineligible Ted Cruz to be remain on the NJ ballot for President. That, in addition to being the right originalist understanding and meaning defense of the Constitution and the “natural born Citizen” term, would also force this matter to the U.S. Supreme Court on an expedited basis since at that point two states, PA and NJ, would have ruled differently and SCOTUS would have to address the matter on the merits in an immediate and expedited basis.

Respectfully submitted,

CDR Charles Kerchner (Retired)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
ProtectOurLiberty.org
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com

UPDATE 1 – 13 Apr 2016: Exceptions challenges to Admin Judge Masin’s recommendations decision filed by Atty Mario Apuzzo to the NJ LtGov Kim Guadagno: https://www.scribd.com/doc/308404277/Atty-Mario-Apuzzo-filed-Exceptions-to-NJ-LtGov-Challenging-Admin-Judge-Masin-Decision-to-Leave-Ted-Cruz-on-Ballot

UPDATE 2 – 13 Apr 2016: Exceptions challenges to Admin Judge Masin’s recommendations decision filed by Atty Victor Williams to the NJ LtGov Kim Guadagno: https://www.scribd.com/doc/308415950/Atty-Victor-Williams-Exceptions

cfkerchner said...

Atty Apuzzo files Exception to NJ LtGov challenging Admin Judge Masin's flawed decision to leave ineligible Tri-Citizen at birth, foreign-born Ted Cruz on ballot in NJ for President: https://www.scribd.com/doc/308404277/Atty-Mario-Apuzzo-filed-Exceptions-to-NJ-LtGov-Challenging-Admin-Judge-Masin-Decision-to-Leave-Ted-Cruz-on-Ballot

CDR Kerchner (Ret) - http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

cfkerchner said...

Attorney, Professor, and Presidential Candidate Victor Williams tears into the Admin Judge Masin's neutrality, objectivity, and credibility in his Exceptions challenge: Exceptions challenges to Admin Judge Masin’s recommendations decision filed by Atty Victor Williams to the NJ LtGov Kim Guadagno: https://www.scribd.com/doc/308415950/Atty-Victor-Williams-Exceptions

CDR Kerchner (Ret) - http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

Ray said...

I'd like share this particularly incisive comment:

For example, if the Founders created the "natural born" requirement with the understanding or intention to incorporate the statutory laws of England, then why, in the notes of the committee discussions of the drafting of the Naturalization Act of 1790, did one of the committee members state that "The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents, in the 12th year of William III."

If the English statutes were already incorporated, why was Congress in 1790 drafting a law specifically in order to provide for what was already provided for in one of the supposedly incorporated English statutes?


Hat tip to Joachim at FreeRepublic

Peter Lettkeman said...

mario!
I just read your request to the SOS. GREAT STUFF! I thought that this judge had looked at your briefs and was answering to them. I didn't see your briefs on this case because they haven't been posted that I can find. It just seemed like based on the Judges statement that you didn't work towards proving he was naturalized. My plea was more in general reading the previous briefs by others in other cases where they kept trying to prove that Rafael was NOT a natural born Citizen.

Again Great statements by both you and Mr. Williams in your statements to the SOS!

cfkerchner said...

UPDATE 3 – 13 Apr 2016 (Final Decision): Final Decision from NJ Secretary of State and Lt Governor published re Ted Cruz eligibility to be on NJ ballot for President: https://www.scribd.com/doc/308464019/Final-Decision-by-NJ-SoS-Williams-South-Jersey-Concerned-Citizens-v-Ted-Cruz

UPDATE 4 – 13 Apr 2016: Feedback from Atty, Professor, and Presidential Candidate Victor Williams about the NJ decision is on his webpage: http://victorwilliamsforpresident.com/

CDR Kerchner (Ret) -- https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/04/13/an-open-message-to-nj-ltgov-kim-guadagno-from-cdr-charles-kerchner-ret/

Robert Pilchman said...


https://www.scribd.com/doc/308464019/Final-Decision-by-NJ-SoS-Williams-South-Jersey-Concerned-Citizens-v-Ted-Cruz ( BTW: I provided the State of New Jersey with an "Amicus Brief Regarding Exceptions". However, the New Jersey Secretary of State (aka Lt. Gov.) Kimberly M. Guadagno didn't even seem to acknowledge its existence. Granted I would have liked to have first received permission for such a submission ... but there was like only hours to voice concerns about the ALJ's initial decision.) So what, if anything, will happen next? Judicial Review?

Leo Derosia said...

What will happen next? Not a damn thing. The Naturalization Act of 1790 and 1795 already proved that children born outside of us to us citizens (that means 2 Jeff Masin ) were naturalized. What a farce. I like trump a lot but he will never be allowed to be CiC and will probably be screwed out of nomination. Hillary will be next president

Unknown said...

Cfkerchner wrote:
"This question of eligibility MUST be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court."

Mr. Kerchner, isn't that what you said about Kerchner v. Obama? 669 F. Supp. 2d 477 (D.N.J. 2009) aff’d, 612 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2010), cert. denied, 131 S. Ct. 663 (2010)

Cfkerchner wrote:
"Reject the recommendation decision by Judge Masin and do not allow the ineligible Ted Cruz to be remain on the NJ ballot for President. That, in addition to being the right originalist understanding and meaning defense of the Constitution and the 'natural born Citizen' term, would also force this matter to the U.S. Supreme Court on an expedited basis since at that point two states, PA and NJ, would have ruled differently and SCOTUS would have to address the matter on the merits in an immediate and expedited basis."

Well, sort of. The U.S. Supreme Court's jurisdiction is discretionary, but contradictory decisions by courts immediately below tend to compel them to settle the matter. In the Rules of the U.S. Supreme Court, Rule 10 parts (a) and (b) explain the cause. The N.J. Secretary of State is not yet at that level. (And by the time I write this she has accepted the Court of Administrative Law's Initial Decision).

In the Pennsylvania case of Elliott v. Cruz, we have a state court of last resort, The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, affirming that Cruz is eligible. If in some other state an authority finds Cruz ineligible, and the state's Supreme Court lets that decision stand either by affirming or by declining review, then the Supreme Court would have to act, probably with the speed of Bush v. Gore.

So with 50 states, we expect those opposing Cruz's eligibility need a win rate of just 2% to get the matter to SCOTUS. That could happen. I do caution, as does an old proverb: Be careful for what you wish.

William St. George said...

I can prove that I am an American citizen by showing my official state issued birth certificate. I can prove that I am natural born by showing my parents birth certificates. We were all born in the USA in the 20th century. Today I talked with a Russian woman who came to the USA in the 1970's from Leningrad and became an American citizen. She has an official certificate showing that she is now a US citizen which she could use to get a passport.
What can Ted Cruz show? I think the NJ judge ought to have demanded from Cruz's attorneys proof of his citizenship. Could someone like him merely show his birth certificate and a copy of his mother's?
What would constitute official proof that Cruz is a USA citizen? His devotees should demand this since, if Hilary becomes the Democratic Party nominee, she will definitely demand it and more.

William St. George said...

Well, the NJ judge is certainly no scholar. He may not be a very bright person; he may not be a very brave person; and he may be a bit corrupted? Were I he I would be very embarrassed by the Exceptions written by Williams and Apuzzo as they would show me to be a very third rate judge. Interestingly with Obama we did not even have a birth certificate proving Obama was native born. Presumably the woman he claims was his mother was indeed his mother but we have no proof of that. In the case of Cruz we have a birth certificate which conjoined to his mother's birth certificate probably placed him under a Naturalization Act given the year of his birth though had he been born in the early part of the century he would have been alien with respect to the USA. In the intervening years an Act of Congress allowed him citizenship. So Ted is a US citizen if he is one in virtue of an Act of Congress. That could hardly be more obvious unless you are a certain quality of judge in which case it is as opaque as a matter can be. As with Obama we discovered that there are many American judges who really have a serious perception problem when it comes to any thing stretching beyond the common place like traffic tickets, theft and the like. Resorting to articles written by law student and the like is also rather perilous as these also have the ability to have hidden motives divergent from the laws. The Cruz case is so obvious and simple even a grade school student could grasp it with ease if properly presented.

William St. George said...

Instead of remaining in front of a brick wall which is where I find myself each time after one of these judicial miracles which turn the plain truth into its opposite, I have decided to look beyond these frightened? little judges. Assuming that the natural born eligibility requirement has to do with loyalty which would be weakened or even absent otherwise due to an alien parent or birth to citizenship in another land, could the Power Elite be actively seeking such persons due to their diluted allegiance? It seems like Obama who is one of these creatures has weakened the borders considerably and wishes to pass "trade agreements" which transfer sovereignty to multinational corporations. In fact his whole presidency seems to be contra USA. Might not Cruz move in a similar direction? He seems to waver on the TPP as he favored fast track. He has shown little of the Originalist that he claims to be so far. In his own way he seems just as odd and puzzling as Obama. And dangerous!

thalightguy said...

According to the position of the United States in August 2010, Canadian born Ted Cruz is a naturalized U.S. citizen.

See: Flores-Villar v. United States 564 U.S. ___ (2011) Brief for the United States (Neal Katyal Acting Solicitor General )(“The fact that Congress has enacted a law under which some foreign born individuals acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by virtue of a parent’s citizenship does not mean that such individuals are not naturalized citizens for purposes of the Constitution…when Congress enacts rules to govern acquisition of citizenship, it acts pursuant to its constitutional authority to establish a uniform rule of naturalization.”) http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/flores-villar-v-united-states/

Carlyle said...

