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

263 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 263 of 263   Newer›   Newest»
ajtelles said...

He did it again...

Mario,

On May 21, 2016 at 11:03 AM Unknown/Bryan Olson again was not responsive.

On May 15, 2016 at 12:00 PM I wrote:

>> "...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."

My one U.S. citizen parent was in response to STepper's comment on May 14, 2016 at 10:01 PM about two parents: "But the two parent theory is nonsense."

Concerning STepper's comment I wrote that if Stepper can't respond with a "legal argument" to you, well, he can respond with "reason" as to why he, 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 fact as understood by the common law of the 1787 era.

Now, Mario, if Unknown/Bryan Olson can't respond to you with a "legal argument" against the two U.S. citizen married parents fact as Stepper can't, well, Bryan/Unknown can simply articulate why he, as another tacit representative of "nbC" new meaning neobirthers, believes that the "zero" U.S. citizen parent "theory" trumps the two U.S. citizen married parents fact as understood by John Jay and George Washington and the constitutional convention delegates in 1787 America.

Will Unknown/Bryan Olson respond with an articulate and coherent "reason" as to why "zero" U.S. citizen parents, married or not, trumps "two" U.S. citizen married parents for the child to be "...eligible to the Office of President," as it says in Article II Section 1 clause 5 written in 1787, with the intention of two U. S. citizen married parents being perpetual to ensure that the child would have ONLY singular U.S. citizenship.

Will he, won't he?
Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock.

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

ajtelles said...

Rob Natelson said...

Mario,

Here are some highlights from Rob Natelson's article about Sen. Ted Cruz and that he was not eligible to be president. His i2i.org page has the hot links.

Also, he thinks that an Article V amendment would be useful to clarify that a foreign born child of an American or, "or," and American father would be recognized as a "natural born" citizen.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Cruz Withdrawal Postpones “Natural Born” Issue
May 15, 2016

>> https://www.i2i.org/cruz-withdrawal-postpones-natural-born-issue/

[...snip...]

“The evidence is not all one way, but on balance there is a good case Cruz did not meet the constitutional requirement.”

“As a general rule, the Constitution uses legal terms such as “natural born” in their 18th-century English legal sense. Under the law of the time, a foreign-born person did not qualify unless he had a citizen father not then engaged in treasonous or felonious activities.”

[...snip...]

“Perhaps a constitutional amendment is in order, recognizing as “natural born” the foreign-born child of either an American mother or American father.”

“This is a good illustration of why the Constitution has an amendment process.”

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario,

In other words, Natelson is proposing that only one, just 1, U.S. citizen parent would be sufficient to make a child born on foreign soil to be an Article II Section 1 clause 5 "nbC" and eligible to be president.

Also, it seems by implication that Natelson would be for only one, just 1, U.S. citizen parent, married or not married to the partner in procreation, would be sufficient to make a child an A2S1C5 "nbC" and eligible if the child if born on U.S. soil/jurisdiction.

So, somebody who knows Rob Natelson should ask him if he would be ok with an islamic jihadi either impregnating an American U.S. citizen woman vacationing in England or France, or coming to America and impregnating a U.S. citizen woman with the "original genesis original intent" of raising the islamic jihadi squirt with the foreign idea that sharia law is superior to the law of the land since it was adopted July 17, 1787, the U.S. Constitution, and grooming his son for the U.S. presidency? It would only be a son because in Islam women are second class citizens.

I wonder if Natelson has ever thought through the ramification of his only one, just 1, U.S. citizen parent proposition?

Apparently not.

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

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Art,

Rob Natelson strikes out again as he did on who is a natural born citizen among those who are born in the country, telling us that that question was to be decided under the colonial English common law rather than under American national common law. Instead of saying that a constitutional amendment is needed because people like Cruz were born, not only out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, but also to only one U.S. citizen parent, he goes off on the point, probably baseless given our modern equal protection jurisprudence, that he was born to a U.S. citizen mother rather than a U.S. citizen father. The next thing Natelson is going to tell us is that we need a constitutional amendment because Article II uses "he" or "his" rather than "he or she" or "his or her."

William St. George said...

The fact, and it is a fact, that the 14th Amendment was not properly ratified, we are strictly speaking back to a simpler citizenship situation. Either your parents were citizens and you were born in the USA or you are a naturalized citizen . . . I do not see any way to argue an invalidly ratified amendment into validity. Of course in the "real" world the 14th Amendment will carry on doing its thing . . .amendment by custom? But if we want to really be Constitutional then the 14th has to go.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

William St. George,

The common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution provided that all children born in a country to parents who were it citizens were like their parents themselves citizens of that nation. These were the "natives, or natural-born citizens." Minor v. Happersett (1875) (paraphrasing Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797)). Minor further stated that under that common law all the rest of the people were "aliens or foreigners," who could be naturalized under the naturalization Acts of Congress. The Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, 1804, and 1855 recognized this rule of the common law and therefore naturalized all the willing who were not born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. Clearly from the rule confirmed by Minor, the common law to which it referred was not the English common law, which placed no relevance on the citizenship of the parents of a child born in the King's dominion and subject to his jurisdiction. Rather, it was the American national common law which borrowed its citizenship principles from the law of nations.

Hence, before the Fourteenth Amendment and under the naturalization Acts of Congress, a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was under those naturalization Acts an alien. He or she could become a citizen of the United States upon the naturalization of his her parents if done during the child's minority and when the child shall be dwelling in the United States.

Our nation has accepted that the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) said that a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was not even under the Fourteenth Amendment a citizen of the United States. Hence, Minor further added that "there have been doubts" whether children born "within the jurisdiction" to alien parents were "citizens" of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, but did not address that question.

Consistent with this American national common law, the naturalization Acts of Congress, and The Slaughterhouse Cases and Minor, the United States argued in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) that Wong, born in the United States to alien parents, was not a citizen of the United States. The U.S. Supreme Court, distinguishing a natural born child born in the country to citizen parents from a child born in the country to alien parents, finding The Slaughterhouse Cases statement dicta, ruled for the first time in U.S. history, based on colonial English common law, that 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, was born in the United States while subject to its jurisdiction and subject to its laws, and therefore included, not as a natural born citizen, but rather as a "citizen" of the United States from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Wong Kim Ark did not change Minor's definition of a natural born citizen. Rather, it only expanded the class of people who can be citizens of the United States by birth in the country. It held that a child born in the United States to qualifying alien parents did not need to be a natural born citizen in order to be a citizen of the United States, but rather was directly under the Fourteenth Amendment a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Barack Obama, born to an alien father, is like Wong at best (if born in the United States) a "citizen" of the United States "at birth" under the Fourteenth Amendment. Ted Cruz, born in a foreign nation to an alien father, is at best (if born to a U.S. citizen mother) a naturalized "citizen" of the United States “at birth” by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress. Neither of them are Article II natural born citizens as defined by the common law to which the Framers looked for their definition of the clause.

ajtelles said...

The Walter-McCarran Immigration Act vs. Rob Natelson...

Mario,

Regarding my Rob Natelson comment on May 26, 2016 at 12:38 PM:

U.S. immigration policy would be undermined by Rob Natelson's suggestion about an amendment to clarify that only one U.S. citizen parent would be sufficient to make a child "...eligible to the Office of President."

See Natelson's Fort Worth Star-Telegram article which he posted on his website:
>> https://www.i2i.org/cruz-withdrawal-postpones-natural-born-issue/

Diana West has a short article about the House Committee on Un-American Activities in which she includes a comment by Archibald Roosevelt about the Walter-McCarran Immigration Act and connecting it to the legal immigration and U.S. naturalization of Russian communist agents ever since the 1917 communist revolution in Russia.