Winston Churchill for President!

I think you have discussed this before, but aren't Ted Cruz and Winnie circumstanced exactly the same? And nobody ever even remotely surmised that WC would be eligible for POTUS!

cfkerchner said...

A white paper I wrote on the Who What When Where Why and How the 'natural born Citizen' term was put into our U.S. Constitution: https://www.scribd.com/doc/300919680/The-Who-What-When-Where-Why-and-How-of-the-natural-born-Citizen-Term-in-Our-U-S-Constitution CDR Charles Kerchner (Retired) – http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

cfkerchner said...

Still Report #802 - NJ Judge Didn't Review Cruz Docs - YouTube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TwYz4OAo7vY

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

Robert Pilchman said...


Regarding New Jersey - Any judicial review? What about Pennsylvania? Where are things holding? I would like to submit amicus briefs ...

William St. George said...

Ted Cruz is more of a Sophist than an Evangelical Christian. The Sophists were quite popular in Plato's time. They believed in moral relativism and were skeptical about the possibility of knowledge. Rhetoric was their thing! In a recent interview with Hannity Cruz displays his ability to avoid answering a question by using a variety of tricks he no doubt learned at Harvard Law School and thereafter. Perhaps he would have to be subjected to water boarding, which he does not consider torture, in order to give genuine answers to legitimate questions. It seems his father is also given to twisting the truth, so it is apparently a family tradition. He has also learned from Obama the trick of sealing his papers. Cruz has the ideal face and manner to play Satan in a 19th century drama where he helps people commit crimes they would otherwise hesitate to commit. Unfortunately when he attempts to corrupt the sheriff he fails and is given one hour to leave town or else go to jail. Later on while traversing an area where he cheated an Indian tribe he is waylaid and exterminated. After months of seeing that face and his expressions I suddenly realized that he was destined for a dirty role in life and that probably nothing he could do would change things. In private practice he would attract dishonest clients who needed to get around laws.

cfkerchner said...

Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz Family Timeline by Anna Tomerlin - Posted to her FaceBook page 17 Apr 2016: https://www.facebook.com/notes/anna-tomerlin/rafael-edward-ted-cruz-family-timeline/998233746879858

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

cfkerchner said...

Robert Pilchman: I have not heard anything from Mr. Elliott in going on two weeks about when they are going to file the Petition to SCOTUS. I would suggest you contact Mr. Elliott via his SCOTUS petition fund raising page https://www.gofundme.com/h3xff4m4 It appears he has not raised his targeted funds goal yet. Maybe that is the issue. Or you could contact one of his attorneys (Atty Bernstein for example) using their contact information in their court filings such as this one. Atty Bernstein also handled the NY challenge: https://www.scribd.com/doc/305961986/Elliott-v-Cruz-Appellants-Brief-Final-PA-Supreme-Court-29-MAP-2016 Best to go directly to the persons doing the challenge when you have a question. Contact them and see what they can or will tell you.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

William St. George said...

"Rafael Edward Cruz born Calgary, Alberta, Canada Dec. 22, 1970
1970 If Eleanor Elizabeth Wilson was still a US citizen when Ted Cruz was born, she was required by law to go to the US Embassy and register Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz’s birth at the United States Of American Department of State Consular Office and make a Report of Birth Abroad. She did not and Ted Cruz did not do so before his 18th birthday. If you fail to file a Consular Report of Birth Abroad before your 18th birthday the window of citizenship closes." http://freedomoutpost.com/constitutional-eligibility-is-a-matter-of-national-security-the-family-time-line-of-rafael-edward-ted-cruz/
If the above is accurate then Ted is not a naturalized American citizen. I do not know immigration law so can not determine what the case is. This is one for our host.

George Turner said...

After the NJ ruling I would suggest a different legal argument. If Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen because his mother was a US citizen, then so too are all children of US citizens born abroad. Since such people were then never aliens who were naturalized under Congress's Article I powers to write uniform rules for the naturalization of aliens, none of the US naturalization laws apply to them.

And if that's the case then anyone, not currently a US citizen, who can trace their ancestry back to a US citizen, must be a US citizen through descent, as no naturalization laws should have ever applied anywhere along that chain of natural born descent.

Further, all naturalized Chinese citizens could return to Bejing and open up sperm banks offering "natural born American seed", and the offspring would have the same citizenship status as babies born in Indianapolis. They could not be denied entry, and they could show up by the millions and vote, perhaps eventually numbering a billion. The same would hold true for Latin America and Africa. And that's on top of the unknown number of foreign people who have an American soldier, sailor, businessman, or tourist somewhere in their ancestry who could show up tomorrow and vote in November.

I would hold that out as a direct consequence of a court holding that Cruz is a natural born citizen, so as to give the judge pause about the magnitude of what he is saying. And it's a problem that couldn't be easily addressed in legislation because the Constitution doesn't grant Congress power to deny a person's status as a natural born US citizen.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

George Turner,

Very good. I am making the same argument, with great detail and support, to the Appellate Division in our appeal of the Williams v. Cruz and Power, Ward, and Stom v. Cruz New Jersey ballot challenge. New Jersey ALJ Jeff Masin did not understand the meaning and consequences of his holding.

RodCrosby said...

It's obvious, isn't it? All of Churchill's descendants are NBCs... As are all the English Astors, the Benns, the Channons, the British Gettys, the Macmillans (including a PM), the McCartneys, the Shand-Kydds (including Lady Di, and the present heirs to the British throne) and thousands of others...

Most of these guys, in fact. Just the famous ones!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:People_of_American_descent

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Rod Crosby,

It never fails. This is what you get when one tries to squeeze lemon juice out of a dry piece of bread.

George Turner said...

Speaking of Churchill, I'd used him as an example of someone born to a US mother who said the Constitution would have to be amended for him to become President. I encountered the retort that his mother had given up her US citizenship when she married Churchill's father.

But later I ran across in the an 1899 article in Albany Law Journal that argues this was not the case. British women have their British citizenship suspended when they marry an American (they can resume it when their spouse dies), but US women never lose their US citizenship because Congress was granted no power to do that. But it points out that everyone in Britain assumes that US women lose their US citizenship.

The question was answered differently in district court in US v Perkins (I think 1923), and the Citizenship Act of 1907 says that a US woman takes the nationality of her husband. But in Murray v The Charming Betsy, 1803, a case which featured Caribbean pirates and the USS Constellation (Cpt. Murray commanding) it was established that a natural born US citizen could take a foreign nationality and not lose their US citizenship because business is business and sometimes a US ship owner has to swear loyalty to the king of Denmark to get business done.

This puts the Churchill argument back in play, because current US law says that for a natural born citizen to lose their citizenship they must jump through hoops of fire over a snake pit while clearly and unequivocally renouncing it. Unless they clearly and unequivocally renounce it, they could lead a nuclear attack on the US and all the federal government could do is charge them with treason and beg them to turn in their Social Security card. Revocation of natural born citizenship was a power reserved to the states, respectively, or to the people.

In contrast, a naturalized citizen can have their citizenship revoked for refusing to testify before a Congressional committee investigating subversion, or by joining the communist party or similar anti-American organizations. What Congress hath done, Congress may undo.

William St. George said...

Apparently Ted Cruz was a good student at Harvard Law School. Whatever tools he acquired then he is likely using them to defend his assertion that he is a natural born citizen. Since at the time of his birth his mother was a naturalized Canadian citizen?, when dual citizenship was not permitted Canadians, the question arises as to whether she was sufficiently a US citizenship for Ted to qualify under the Naturalization Act in effect at that time? This is probably a very complex issue as to just what would amount to renunciation of US citizenship; however, I would be surprised if the matter had never came up given the proximity of Canada to the US. In any case his mother being a Canadian would probably have felt quite reluctant to file a Consular Report of Birth Abroad. If he had one to show I can not see how it would harm his peculiar argument so why have we not seen it? And if one was not filed is he even a US naturalized citizen currently? In one article the author claimed that such a form had to be filed by the time Cruz was 18 or he would be out of luck. Had he been content to be a Senator this matter would never have come up but his ambition to be president has certainly raised it, so we definitely are justified in seeing that form if it exists and knowing if it does not what his status is? So maybe step one is to demand in court that Cruz prove his US citizenship via the Naturalization Act. He may not be able to do it.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

William St. George,

In the hearing before New Jersey ALJ Jeff Masin, he asked that the Objectors, Victor Williams, Fernando Powers, Donna Ward, and Bruce Stom, stipulate to certain facts. I was not willing to stipulate that Cruz's mother was a citizen of the United States at the time of Cruz's birth. I told ALJ Masin that Cruz had the burden to prove that fact. Professor Victor Williams told Masin the same. He blew our refusal to so stipulate off with some nonsense about the internet and just went ahead as if the Objectors agreed with him. I fail to see how the internet has anything to do with Cruz's burden of proof in the ballot challenge, especially when the Objectors were not willing to stipulate to that fact. Also, the reason why Masin wanted us to so stipulate is that he had his decision already written with those facts in it and if we did not so stipulate, we messed up the works for him.

William St. George said...