She wrote that "...the Committee held hearings into Communist Political Subversion in the cities of Washington, D.C., Youngstown, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Seattle," and published their findings in which she found "...a statement by Archibald B. Roosevelt (1894-1979), conservative businessman and much-decorated veteran of both World Wars who was also a son of President Theodore Roosevelt."

Diana writes that Roosevelt described "...the Kremlin's "two-pronged course of action," in which "Roosevelt noted that the Kremlin first needed "assurance that their foreign-born operators ... will not be deported or denaturalized. This would ensure the maintenance of those forces which the Red strategists have filtered in through our weak immigration barriers throughout the years."

In the penultimate paragraph Diana quotes Roosevelt:

>> "The second requirement for the conquest of America is to make certain that the security checks against immigrants are weak and ineffective and that there must exist loopholes through which swarms of Red agents can enter this country to swell the size of the subversive forces. ... The Walter-McCarran Immigration Act provides America with the legal weapons to stop the Red immigration plot in its tracks ...."

Diana concludes:

>> "Holy smokes. Roosevelt was discussing what remains a matter of intense topicality, the subversion of U.S. immigration policy, focusing on the 1950s Communist/Leftist opposition to the Walter-McCarran Immigration Act."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario, my point is this.

Roosevelt's words about communist subversion as Diana put it: "...matter of intense topicality, the subversion of U.S. immigration policy," are relevant for the same internal security reason that John Jay was relevant and prescient in 1787 (with the intention of being perpetual generation to generation) when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" before the first immigration and naturalization act was passed.

The U.S. Congress should strengthen U.S. immigration policy. Also, if the U.S. Constitution is amended, it should be amended to strengthen U.S. citizenship, not to diminish it like Natelson has suggested in his article on the Fort Worth Star-Telegram.

Professor Natelson is not thinking clearly, it seems to me, if he thinks that only one U.S. citizen parent was John Jay's original genesis original intent, and that, consequently, ONLY singular U.S. citizenship is of no consequence.

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

Unknown said...

Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:
---------
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
--------

I find it funny, on the opposite side. Mr. Apuzzo, you've made that claim over and over, but in fact the early naturalization acts do not treat births within the states at all. Resolving it as a federal power would take a series of later court cases, a war, and a constitutional amendment.

The set up for the funny part is that a year and half ago, in September of 2014 over at CafeconlecheRepublicans, you wrote: “Both the Naturalization Acts of 1802 and 1855 treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens and in need of naturalization.”
I responded: "I don’t think your courts could even tell what you were talking about on that. The Acts don’t treat births within the states at all."
http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/

The punch line is that in The Post & Email article interviewing you on 29 April 2016, they quote you telling of your recent hearing before the NJ Court of Administrative Law:

"Somehow during the hearing we got to discussing the second part ('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. .') I’m going on memory here, but I’m pretty sure I said, 'The second part applies to children whether they’re born in the United States or out of the United States,' and he just looked at me; he didn’t know what I was talking about."

--Bryan

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

So Bryan Gene Olson comes to my blog and celebrates ignorance. Way to go Mr. Olson!

Mick said...

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".


Of course Mr. Appuzo, and the definitive proof of this is Romulus Saunders' dissertation on the early Naturalization Acts from the 1845 Congressional Globe. Saunders was the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and was responding to Binney's correct assertion that the children of US Citizens born abroad were not "taken care of" by US naturalization statutes (as mentioned in Wong Kim Ark) since the NA 1802. He also states that Section 4 of the NA 1802 "took care" of the children born in the US of alien parentage (i.e. THEY WERE NATURALIZED).

Romulus Saunders dissertation is the ultimate proof that citizenship did not derive from the incident of birth on the soil, and thus simple birth on the soil did not create a natural born Citizen (as that clause is un-amended). If one born on the soil in 1803 of alien parents was not even considered a US Citizen until his/her parents naturalized, then how are they natural born Citizens today?

Saunders dissertation is the killer of all of the disinfo spread by Dr. Con and his paid internet trolls Mr Apuzzo. Please do a post on it.

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

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Mick,

Yes, indeed, you are correct. The plain text of the early naturalization Acts (“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.”) demonstrates that Congress treated children born in the United States or out of it to alien parents as aliens and in need of naturalization under the Acts themselves. That this text read and was to be applied this way is proven by Nathan Dane, in his, A General Abridgement and Digest of American Law (1823), the James McClure Citizenship Case as resolved by the James Madison Administration in 1811, and as you mention Representative Romulus Saunders in his Judiciary Committee report on naturalization that he presented to the House of Representatives in 1845. See “Mr. Saunder’s Report on Naturalization,” Appendix to Congressional Globe, 28th Cong. 2d Sess. H.R., p. 129 (when explaining the Naturalization Act of 1802, which on the question of whether the Act also acted upon children born in the United States repeated the same language as the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795, reported: “It further provides for the children of aliens, whether born within or out of the United States, but makes no provision for the children of citizens born abroad.”). Hence, consistent with American national common law, children born in the United States to alien parents were aliens. Children born out of the United States, whether born to aliens or even to U.S. citizens, were also aliens. Only if Congress provided otherwise through its naturalization Acts could these children be considered as citizens of the United States. Congress had provided for children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents in the 1790 and 1795 Act. It did not do so in the 1802 Act. Congress again provided for them starting in 1855 and has continued to do so to the present. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and numerous other U.S. Supreme Court cases that followed it confirm this fundamental rule of U.S. citizenship as applied to children born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States.

These early naturalization Acts are incontrovertible proof that the Framers saw only those children born in the United States to U.S. citizen fathers and U.S. citizen mothers as natural born citizens, with only those children not needing any naturalization by Congress. It also proves that New Jersey ALJ Jeff S. Masin is flatly wrong in concluding that the Framers used as the “common law” to which they looked to define a natural born citizen some mixture of the old English common law and the naturalization Acts of Parliament (which I like to analogize to the Framers drinking a transformational cocktail) which created a new common law, which he calls “the English law,” and that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen under that new common law or English law.

The Obots and Cruzbots and those they idol do not and cannot confront this evidence. They can just fabricate and/or lie.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

The following Resolution has been proposed in the Massachusetts Legislature:

WHEREAS the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 amends the Immigration and Naturalization Act (INA) to permit foreign born adopted children to acquire automatic United States citizenship upon certain conditions.

WHEREAS, foreign born adopted children became United States citizens automatically when at least one parent is a United States citizen, the child is adopted under 16 years of age, the child is residing in the United States in the legal and physical custody of the parent having United States citizenship, and the adoption of that child has been finalized, and all legal requirements applicable to adopted children comply with the provisions set forth in section 101(b)(1) of the Immigration and Naturalization Act.

WHEREAS, despite automatic United States citizenship under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, foreign born adopted children are not considered natural born citizens of the United States under the United States Constitution and as such, cannot be afforded certain inalienable rights and privileges available to natural born citizens under the United States Constitution including but not limited to being eligible to pursue the Office of President of the United States.

WHEREAS, the purpose of the natural born citizen clause in the United States Constitution is to protect the nation from foreign influence and ensure absolute loyalty and attachment to the principles of the Constitution.

WHEREAS, there are more than 250,000 foreign born adopted children in the United States whom are United States citizens that are being raised as Americans, educated as Americans and bear true faith and allegiance to the United States just like natural born citizens.