A man pursuing the presidency need not show a valid birth certificate or prove he is a citizen with some official document, but just try to evade showing your driver's license at a police stop! I did see an older woman give the police such a hard time about the matter that they finally let her go . . .but it took quite a bit of her energy [video on YouTube]. We are almost at the point where one needs to just claim he was born in Montana or even in Romania to an American citizen and that is enough. I am sure we will never know for certain who Obama is, where he was born, who his parents were . . . or if Ted Cruz is even qualified to be a Senator. It must be politically incorrect to ask these personal questions!

George Turner said...

Checking Drudge this morning, Fred Barnes at the Weekly Standard says it's over and Trump will win, noting that he won every county in five states. Newt Gingrich agrees, and Politico notes that Trump has already won more votes than Romney had, and is likely to break the Republican record.

I think this would change an appeals court's outlook as the case would no longer be burdened with concerns over massive political fallout, and given that the lower courts' rulings would still be grounds for a person born abroad to bypass naturalization laws by trying to claim natural born citizen status, correcting the error might be prudent. And of course there's always the joy of defending the Constitution.

Cruz's run has resulted in chaos and effectively disenfranchised strong conservative voters who did not realize that he was not a valid candidate, and soon they didn't have any other strongly conservative options. As for harm, you could listen to some of the #neverTrump voices and think the Republic was about to come to an end.

A clear ruling might prevent such chaos from recurring.

cfkerchner said...

Happy 5th Birthday for Obama’s Fake Birth Certificate – CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog
https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/04/27/happy-5th-birthday-for-obamas-fake-birth-certificate/

An audio flashback to the time it happened: https://youtu.be/GREU6DdKtZs

CDR Kerchner (Ret) - http://www.protectourliberty.org

cfkerchner said...

Exclusive: Presidential Write-In Candidate #VictorWilliams Now Represented by #MarioApuzzoEsq against #TedCruz in NJ http://www.thepostemail.com/2016/04/29/exclusive-presidential-write-in-candidate-victor-williams-now-represented-by-atty-mario-apuzzo/

CDR Kerchner (Ret) -- http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

Chief said...

Unless Rafael (Ted) Cruz can produce a US State Department issued and certified CRBA he is not a US citizen. His immigration to the US was as an illegal alien from Canada. His documented time line is proof of his illegal alien status yet no one, including the State of TX has bothered to inquire about Rafael's citizenship or asked for his documentation and has allowed him to serve the State of TX in several capacities over the years including his unlawful seat in the United States Senate. What will ever become of Rafael Edward (Ted) Cruz? Most people would end up in jail for this fraud against the People of TX and the United States, and yet, he runs for POTUS as if he is qualified knowing full well he is a fraudulent usurper of our nation.

George Turner said...

Victor Williams candidacy is an interesting approach. I don't think he'll win given Trump's lead, but he can hopefully get a ruling on Cruz.

But candidates need more than one issue, and so I'll suggest an odd one that came from having to read a lot of early legal scholar's writings on citizenship: Denizens.

Blackstone mentions denizens in book 1, chapter 10 of his commentaries, and George Tucker (1803) talks about them in the US. George Tucker on citizenship.

As Blackstone said, Parliament can make naturalized subjects, but only the king could make denizens, which were granted more property rights than an aliens but could not vote or hold office. Blackstone and Tucker both describe them as an in-between person, more than an alien but less than a citizen.

Unlike Britain, where the king can make denizens, the US states did not grant that power to the President, much less to Congress. Ceding that the President can accept refugees under his Article II powers over foreign relations, he cannot make denizens. If a denizen is in between an alien and a citizen, it might well describe what Obama is doing regarding illegals. They're certainly not legal aliens, and if we treated them like illegal aliens they'd be in jail or on a bus headed back to Mexico. So if they're not legal aliens, and not really being treated as illegal aliens, they must be denizens, given driver's licenses and some quasi-legal status, or even work permits. Yet in denying them a path to citizenship, we are also clearly saying they are not being naturalized, and if they're not being naturalized then they don't all under Congress's Article I powers for the naturalization of aliens. That power shouldn't logically cover not-naturalizing aliens as a goal.

Tucker would hold that Obama doesn't have the power to do anything like what he's doing, denization in fact if not in name, as those powers are retained exclusively by the states.
He also noted that legal privileges granted by one state do not transfer to another state, so Iowa need not freak out over what California does. If California's denizens get to Iowa, Iowa can fly them back to Honduras and let them walk back to San Diego.

Tucker also notes that after the adoption of the Constitution the states quit exercising this power, I suppose because the idea back then was that everyone would join the melting pot and become citizens, so why let people have some lesser status indefinitely? So the power sat, unused, and the country was devoid of denizens for so long we forgot what they were. And then, like all things that came about so naturally in the course of society that they became part of common law, we ended up with millions of denizens again without even knowing the proper term for them. And knowing that proper term lets us look up what the early scholar's said about them, and sure enough, Obama seems to be in gross federal overreach.

George Turner said...

Continuing on, I suggest that Victor Williams use denization as an issue in his campaign, and hopefully we can get a group of state attorney generals to take a serious look at this, sending some of their lawyers to dig through old colonial records and state records under the Articles of Confederation (Tucker says the states were still making denizens then) for examples that would show any correspondence between denization as practiced by the states and various privileges being granted to illegal aliens. Another very important aspect to research is how an act of denization could be undone, so as to foreclose any argument that a denizen is not an illegal alien and thus can't be deported as an illegal alien. We wouldn't want to shoot ourselves in the foot.

Some states would of course set up a spiffy new bureaucracy around denization, pandering to the illegals, but the states would be powerless to turn those newly minted denizens into citizens who can vote because the power of naturalization was reserved to Congress.

Perhaps this would give a big lever to states that are feeling helpless under the onslaught.

William St. George said...

George Turner-- You have come with some very important information and some excellent ideas. Denizens. Still this concept might be very intellectually demanding on the American legal system . . . it would take some time for it to sink in.

ajtelles said...

Heidi said so--so it must be true...

Mario,

Today, April 30, 2016, at the Washington Examiner, Byron York reported that Heidi Cruz said that her husband Rafael Edward 'Ted' Cruz "is an immigrant, he is Hispanic, he can unify this party."

>> http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-heidi-cruz-says-ted-is-an-immigrant/article/2590032#.VyVWUh0HlKZ.twitter

Listen to the audio at 16 seconds.

Also posted on The Gateway Pundit today:
>> http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/04/wow-heidi-cruz-tells-supporters-ted-cruz-immigrant/

A natural born Citizen with singular U.S. citizenship can not be an immigrant with dual U.S./foreign citizenship.

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

William St. George said...

I notice the St. George Tucker's Blackstone's Commentaries with notes . . . runs close to $500 new or used. Yet it seems like a very useful book. I suspect our President did not spend much time pouring over the five volumes. Why does it take someone on this blog to come up with the legal history regarding denizen with all the top notch attorneys in DC? Or maybe they are not so top notch? For that matter one comes to this blog to find the truth which is very scarce elsewhere generally. The closer one comes to Power the more dilute everything real becomes. Hence, DC is the place to go to find out what it is like to barely exist!





















William St. George said...

As long as the Establishment and its Media paw around in the debris of the American myth they will find a way to make what is false true and what is true false. Currently they are playing the compassion card:

“Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed, to me:
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”

We all love immigrants. Etc. Didn't both Barack Obama and Ted Cruz come here through Ellis Island where they went through a name change? If they were good enough to be immigrants and feed the American Civil Religion, then they are good enough for the nation's highest office. Trouble is though the Golden Door has been pawned to China. I must say that "wretched refuse" rings rather true of a couple of immigrants mentioned herein.

Teo Bear said...

Mario,

I have been thinking about the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts and Ted Cruz saying that the 1790 Act was the Framer's intent. But I started to do some research on the makeup of the 1st and 3rd Congress and found that 50% of the Senators from the 1st Congress were also in the 3rd Congress, and 33% of the congressmen were in the 1st and 3rd Congress.

That was interesting then I crossed referenced them to the 40 signers of the Constitution. Now things started to get interesting. I found that 6 out of the 40 signers of the Constitution also served in both the 1st and 3rd Congress, with such names like James Madison, who wrote Thomas Jefferson about the reason the Congress was passing the 1795 Naturalization Act was to correct a defect. Interesting right?

Well it gets even more interesting. With all the cross referencing between the signers of the Constitution and the men who passed both the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Act, some thing was stareing me in the face, but it was simple too obvious to see it clearly. Yes, congress passes laws but another branch signs those laws into law, the President. And who do you think was President for the 1st and 3rd Congresses, who also signed the Constitution and who was the recipient of John jay's famous letter?

Yeah, you guessed it, George Washington himself. I think we can reasonably conclude that since Washington who was in fact the epicenter of the natural born citizen clause did not object, did not veto the 1795 bill, we can safely conclude that it was in fact the 1795 version making the children of citizens born overseas citizens of the United States and not natural born citizens is the true intent of the founding fathers and framers of the Constitution.

Now Mario go kick some Canadian bacon!

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Teo,

Great research. Yes, indeed, the 1795 Naturalization Act trumps that of 1790. Lying Ted just keeps on lying. Here's a question for you. Is there any room for these early naturalization Acts of Congress in New Jersey ALJ Jeff S. Masin's transformational cocktail, or is his glass too full?

Teo Bear said...

I think Masin will remain retired (or retarded.) How can he dispute Geo. Washington himself? If he had the courage he would simply admit that like the 1st Congress passed the 1790 act he made his decision in haste.