THEREFORE, be it resolved that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts speaking through its legislature hereby petitions the United States Congress to enact legislation allowing foreign born adopted children that satisfy the requirements under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000 to be considered natural born citizens so that they can be afforded the same inalienable rights and privileges extended to all other citizens of the United States pursuant to the United States Constitution.

~~~~~

Read the story here: http://newbostonpost.com/2016/06/02/rep-pushes-resolution-to-keep-nieces-white-house-dreams-alive/

This proposed Resolution 3317 is misguided. Under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4, Congress shall have "Power To . . . establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . throughout the United States.” Establishing a rule of naturalization does not include the power to make any one a natural born citizen, for the power starts with the concept that the status of natural born citizen already exists prior to Congress exercising that naturalization power and it would be a contradiction in terms to hold that a naturalized citizen can be a natural born citizen. It is that preexisting definition of a natural born citizen which was incorporated into the Constitution and which Congress cannot change without a constitutional amendment. That definition is found in the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. That common law incorporated the definition of a natural born citizen that existed under the law of nations. That definition is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797); Minor v. Happersett (1898).

A child born in a foreign nation to alien parents, who is adopted by U.S. citizen couple and thereby becomes after her or his birth and adoption a naturalization "citizen" of the United States, cannot possibly be an Article II natural born citizen. Congress proclaiming that such a child is a natural born citizen would be an unconstitutional exercise of power the Congress does not have. It would also be an act of discrimination against other non-adopted persons who have become citizens of the United States after their birth.

Unknown said...

Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:
"The plain text of the early naturalization Acts ('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.') demonstrates that Congress treated children born in the United States or out of it to alien parents as aliens and in need of naturalization under the Acts themselves."

That's called an "inverse error", or the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent

Contrary to Mr. Apuzzo's bad reasoning, there's no implication that the children of naturalizing aliens could not already be citizens.

-Bryan

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Apart that Bryan Gene Olson does not address the supporting evidence that I have cited for my position that the text of the early naturalization Acts meant that they applied to children born in and out of the United States (Nathan Dane, James McClure Citizenship Case of 1811, and Romulus Saunders (as provided by Mick)), he does not nor can he address the U.S. Supreme Court in The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) stating that children born in the United States to alien parents were not citizens of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment and the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court case of Minor v. Happersett (1875) in which the Court held that under the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution all children born in a country to parents who were its citizens were not only "citizens" like their parents, but were also "natives, or natural-born citizens," and that all the rest of the people were aliens in need of naturalization. Hence, both The Slaughterhouse Cases and Minor inform that under the common law, the children born to aliens, no matter where born, were aliens and in need of naturalization. While Mr. Olson ignores this evidence and makes such a terrible presentation, he tell us that "[c]ontrary to Mr. Apuzzo's bad reasoning, there's no implication that the children of naturalizing aliens could not already be citizens."

ajtelles said...

She said,

"...I don’t know every problem in the world yet, because I’m only eleven. I’m sure that the country will make the right decision.”

Mario,

I read the article that you linked to yesterday that is titled:

Rep. pushes resolution to keep niece’s White House dreams alive
By State House News Service | June 2, 2016, 10:15 EDT

>> http://newbostonpost.com/2016/06/02/rep-pushes-resolution-to-keep-nieces-white-house-dreams-alive/

When 11 year old Alena Mulhern learns in a matter of seconds that in 1787 a "natural born Citizen" was understood to be a child born with only singular U.S. citizenship, a "natural born Citizen" requirement which is only possible by being born only on U.S. soil only "by birth" to two U.S. citizen married parents, maybe she will educate the adults that she will not be eligible to be president of the United States when she is 35 years of age, because a Congressional statute does not trump and never will trump the original genesis original intent of the words "natural born Citizens" in Article II Section 1 clause 5 of the Constitution.

The word "born" in "natural born Citizen" means born, yes, but only born in the United States, not Canada, England, France, Mexico, Kenya, Cuba, Russia, Iraq, Iran, China or anywhere else in the world.

The word "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen" means citizen, yes, but only a citizen "by birth," by natural law -- birth, not "at birth" by positive law -- statute, to two U.S. citizen married parents, the only U.S. citizens who can convey their mutual singular U.S. citizenship to their child.

An adoptive parent can't convey what they do not have for the same reason that a positive law, naturalization language,can not trump natural law, birth.

Where are the constitutionally educated adults in the state government of Massachussetts and the U.S. Congress?

Are the lights on?
Is anybody home?

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

Teo Bear said...

While I agree with William St. George that the 14th Amendment was never properly ratified, it would still not make one a natural born citizen. What tends to be ignored is that the phrase "natural born Citizen," existed for a fews shy of one hundred years in the American legal lexicon before the 14th Amendment was ratified, and in the end the 14th Amendment only makes on a "citizen of the United States." The 14th Amendment clearly does not make one a natural born citizen and that observation comes from Chief Justice Waite in the Minor v Happersett decission. CJ Waite said clearly she falls under the definition found in the 14th amendment, but he did not need to use the 14th Amendment to declare her a citizen, he found that she was a natural born citizen from the nomenclature the founding fathers used, and that was being born in the United States of parents who were citizens at the time of birth.

It was not until Rogers v Bellei that the concept of "being born" a citizen equated to a natural born citizen gained momentum. The seminal case of Wong Kim Ark avoids calling WKA a natural born citizen and instead finds him a citizen of the United States under the 14th Amendment. Being born a citizen is a relatively a new concept, and was used to show that if one was not born or naturalized in the United States,the protections of the 14th Amendment were not afforded to them. The court went further and said it was birth alone in the United States which made a person a citizen at birth and everyone else born outside of the United States including the children of a citizen became citizens through naturalization.

The real question that was never answered is was our national law seeded by English Common law or by the Law of Nations? I tend to lean towards the law of nations as being the source of our national constitutional law, for two very famous founding fathers are on record declaring that the Constitution was not written with English Common Law in mind, and these men were James Madison and George Mason who are known in American history as the father of the Constitution and the father of the Bill of Rights. Until that national discussion is had by the people of the United States we will never have a resolution to this issue.

Now I see Americans dumbed down in school, and they never knew that when the Constitution was drafted there were not 13 states, there were 13 States. Each State was an independent, autonomous national enitity that formed a compact of confederation for their mutual defense and protection after they won their independence. The concept of a state being a political under the political control of the federal government was never intended as the 10th amendment proves.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

Here is my latest response to a commenter by the name of Chris Whittle who replied to my comment on the Massachusetts resolution on adopted children being proposed as natural born citizens, at http://newbostonpost.com/2016/06/02/rep-pushes-resolution-to-keep-nieces-white-house-dreams-alive/#comment-2711935440:

Chris Whittle,

You said: “A Uniform Rule of Naturalization means Congress has the right to determine by statute who is a natural born citizen. “

Response: Congress’s naturalization power is not a power to make anyone a natural born citizen. On its face, Congress is to use the power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States. The definition of a natural born citizen was only one and did not need to be made uniform. That definition existed a common law which borrowed from the law of nations and was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797); Minor v. Happersett (1875). The Constitution did not give to Congress the power to define a natural born citizen like it gave to Congress in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 the power to define offenses against the law of nations. If Congress were going to make anyone a natural born citizen through a statute, then it would have to know what a natural born citizen was before making one through one of its naturalization statutes. For Congress to know what a natural born citizen was before it could naturalize anyone to be one would mean that the definition of a natural born citizen already existed. If the meaning of a natural born citizen already existed before Congress was to naturalize anyone to be one, that meaning had to be the meaning of a natural born citizen that the Framers had in mind when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. In fact, we know that the Framers had a meaning of a natural born citizen in mind before Congress passed any naturalization Act, for John Jay wrote a letter dated July 25, 1787 to then-General George Washington recommending that only a natural born citizen be allowed to serve as Commander in Chief and George Washington wrote back thanking him for the suggestion without asking him what he meant by a natural born citizen. If a person needed naturalization by Congress to be a citizen, that person did not meet that pre-existing definition of a natural born citizen which means that that person was not nor could he or she be a natural born citizen. At best, that person could be a citizen so made, whether at birth or thereafter, by a naturalization Act of Congress.