However using the fact that Washington offered no resistance to the repeal of the 1790 and Madison's letter to Jefferson act will prove profitable in your appeal.

William St. George said...

"The Constitution has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist." – Lysander Spooner

The cause of Mr Spooner's dismal conclusion is two fold: first- the ever abundance of ambitious and gangster minded men and women; secondly-the even greater abundance of ignorant citizens. We have now had for almost eight years an ineligible president. We also have at the moment a candidate for the presidency who is also ineligible. In both cases there has been adequate notice of the facts but very complacent responses by those who might actually do something about it. Of course, I should have mentioned that the abundances are always amply sprinkled with bribes and blackmails.

Those that would deny us freedom and good laws though have history to contend with; and by history I mean the ever present stream of causes and consequences over which no one can ever have complete control. Nothing is more powerful in the human world than the past. As an old saying has it, the dead are more powerful than the living.

cfkerchner said...

Founders Intent re Canadian-Born Lyin' Ted Cruz about the 1790 Naturalization Act - by Teo Bear: http://birthers.org/misc/FoundersIntent.htm

Teo Bear said...

Cruz suspended his campaign.

ajtelles said...

"...go kick some Canadian bacon...

Mario,

Teo Bear's analysis on May 2, 2016 at 5:26 PM is timeless.

So, Mario, write on... the truth about the original genesis original intent for John Jay underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington has no agenda other than to be a guiding light to resist future usurpers who insist that ONLY singular U.S. citizenship was NOT John Jay's intent for underling the word "born," and also that singular U.S. citizenship is ONLY possible by being born ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents...married parents.

Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

Art

cfkerchner said...

A Victory for the Constitution – Ted Cruz the Constitutionally Ineligible Candidate Capitulates: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/05/03/a-victory-for-the-constitution-ted-cruz-the-constitutionally-ineligible-candidate-capitulates/

George Turner said...

Cruz dropping out will change the dynamics of any challenge or appeal, assuming any of those cases can proceed. If not, I would suggest finding a "natural born citizen" under ALJ Marin's ruling who isn't a US citizen and have them sue for recognition of their citizenship, citing Marin's ruling. The basic assertion would be "I'm a natural born US citizen because Ted Cruz is."

Perhaps a claimant could be Princess Alexandra of Hanover, who is a natural born citizen because her mother, Princess Caroline of Hanover, was a natural born citizen because her mother was Princess Grace of Monaco, formerly Grace Kelly, a US citizen. Princess Alexandra is also a descendant of King George III on her father's side, just to make it sweeter.

But really anyone will do.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

George,

New Jersey ALJ Jeff S. Masin is a Trojan horse working for the House of Hanover.

RodCrosby said...

HRH Prince William, heir to the British Throne (also descended from George III)
|
Lady Diana Spencer
|
Frances Shand-Kydd
|
4th Baron Fermoy
|
Frances Ellen Work (born and died in NYC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Ellen_Work

RodCrosby said...

Interesting that Frances Ellen Work's divorce lawyer was Thomas F. Bayard, who has featured in these discussions over the years...

RodCrosby said...

The golden thread of history can indeed throw up some rewarding links. I meant to post this previously, and was reminded to do so by Trump's claims against Cruz's father.

On 27th June 1962, Lee Harvey Oswald wrote to the Dallas Office on the INS (I assume this source is genuine)

"Dear Sirs

In regard to your sending me an application N-600, so that my four-month old daughter can get a "certificate of citizenship", I was under the impression that since I am an American-born citizen of the United States, my daughter would also be a citizen of the United States even though she was born in another country.

I am certainly surprised and pained to find out she is considered an alien. In my wife's visa papers we are as follows: husband-U.S./wife-Russian/daughter-U.S. I was told that her Embassy-issued birth certificate was all the proof of her U.S. Citizenship she would ever require..."
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=3IrJ3l9MgZEC&lpg=PA141&dq=lee%20harvey%20oswald%20n-600%201962&pg=PA141#v=onepage&q=lee%20harvey%20oswald%20n-600%201962&f=false

RodCrosby said...

Harvard-educated 4th Baron Fermoy was also described as a "naturalized American citizen", even though his mother was an NBC. [Wikipedia, original source here: https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=PYEtAAAAIBAJ&sjid=SJkFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5838,281319&dq=frances+ruth+roche&hl=en]

RodCrosby said...

Frances Ellen Work's daughter certainly became a naturalized citizen, even though she was the daughter of an NBC, and married to an NBC.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9E0DE0DF123EE233A2575AC1A9619C946997D6CF

George Turner said...

Good finds! This means that in 2020 we can run Prince Harry for President. As a natural born US citizen he's not required to renounce his allegiance to his grandmother. That might make her unhappy. :(

Of course if by then he's crowned king he could truly swear that he owes no allegiance to any foreign prince or potentate. The king of England doesn't bow to anybody.

I don't think the Founders ever considered that George III or Louis XVI might decide to move to Philadelphia, so in the citizenship oath they forgot to add a clause about not continuing to be a foreign prince or potentate. Of course we have picked up a lot of those over the years. New York, LA, and Miami are royal family escape plans around the globe, although the Sultan of Brunei would probably move to his Bluegrass horse farm.

Teo Bear said...

Mario,

Cruz only "suspended" his campaign. So I think the appeal still has merit and is not moot. As long as his campaign remains suspended he could in fact restart it at any moment he chooses. I would hazard a guess that only after the convention is the appeal moot.

d42 said...

I think someone already tried to get recognized as a natural born citizen and it was rejected.

Perhaps the way to go would be to continue this case and sue a state for ballot fraud. I don't know, this is a tough one.

Thank you Mario. I hope our problem is answered someday.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

During her address to the NAACP on May 1 in Detroit, referring to Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton said:

The leading Republican contender is the man who led the insidious birther movement to discredit the President’s citizenship. And when he was asked in a national television interview to disavow David Duke and other white supremacists who are supporting his campaign, he played coy. We cannot let Barack Obama’s legacy fall into Donald Trump’s hands.

~~~~~

Clinton is such a despicable race baiter. When will African-Americans rid themselves of her?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I just posted this at Wester Free Press,
http://www.westernfreepress.com/2015/03/05/ted-cruz-and-natural-born-citizenship-a-belated-reply-to-mario-apuzzo/

Bob and Bryan Gene Olson, we have already been all through this. You cannot point to one case or judge that has ruled in your favor who provides a well-sourced and reasoned decision that supports your claptrap that children born in the territory and jurisdiction of the United States to one or two alien parents or children born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States to one or even two U.S. citizen parents are Article II "natural born citizens" under our Constitution. On the contrary, I have produced historical and legal sources and reason which demonstrate that without any doubt, the Framers would have seen Barack Obama, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and Nikkie Haley, none of them being born in the territory and jurisdiction of the United States to two U.S. citizen parents at the time of their birth, all as not being Article II natural born citizens. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212-217 (1758) (1797); Minor v. Happersett (1875) (Vattel defining, under the law of nations, and Minor defining, under the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution, the “natives, or natural-born citizens” as children born in the country to parents who were its citizens).

As to one of your main sources, New Jersey ALJ Jeff S. Masin, with Barack Obama, presumably born in the U.S. to an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother, he told us that for purposes of running President, it did not matter who Obama was, to whom he was born, or where he was born, because even “Mickey Mouse” could run for President. And after telling us and Obama’s lawyer conceding that there was absolutely no evidence in New Jersey as to who Obama was or to whom or where he was born, he ruled that Obama was born in the U.S. and therefore a natural born citizen.

With Ted Cruz, born in a foreign nation (Canada) to an alien father (Cuban) and presumably to a U.S. citizen mother, he changed his mind and said that it did matter who ran for President. After accepting without any such evidence before him that Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen at the time of his birth, now he also told us that the Framers drank a transformative cocktail containing an intoxicating mixture of the English common law and English Parliamentary naturalization Acts to produce the "constitutional" definition of a natural born citizen, the effects of which would render all of our past and present Congress's naturalization Acts unconstitutional and virtually all of our U.S. Supreme Court citizenship cases wrongly decided, not to mention it would make Princess Grace Kelly's and many other foreign characters’ lineal descendants potentially (meeting the age and residency requirements) eligible to be President. And these are the decisions upon which you base your nonsense. Way to go, nonsense producing nonsense.

How does it feel being part of such a treasonous assault upon our Constitution and knowing that history will undoubtedly forever shame you?

ajtelles said...

"argumentum ad ignorantiam"

Mario,

Your response to Bob and Bryan Gene Olson is poignant. Definition #3 in my American Heritage Dictionary is 3a: Neat, skillful, and to the point. 3b: Astute and pertinent; relevant: "poignant suggestion".

Maybe you can have a poignant suggestion about "argumentum ad ignorantiam" to Greg Conterio who wrote on March 5, 2015 "Ted Cruz and Natural Born Citizenship: A Belated Reply to Mario Apuzzo" where your response to Bob and Bryan is posted.

>> http://www.westernfreepress.com/2015/03/05/ted-cruz-and-natural-born-citizenship-a-belated-reply-to-mario-apuzzo/

>> Mr. Apuzzo continues, explaining that NBC actually has a specific meaning.
>> He cites as proof of the assertion
>> “The fact that there was in the Constitutional Convention no debate
>> on the meaning of the clause gives us more evidence that
>> the clause must have had a settled meaning.”

>> Not being an attorney myself,
>> I could not remember the name for this type of argument,
>> and had to look-up the Latin phrase, which is argumentum ad ignorantiam,
>> or appeal to ignorance.

>> It is a logical fallacy, which loosely translated means
>> “..he didn’t say his name isn’t Mike, so his name must be Mike!”

>> The truth of the matter is, the term NBC does not,
>> and did not at the time hold a specific legal meaning.

>> It actually is an adaptation of the term natural-born subject,
>> as under English common law, the people were subjects, rather than citizens.

>> And to his credit, Mr. Apuzzo does concede
>> that the term NBC derives from English common law.
>> What he fails to note however is that according to Blackstone ... .

Greg Conterio cites a long quote from Blackstone that includes this:

>> "...so that all children, born out of the king’s ligeance, whose fathers were natural-born subjects, are now natural-born subjects themselves, to all intents and purposes, without any exception;...."

Mario, I'll let you clarify "argumentum ad ignorantiam" if you want to, but I will simply clarify the history of the "birther" nomenclature that Conterio mentions in his first paragraph.

Hey Greg and all "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers who continue to deliberately ignore the original genesis original intent for including the word "born" in "natural born Citizen."

Hillary Clinton or her campaign staff did not come up with the "birther" designation implied in the word "born."

John Jay implied the "birther" position of

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship
ONLY by birth
ONLY by birth on U.S. soil
ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents

when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his good friend George Washington who passed the suggestion on the convention delegates who incorporated the "natural born Citizen" phrase into Article II Section 1 clause 5 without debate because they already knew that "born" and "citizen" were perpetually linked by the word "natural" forever, indefeasible.

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship is indefeasible because U.S. citizenship "by birth alone" on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents can NOT be annulled or made void by a law passed by Congress.

A positive law (statute) can NOT annul a natural law (nature).

Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com/
http://original-genesis-original-intent.blogspot.com/2016/03/natural-precedes-positive-law.html

Art

Roderick Lee said...

just glad to see Cruz `G'`O'
next over the coming few years we need to expose berack obam for his crimes against the people and his forged and phony (hoax) birth certificate

George Turner said...

In court, I would drop anything about the parents having to be married US citizens because it casts too many doubts on having any legal merit.

In their early naturalization laws, especially the 1798 and 1802 acts, the Founders made provisions to naturalize the children of aliens who were naturalized, but none regarding children those aliens had who were born after their arrival in the United States. The wording is quite clear that all aliens have to arrive in the United States from somewhere else, including alien children, and that thereafter they reside here until naturalized. In all cases the country they came from had to be recorded. In the case of the 1798 law, surely they didn't think immigrants would wait 14 years before having a baby, as that would mean women arriving here would have to wait until their mid-30's to get pregnant and produce a native born American. It would also mean the 1798 law would have had to address the naturalization of grand children born to children who are being naturalized along with their parents.

There's nothing in the early laws that implies that an alien can come from within the United States, and nothing concerning any special fees or records that have to be kept regarding anyone born here for purposes of later naturalizing them. So if people born here (children of diplomats, etc, excepted) are never aliens, they can never become naturalized citizens, either, because only aliens can be naturalized.

The simple situation that everyone born on the soil is a native is also consistent with Blackstone, who would carry much more weight than other sources because our common law comes directly from English common law, and Blackstone is quite definite that all children born in England under the sovereignty of the king are natural born English subjects, even those born to aliens.

It also dispenses with the odd outcome that a child whose father was an alien would have less certain status than a child whose US mother didn't even know who the father was.

The thought that natural born children have to be born to two married US citizens is even more trivial for a judge to dismiss, since such children, born in the US, are never naturalized, and if they're not natural born citizens, and not naturalized, they must be aliens. That means that nobody born in the US out of wedlock are even citizens. As non-citizens, they could also be deported, but to where? US law doesn't provide for the situation of a non-citizen who doesn't also have another homeland or nationality.

So a judge is going to toss those absurd conclusions right out the window.

Although a good argument can be made that children born in the US to non-citizens shouldn't be considered natural born citizens, and that some sources (Vattel) state that case, there's nothing in US law that to indicate that the Founders or early Americans ever bought that argument. We have no category for such people.

So all that just disinclines a judge to consider the obvious fact that Ted Cruz was in fact an alien who was naturalized under US law (we assume), and not a natural born citizen. The other arguments (Vattel) just cloud and obscure the central issue and give him room to rule against arguments that have nothing to do with Cruz's immigration status.

So I would just avoid them like the plague because that's not the case being heard. Those arguments would belong in a case against Rubio or Jindal, and would be much harder to make. Cruz's case is dead simple.

William St. George said...

VATTEL IS LAW PART 2 http://pixelpatriot.blogspot.com/

Valuable information.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

George Turner,

Please state plainly and simply what your definition of a natural born citizen is.

George Turner said...

It would be the straight Blackstone formulation, all those born in the king's dominion and under his protection. Under that, you could still argue that children of illegal aliens aren't natural born citizens because they're not really under US law or they wouldn't be here. There's also some wiggle room on travelers just passing through, which could serve to argue against birth tourism. But instead of a standard legal argument, I'll present one that touches on what law and custom is trying to codify.

The common law resulted from early English experience, back when they were trying to cope with the Danes, then the Normans, etc. and it grew organically from experience and common sense. Back then, it was to a liege's advantage to claim absolutely every subject he could claim based on the land he held. Since the few foreigners who weren't in charge (Normans) were potentially very useful (the Viking settlers), it was in the noble's interest to grant them farmland and claim their children as loyal subjects who could fight the neighboring nobles. Everybody else moving between lands might as well have been a native because we're talking about the equivalent of people moving between counties or small fiefdoms. They would have had no reason to regard people from a few towns away as "foreigners" except regarding their allegiance to their former liege. Since they had to swear fealty when the moved, that oath and loyalty would naturally transfer to the children born on their new liege's lands.

That results in a very simple formulation, and a very natural one, in which there are only two basic groups. Those born among us, native born subjects, and those not, who are aliens. Welcoming newcomers, admitting new people to the group, is naturalization, which we could have called "nativization" going by Samuel Johnson's dictionary.

The issue with aliens is that they periodically form ranks of spearmen and invade to conquer the natives, so they have very limited rights.

But if they come in peace and live among you, their newborn children are taken under your protection. If the alien parents die you don't send the baby back home, you raise it as one of your own. But if the aliens are occupying part of your land as a military venture, you do not claim or acknowledge their babies as your own. Those remain alien babies even if born on your land, because you're going to kick every one of those sons-of-bitches off your land, including their devil spawn.

It also connects to Blackstone's formulation, and rather odd argument, that children owe the liege eternal loyalty because he protected them when they were helpless infants. The liege doesn't, but his other subjects do. So if the "group" has let you travel with them, and you have a baby, that baby is under their protection, and if you die they will continue to protect that baby and raise it as their own, because we don't leave babies born among us to the wolves.

It worked perfectly well for England, and when they sailed to America the same logic held. Those born among the colonists, and to Indians who had adopted the new way of life, were the native born people. All else were aliens. But when we arrived, there was nobody who have met Vattel's definition because everybody was newly arrived. Yet their children were considered "native born" to the land. Under Vattels formulation we would denounce the first English baby born in the New World as an illegitimate anchor baby, not celebrate her as the first native-born.

And it comports with natural law. French babies are born in France. English babies are born in England. American babies are born in America. They don't come in classes or grades of "American".

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

George Turner,

If, as you claim, the Framers got their definition of a "natural born citizen" from the feudal English common law's definition of a "natural-born subject," then:

1. Explain why the U.S. Supreme Court, whenever it provided directly or indirectly a definition of a national Article II natural born citizen (starting with Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus (1814), and going to Inglis (1830), Shanks (1830), Dred Scott (1857), The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), and Minor (1875), never referred to the English common law definition of a "natural-born subject," but rather always to Vattel’s Section 212 law of nations definition of "natives, or natural-born citizens." Note that Wong Kim Ark (1898) was strictly a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” of the United States case, not a national Article II “natural born citizen” one, and while it provided a new definition of a “citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment which it based on the colonial and state English common law and hence state citizenship, it also confirmed Minor’s national law of nation’s definition of a natural born citizen.

2. Explain why state judges such as Pennsylvania Judge Dan Pellegrini and New Jersey ALJ Jeff S. Masin and some professors, scholars, and commentators, who have concluded that Ted Cruz is an Article II natural born citizen, maintain that neither the English common law nor the Fourteenth Amendment provide the definitive definition of an Article II natural born citizen.

George Turner said...

The common law nowhere has a statute that defines the term because it's common law. There are just going to be legal opinions discussing the term.

The Supreme Court has gone all the way back to Calvin's Case from 1608, which held that a Scotsmen born after the uniting of the crowns is a natural born English subject, even though the parents were not, and even though the parents were still Scottish.

Blackstone's formulation is that all people are either aliens, denizens, or natives. He then says the natives are the natural born subjects, born in the king's dominions to any parents other than foreign diplomats.

The Supreme Court has also as recently as 2015 cited Samuel Johnson's dictionary, which defines "natural" as "native, native inhabitant", and the Supreme Court freely interchanges "natural born" and "native born" in their opinions, as do many other early legal scholars like James Kent, whose lecture notes started in 1797. Kent said "(1.) Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States."

Kent then said "(2.) An alien is a person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States. There are some exceptions, however, to this rule, by the ancient English law, as in the case of the children of public ministers abroad, (provided their wives be English women,) for they owe not even a local allegiance to any foreign power."

So natives are those born within the US, aliens are those born elsewhere. That makes things simple.

In US v Wong Kim Ark the court cited Lord Chief Justice Cockburn where he said:

By the common law of England, every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning, in the country, was an English subject, save only the children of foreign ambassadors (who were excepted because their fathers carried their own nationality with them), or a child born to a foreigner during the hostile occupation of any part of the territories of England. No effect appears to have been given to descent as a source of nationality.

If nationality doesn't pass by descent under common law, then that should mean it doesn't apply abroad to US citizens, nor within the US to aliens. It is pure jus soli, with exceptions only defined by statutory law.

Going back to James Kent, he says:

2. The constitution requires, that the president should be a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the constitution, and that he have attained to the age of thirty file years, and have been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Considering the greatness of the trust, and that this department is the ultimately efficient power in government, these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant. As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States, ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office, and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland, as well as the Pontificate at Rome."

The states still use the common law conception of "native citizens" as all those born within. A native born Floridian is anyone born in Florida, and excludes anyone born outside of Florida to parents who were from Florida. Native Floridians are keenly aware of the difference between natives and "naturalized" Floridians from New York or Michigan. Early on states did have laws for the naturalization of people from other states, but now about all that remains are the residency requirements for state offices and North Carolina's insistence that a person has to trace their North Carolina ancestry in an unbroken line back to the Revolution to qualify for in-state tuition. ^_^

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

George Turner,

The U.S. Supreme Court has never used Calvin’s Case, Blackstone, or the English common law as a source for the definition of a natural born citizen. If it has, provide your evidence.

Under the law of nations and common law, “native” and “natural born citizen” have the same meaning, i.e., a child born in a country to citizen parents. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797); Minor v. Happersett (1875) Native-born (not to be conflated, confounded, and confused with "native") in the way that the phrase came to be later used only meant born in the country, a necessary but not sufficient condition to be a native or natural born citizen.

James Kent said: “Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States.” But the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment told us that that statement necessarily defined a “citizen of the United States,” not that it necessarily defined a “natural born citizen.” Furthermore, there have been disputes as to what that phrase meant. The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) said that it did not include children born in the United States to alien parents. Minor v. Happersett confirmed that “there have been doubts” whether it included children born within the jurisdiction to alien parents. It took Wong Kim Ark to tell us that the description included a child born in the United States to alien parents who were domiciled and permanently residing in the United States and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders, telling us that that child was a “citizen” of the United States from the moment of birth and not holding that that child was a “natural born citizen.”

When searching for the definition of a natural born citizen, it is not sufficient as you do to only discuss the English common law. You have to provide evidence linking the Framers to that law when they inserted the natural born citizen into the Constitution. You have not provided this evidence.

State common law, which incorporated the English common law, did not define a national Article II natural born citizen. At most, Wong Kim Ark relied on that English common law and state law to define what person was born in the country and subject to the jurisdiction thereof which made that person a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. As Minor demonstrated, it was national American common law, which incorporated the law of nations definition of “natives, or indigenes,” later translated in 1797 to “natives, or natural-born citizens,” that defined a natural born citizen.

Finally, we both agree that persons born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States were under the common law (you call it the English common law and I call it both the English common law and American national common law) “aliens or foreigners” and in need of naturalization under the naturalization Acts of Parliament and Congress, respectively. Minor v. Happersett (1875) (since its definition of a natural born citizen had nothing to do with the English common law, it related such naturalization as occurring only under the naturalization Acts of Congress). Hence, such a person, needing a naturalization Act of Congress in order to be adopted as a citizen of the United States and even if made a citizen of the United States “at birth” under such naturalization Act of Congress, while a citizen of the United States “at birth,” was not nor could he or she be an Article II natural born citizen. Under this undeniable principle of constitutional law, Ted Cruz, assuming that he was born in a foreign nation to an alien father and to a U.S. citizen mother, is a citizen of the United States “at birth,” but only by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress. He is not nor can he be a citizen of the United States by virtue of his birth circumstances alone, i.e., by being born in the country to parents who were its citizens, which would make him a natural born citizen.

George Turner said...

The Supreme Court cited Calvin's Case five times prior to the adoption of the 14th Amendment. It was the most pivotal case regarding birthright citizenship and jus soli, and it happened by historical accident. Yale Law Review paper on the importance of Calvin's Case. It's very long and detailed but really interesting and I couldn't sum it up in 4000 words, so I'll just provide the link.

There is certainly something to the idea that a natural born citizen should be born on the soil to existing citizens, but in Calvin's Case Francis Bacon and other jurists held that the postnati were natural born English subjects, but their parents weren't even subjects. They remained aliens until naturalized under law. That's a really odd circumstance where the soil changed sovereignty, and it was referenced in a lot of early US court cases because of the similarities to our circumstances.

My simpler argument is that the children of aliens are "born citizens" such as provided under the 14th amendment for those born in the US. The other type of "born citizen" would be those naturalized at birth under statute, such as for children of citizens born abroad. If "natural" is treated as a synonym for "native", as authors like Kent do freely, then there are two possible types of "born-citizen", "native born-citizens" and "foreign born-citizen". There are perhaps other ways to parse that, but it's probably close to the underlying logic.

Of course going back to Blackstone, Calvin's Case, earlier thoughts, and probably Vattel, the whole question centers on loyalty and allegiance. You could make a good argument (that would be denounced as racist), that some groups do not ever transfer or give their allegiance no matter where they are born. In Jewish Intellectual History: 16th to 20th Century professor Ruderman talks at length about how Jews wrestled with dual identities and debated how much they should assimilate into Western European nations. The La Raza people waving Mexican flags - also not assimilating. And of course Europe is finding out the many Muslims can't be assimilated and will never have any loyalty to European governments.

Since that was outside our experience, and since slavery was overthrown as evil, we also ditched our ability to use additional categories regarding citizenship. The above essay on Calvin's Case mentions the irony of taking a ruling designed to make everyone gradually equal and using it in a situation where we wanted to maintain some inequalities, creating some glaring frictions between theory and practice, such as Dred Scott.

Anyway, my primary thought in suggesting all this is that Cruz's case is very simple under almost any valid definition of "natural born citizen", so you needn't distract the judge with more complicated arguments regarding citizenship. I'd just prove that he was indeed naturalized by statute, and therefore must have been an alien because Congress was only granted the power to naturalize aliens. They can't naturalize something that's already natural.

And I think the case is still highly relevant because if Trump chokes to death on a pretzel, Cruz will be right back in the running, saying the pretzel was the hand of God.










Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

George Turner,

You said that the U.S. Supreme Court cited Calvin’s Case five times prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. You did not provide citations to those cases. Also, you still do not provide any evidence that the Framers used Calvin’s Case’s jus soli as their definition of a natural born citizen. Just finding sources that mention the case is not evidence linking the case to the Framers. Furthermore, the Founders repudiated Lord Coke’s perpetual allegiance and adopted Emer de Vattel’s explanation of the right of the people to break their political allegiance to a corrupt government. After all, if there were perpetual allegiance, there could not have been a justified American Revolution.

You also fail to understand that Parliament refused starting in 1604 for political reasons to naturalize Calvin. So James I, who was Scottish and who sought to unify England and Scotland, looked to the courts to do it. The English courts did exactly what James I sought. Lord Coke and Francis Bacon naturalized Calvin at birth because he was not an English natural born subject by birth alone. The parents of the postnati were eventually naturalized by Act of Parliament.

You claim that early U.S. courts cited Calvin’s Case because of its similarities with the American Revolution. You fail to cite what those cases are. More importantly, the majority in Inglis (1830), which included Chief Justice John Marshall, made no reference to Calvin’s Case and on the contrary found that a child born in New York while under American sovereignty to alien parents was an alien. Justice Story in dissent, relying on the English common law jus soli rule, found that such a child was an American citizen regardless of the citizenship of his parents. Note that Justice Story in Shanks (1830), decided after Inglis, adopted the majority rule of Inglis.

Your “born citizen” does not work, leading to a fallacious conclusion from reasoning such as all natural born citizens are born citizens, Barack Obama and Ted Cruz are born citizens, therefore they are natural born citizens. We can readily see the fallacy in this argument when we consider the fallacy of all poodles are dogs, Pebbles is a dog, therefore Pebbles is a poodle (wrong for Pebbles can be a German Shepherd). Furthermore, the clause is natural born citizen, not born citizen, which is what Alexander Hamilton had proposed but which was not accepted during the Constitutional Convention.

Concerning your “native-born citizen,” there are two types, both of which are incorporated into Constitution itself: native-born citizens who are common law Article II “natural born citizens” by virtue of their birth circumstances alone, i.e., born in the country to parents who were its citizens, and native-born citizens who are Fourteenth Amendment “citizens” of the United States, but only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, i.e., born in the United States while subject to its jurisdiction. What makes both of these types of citizens “native-born” is that they are both born in the country.

It is not necessary to get into any demagogic discussion about racism or what you euphemistically call “additional categories regarding citizenship” when discussing the meaning of a natural born citizen. First, the Constitution itself expressly commands that the President and Vice-President must be, not only at least 35 years old and at least a 14-year resident within the U.S., but also, not only a citizen of the U.S., but a natural born citizen. Second, any child, no matter of what color, race, religion, gender, nationality, or size, is a natural born citizen if born or reputed born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. The great majority of Americans are natural born citizens. Third, if someone is a natural born citizen, then satisfying the age and residency requirement, he or she is constitutionally eligible to be President or Vice-President. Whether that person has sufficient “loyalty and allegiance” to the American people’s liking is something they decide when they vote.

George Turner said...

In Dawson's Lessee v. Godfrey (1808) Justice Johnson, appointed by Jefferson, in delivering the opinion of the Court, said:

*****

This case rests upon the single question -- whether a subject of Great Britain, born before the Declaration of Independence, can now inherit lands in this country. The general doctrine is admitted that in the State of Maryland, in which the land lies, an alien cannot take by descent, but it is contended upon the doctrine laid down in Calvin's Case that the rights of the antenati of Great Britain formed an exception from the general rule. The point decided in the case of Calvin was that a Scotsman, born after the union, could inherit lands in England. It is evident that this case is not directly in point, for the only objection here to the right of recovery did not exist in Calvin's Case, as whether in England or in Scotland, he was equally bound in allegiance to the King of Great Britain. It would be a contradiction in terms to contend that Dawson or his wife ever owed allegiance to a government which did not exist at their birth. It is upon a supposed analogy, therefore, and the reasoning of the judges in Calvin's case, that the argument for the plaintiffs is founded. In the two cases of Coxe and McIlvaine and Lambert and Payne in this Court, this doctrine was very amply discussed, and this case is submitted upon those arguments. The counsel there contended that the relation of the postnati of Scotland (after the union) to the subjects of Great Britain, was identically the same with the antenati of Great Britain (before our revolution) to the citizens of this country, and that the community of allegiance at the time of birth, and not the existing state of it when the descent is cast, is the principle upon which the right to inherit depends.

*****

He goes on to elucidate the principle. In US v Wong Kim Ark (1898) the court again referenced the case.

*****

This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case, known as Calvin's Case, or the Case of the Postnati, decided in 1608, after a hearing in the Exchequer Chamber before the Lord Chancellor and all the Judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere on Postnati, 62-64; S.C., 2 Howell's State Trials, 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679.

******

I think you misunderstand my point about born citizens and natural born citizens. Hamilton suggested "born citizens", which presumably includes those born abroad to US parents. That was rejected as not restrictive enough. If "natural" essential means native", then of "born citizens" there would be two types, "native born citizens" and "foreign born citizens", both types citizens at birth, but one type born on US soil and one type born abroad. People born abroad who are citizens at birth are citizens only by blood descent, and Europe had very bad experiences with kings who could claim the throne by descent, but who were born and raised in hostile courts as a result of dynastic marriages. Thus the English naturalization acts always carried disabling clauses forbidding naturalized subjects from sitting on the Privy Council or in Parliament.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

George Turner,

I fail to see the relevancy of your quote from Dawson’s Lessee v. Godfrey, 8 U.S. 4 Cranch 321 321 (1808) that referred to Calvin’s Case (1608). In that case, the lessor (landlord) whose citizenship was in question was born in England before 1775. Hence, she was not born in the colonies, in any one state, or the United States thereafter. The plaintiff lessee (tenant) had contended that the lessor was not an alien based on Calvin’s Case and some notion of “community of allegiance.” The Court disagreed, finding that Calvin was born in allegiance to the King of England and Scotland and therefore not an alien. The Court found that the lessor (Mrs. Dawson) was born in England before 1775 and never resided in or even visited the United States. When she was born she did not owe allegiance to the United States which did not even exist. Hence, the Court found the facts of the case not to fit within the rule of Calvin and held that the lessor was an alien at the time of her birth and at the time the descent was cast (the time of death of Russell Lee, the U.S. citizen who left at his death in 1793 the lands in Maryland). Being an alien, under the common law of Maryland, Mrs. Dawson could not inherit land in Maryland from a citizen of the United States. So, the Court did not nor could it use Calvin’s Case to find Mrs. Dawson, born in England, to be a citizen of the United States which would have made her capable of inheriting Mr. Lee’s lands in Maryland in 1793. Nor did Dawson’s Lessee involve the question of whether a person born in the United States to one or two alien parents or whether a person born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents was a citizen of the United States or a natural born citizen.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) referred to Calvin’s Case to show what the English common law provided regarding whether children born in the King’s dominion and under his protection were aliens or natural-born subjects. Calvin’s rule provided that they were natural-born subjects. Wong Kim Ark went on to state that the colonies adopted that common law rule and then the states during the Revolution and also after the adoption of the Constitution. Wong Kim Ark relied upon that local common law rule as an aid to interpret the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause. It did not use that local common law rule to define an Article II natural born citizen, which, citing and quoting Minor v. Happersett’s definition of a natural born citizen, it acknowledged was a child born in the country to citizen parents.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

It is not helpful for distinguishing who is and who is not a natural born citizen to simply add as you do in front of “born citizen” the qualifier “native” or “foreign.” A native-born citizen is one thing, but a natural born citizen is another. All natural born citizens are native-born citizens. But not all native-born citizens are natural born citizens. Those native-born citizens who are natural born citizens are those who at national common law are native-born citizens because they were born in or reputed born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. Minor v. Happersett (1875). Those native-born citizens who are not natural born citizens are those native-born citizens who do not satisfy the definition of a natural born citizen at national common law, but who were born or reputed born in the United States to one or two qualifying alien parents and who are made citizens of the United States at birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

Foreign-born citizens of the United States, if not born within the jurisdiction of the United States, i.e., not born to U.S. citizen parents serving the U.S. diplomatic or military interest, can be naturalized citizens of the United States at birth because so recognized by a naturalization Act of Congress. But they cannot be Article II natural born citizens. On the other hand, foreign-born citizens of the United States, born within the jurisdiction of the United States because born to U.S. citizen parents serving the U.S. diplomatic or military interest, are Article II natural born citizens.

George Turner said...

But you actually have to convince a judge of all that, in a court weighing a completely different question, whether Ted Cruz was born in Canada and is thus disqualified because he is foreign born.

You're asking the judge to believe that "natural born" doesn't mean "native born" aside from the well-understood differences in British law and despite what's said in English common law, and that Swiss and German legal opinion is controlling over British and American legal opinion in both Britain and Britain's US colonies.

You also have to convince the judge to strike down all laws signed by Chester A. Arthur, whose father wasn't a US citizen, and possibly Thomas Jefferson (whose mother was English), Andrew Jackson(both of whose parents where Irish), James Buchanan, Herbert Hoover, Woodrow Wilson, and Barack Obama, all based on a Swiss writer's understanding of English law. That's never going to happen. His book was read by several Americans, but it was certainly never read by the general populace who signed the other side of the contract between the people and the government they created.

Nowhere did the Founders' citizenship laws treat any baby born in Virginia any different from any other baby born in Virginia based on the citizenship status of its parents unless those parents were non-white slaves. Even abandoned white babies, when found, where assumed to be natural born citizens under US law unless someone came forth to provide evidence that the baby was foreign born before the baby turns 21. When they were writing such laws, if the citizenship status of the parent was in any way important they would have written it into the law.

Any of these simple arguments would sway a judge to rule against Vattel's two citizen parents rule, when you've got a dead simple slam dunk case against Cruz. Argue the simple, easily winnable case instead of giving judges a litany of reasons to rule against you.

US Constitutional law is very simple, as are the concepts behind it. The Constitution was written so farmers could read and understand it. Anything in it was familiar to ordinary British subjects, who grew up under the common law of England, not Swiss law or German law which like much European law was predicated on citizenship by blood because they had no easily defensible borders and viewed land as a tribal domain. Britain and the US were defended by water, and people couldn't just encroach. We rejected "blood" as being important in any way as relevant, unlike Continental Europe where Jews and Gypsies were determined entirely by blood, as membership in the tribe was paramount.



Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

George Turner,

So, you believe that I have to “convince a judge,” but you don’t. I do not understand just how you believe that you have arrived but I have not.

Yes, I am asking the judge to believe that “natural born” does not mean “native born.” That should not be too difficult for the judge to understand, especially when I tell him or her that slaves and American Indians were native born but the U.S. Supreme Court said they were not even citizens, let alone natural born citizens.

Your Obot argument regarding past presidents is noted. Your point that I have to convince the judge that he or she has to strike down all laws signed by President Chester Arthur is absurd. Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson were not natural born citizens, but were citizens of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. Under Article II, they were grandfathered to be eligible to be President. James Buchanan’s father naturalized to become a citizen of the United States prior to his son’s birth. Woodrow Wilson’s and Herbert Hoover’s mothers became citizens of the United States when they married their husbands who were citizens of the United States and prior to their son’s birth. So except for Jefferson and Jackson who were grandfathered, all these Presidents were born in the U.S. to parents who at the time of their birth were its citizens. They were all “natural born citizens.” Barack Obama is not a natural born citizen and that is his problem, not mine.

What drives my argument on the meaning of a natural born citizen is not what you represent to be “a Swiss writer’s understanding of English law.” Rather, it is the Founders’ and Framers’ understanding of the law of nations, English common law, and the English Parliament’s naturalization Acts. That understanding is contained and reflected in the common law upon which they relied when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. Under that common law, which incorporated immutable principles of natural law and citizenship principles of the law of nations that defined national citizenship (not to be confused with state citizenship), they defined a natural born citizen as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens. Minor v. Happersett (1875). This common law definition of a natural born citizen was based on the immutable nature of natural law, the law of nations, and reason, and not expected to evolve over time. It was a universal and simple definition of a citizen that was accepted by all nations. It was a definition based on both the positive law of nations (born in the country) and the natural or necessary law of nations (born to citizen parents).

Your calling Vattel’s highly acclaimed and influential treatise on the law of nations “his book read by several Americans” tells the whole story of who and what you are. It shows that you have no idea of what the law of nations meant to the Founders and Framers and how it served them to justify the Revolution and write the Constitution. Indeed, the Founders and Framers saw the law of nations as the law by which people separated themselves from nations, new nations were founded, and a nation’s commerce and wealth was created.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

You refer to Virginia and babies born there. Your problem is that the law of Virginia was not the law of the United States. The James Madison Administration and probably James Madison himself told us so in the James McClure Case of 1811. You are making stuff up about Virginia foundlings being natural born citizens. They may have been accepted as citizens of Virginia for humanitarian reasons, but there is no evidence that they were exalted to Article II natural born citizen status. In fact, Congress has carried this same rule forward in all its naturalization Acts, treating them a citizens of the United States, but not natural born citizens.

You say that I am giving “judges a litany of reasons to rule against” me. I do not quite understand your logic. Cruz was born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States. He has to prove that he was born to one U.S. citizen parent in order to be a naturalized “citizen” of the United States “at birth.” Assuming that he can prove that fact, it makes him a naturalized “citizen” of the United States “at birth,” by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress, not an Article II natural born citizen. So what’s your problem with my argument?

You say that “US Constitutional law is very simple, as are the concepts behind it. The Constitution was written so farmers could read and understand it.” I do not think that the U.S. Supreme Court ever got your memo and it sure looks like we do not have enough farmers in this natural born citizen debate. Your portraying the United States under the English common law as free from what you characterize as the taint of blood is ludicrous given its experience with slaves, African-Americans, and American Indians. Furthermore, you seem to have forgotten that the American people had a Revolution in which they “dissolve[d] the Political Bands which had connected them to” the people of Great Britain and through that Revolution and with a written Constitution created a new nation, a republic called the United States of America, which accepted the law of nations. See Chisolm v. Georgia, 2 U.S. (2 Dall.) 419, 474 (1793) (“[T]he United States had, by taking a place among the nations of the earth, become amenable to the laws of nations; and it was their interest as well as their duty to provide, that those laws should be respected and obeyed.”); Ware v. Hylton, 3 U.S. (3 Dall.) 199, 281 (1796) (“When the United States declared their independence, they were bound to receive the law of nations, in its modern state of purity and refinement.”). While the states did selectively adopt the common law of England and of the colonies, the new national government never adopted that law and it is nowhere mentioned in the U.S. Constitution as providing the rules of decisions on the national level which is where U.S. citizenship is found. In fact, our U.S. Supreme Court has never looked to the English common law when defining an Article II natural born citizen and you cannot produce any evidence that it ever did. There is no doubt that the law of nations as common law applied to resolving questions of U.S. citizenship. In fact, each time that our U.S. Supreme Court has defined a natural born citizen it has given Vattel’s Section 212 definition of the clause. See also the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 (their text provided for naturalization for all persons except the natural born citizens, which an examination of their text demonstrates to be persons born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents).

You will have to try again to make some winning point.

STepper said...

Mario - You don't have to convince a judge to convince yourself that you're right. Although that's how those of us who take our selves seriously do it.

(Incidentally, Vattel's treatise at section 214 seems troublesome to your argument.)

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

STepper,

If you have a legal argument that you would like to make, please make it.

STepper said...

Not on a website where you have control over what is posted, including editorial and censorship rights. On the other hand, I do believe that Ted Cruz is ineligible to be elected POTUS, although I get there is a much more straightforward way than you do. I start in 1790, not before, and I rely on U.S./ Supreme Court cases as well as the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts. But the two parent theory is nonsense.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

You're a coward.

Carlyle said...

Watch out Mario. Here is what happens to those who question the bone fides of The Obamagod.

http://www.thepostemail.com/2016/05/13/federal-judge-holds-arpaio-aides-in-civil-contempt-of-court/

ajtelles said...

Nonsense...

Mario,

On May 14, 2016 at 10:01 PM STepper said in the last sentence, "But the two parent theory is nonsense."

If STepper and other "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers can prove that in 1787 America two parents is NOT implied in the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" all they need to do is articulate their own "theory" by sources and by reason that ONLY one, just 1, U.S. citizen parent was what John Jay was implying when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington.

Simple, right? Just articulate their 2000s one parent "theory," their 2000s one parent myth, by sources, just ONE source, and by reason.

While the "nbC" new meaning neobirthers may adduce 1790 and 1795 and 1952 immigration and naturalization statutes and Supreme Court cases and Lord Cook and Blackstone and English law and American common law, etc., etc., etc., the "nbC" new meaning neobirthers NEVER, EVER

(still waiting
for Kevin/Doc. Conspiracy
and Bryan Olson
and Kevin/Slartibartfast/PhD mathematician to)


adduce John Jay to advance their myth and "theory" that in 1787 America the constitutional convention delegates new implicitly, so that they didn't even need to debate the issue of the "issue" and eligibility, that John Jay implied and George Washington agreed that to be born eligible to the office of president ONLY one, just 1, U.S. citizen parent was necessary.

Is that neobirther one parent "theory" dumb, or what?

If STepper doesn't want to respond to you with, as you wrote, a "legal argument," on your own blog "where you have control over what is posted," well, he can simply respond to you with ONLY one simple "reason" for why he, as a tacit representative of "nbC" new meaning neobirthers, believes that the one U.S. citizen parent "theory" trumps the two U.S. citizen married parents in 1787 America fact.

It is a common law "fact" (until the 1922 Cable Act) that the U.S. citizenship of the husband, by the common law of the 1787 era, determined, ONLY by marriage, the U.S.citizenship status of the wife, AND that the singular U.S. citizenship of BOTH parents ("married" ONLY to each other) determined the singular U.S. citizenship status of their child.

Only one "reason" in defense of the 2000s myth and theory is all we ask of the "nbC" one U.S. citizen parent new meaning neobirthers.

Just one.

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

William St. George said...

Why are so many people so intent on seeing "natural born citizen" as everything but what it actually is? So far Ted Cruz gets the prize for the most egregious but the one parent idea is pretty cute. The only qualifier in those early days would have been a bastard! Were the Founders expressing their sensitivity to these highly irregular unions? Seems unlikely. Speaking of Ted Cruz after an article came out connecting Ted's father with Lee Harvey Oswald (and verified by Judyt Baker, a New Orleans girl friend of Oswald) he dropped out of the race and vanished. Coincidence or cause?




Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

William St. George,

The one U.S.-citizen-parent theory makes no sense. During the Framing, under the common law doctrine of coverture, parents were both either citizens or aliens. The Framers wrote a Constitution and they would have provided for the general rule, not for some limited exception. Furthermore, given the natural born citizen clause’s purpose which was to assure that the President and Commander in Chief of the Military be born with allegiance only to the United States and not subject to any foreign power, allowing birth to one alien parent, if not prevented by coverture, would have caused the child to inherit a foreign citizenship and allegiance as much as if the child were born to two alien parents. Finally, both Minor v. Happersett (1875) and United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) only foresaw scenarios wherein parents were both either citizens or aliens. Hence, rejecting only jus soli and also requiring jus sanguinis, as is evidenced by the early naturalization Acts, the Framers expected and required that natural born citizens be born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents.

Unknown said...

Ajtelles wrote, in bold:
"(still waiting
for Kevin/Doc. Conspiracy
and Bryan Olson
and Kevin/Slartibartfast/PhD mathematician to)"

Sad are they who wait on the past. The future waits not for they.

Ajtelles, I have no "new meaning neobirther" theory. I'm not the one shouting, "ONLY one, just 1, U.S. citizen parent". Here's a clue: Marco Rubio is a natural-born citizen.

I don't speak for Dr. Conspiracy or Slartibartfast, but I will say that if you wait for them or for me, you do so against my advice. Clinging to a fantasy world is your right, but, as Esquire Apuzzo has so amply demonstrated, it is not a winning strategy.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

So Bryan Gene Olson ("brygenon or "Unknown" or "NotLinda") believes that one does not need any U.S. citizen parents in order for one to be included as an Article II natural born citizen. Now that is funny given that all the Congresses, from the one that passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 to the one that passed the Naturalization Act of 1855 (as amended to before U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898)), treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens and the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875), consistent with that understanding of the early naturalization Acts, defined a natural born citizen as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens.

Mr. Olson likes to come off as though he speaks from authority. But he is not able to put together any argument with any sources and reasoning that supports his wild beliefs.

William St. George said...

As far as I can tell the 14th Amendment was not properly ratified. It is rather a strange tale how this Amendment did seem to be ratified. Obama has leaned heavily on this amendment to prove his eligibility. What would it take to clean the Constitution of these false accretions? I believe perhaps another one or two Amendments were also not properly ratified. Of course taking this position one is advertising oneself as a crank. If we realize that the 14th Amendment is null and void then that changes a great many things, so it would be worth pinning it down.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 261   Newer› Newest»