You said: “Ted Cruz was born in Canada but is considered a natural born citizen because both his parents were U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.”

Response: This statement is both factually and legally incorrect. Ted Cruz was born in 1970 in a foreign nation (Canada) to an alien father (Cuban) and presumably to a U.S. citizen mother. Cruz’s father became a naturalized citizen of Canada in 1973. He did not become a naturalized citizen of the United States until 2005. He is a naturalized “citizen” of the United States “at birth,” by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress. He is not nor can he be a natural born citizen which is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

You said: “Only one parent has to be a U.S. citizen to be considered a natural born citizen born abroad.”

Response: Congress’s first naturalization Act, the Naturalization Act of 1790, to make any child born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States a citizen of the United States, required that both parents be U.S. citizens. It also required that the U.S. citizen father be a U.S. resident at the time of the child’s birth. The 1790 Act provided that such children “shall be considered as natural born citizens.” The Third Congress, through the Naturalization Act of 1795, changed it to “shall be considered as citizens of the United States,” clearly signifying that such children were not to be eligible to be President. Ted Cruz does not satisfy either one of these early Act, for his was born to an alien father. Even if we were to count his U.S. citizen mother as we did U.S. citizen fathers, he still was born to only one U.S. citizen parent. Under modern naturalization Acts which allow for U.S. citizen mothers and even for just one U.S. citizen parent, Cruz became a citizen of the United States “at birth” by virtue of that particular naturalization Act. Cruz was not a natural born citizen by virtue of the common law that defined the clause.

You said: “It is the same as one of my uncles who was born to U.S. and British Army soldiers stationed in England during WWII. He was born a dual citizen with the UK. He is natural born because my grandfather was a U.S. citizen and in the Army. Even if he were civilian abroad my uncle would have been granted American citizenship based on the law passed by Congress. Congress could end birthright citizenship for abroad births without a constitutional amendment.”

Response: These birth circumstances do not produce a natural born citizen. A child born out of the territory of the United States to a father or mother who at the time of birth may be serving as a diplomat or the armies of the United States is a natural born citizen if both father and mother were U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth. In your fact pattern, only the father was a U.S. citizen. Under those birth circumstances, your uncle became a citizen of the United States at birth by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress. He did not become a natural born citizen under the common law.

ajtelles said...

Reply to Chris Whittle...

Mario,

I just finished reading your response to Chris Whittle at the New Boston Post.
>> http://newbostonpost.com/2016/06/02/rep-pushes-resolution-to-keep-nieces-white-house-dreams-alive/#comment-2711935440

Here on your blog, in part 1 on June 4, 2016 at 6:38 PM, you referenced John Jay and George Washington with logic and reason that is so clear and coherent that it is irrefutable.

If the "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers want to rebut and refute your conclusion that John Jay and George Washington were in agreement about the common sense meaning of "natural born Citizen" in 1787 America, all the neobirthers need to do is defend the proposition that John Jay did NOT mean what you said he meant, and that Jay meant something else and Washington agreed with Jay, and then the neobirthers simply need to spell it out coherently if they can.

You wrote:

Sentence 7:
>> If Congress were going to make anyone a natural born citizen through a statute, then it would have to know what a natural born citizen was before making one through one of its naturalization statutes.

Sentence 8:
>> For Congress to know what a natural born citizen was before it could naturalize anyone to be one would mean that the definition of a natural born citizen already existed.

Sentence 9:
>> If the meaning of a natural born citizen already existed before Congress was to naturalize anyone to be one, that meaning had to be the meaning of a natural born citizen that the Framers had in mind when they drafted and adopted the Constitution.

Sentence 10:
>> In fact, we know that the Framers had a meaning of a natural born citizen in mind before Congress passed any naturalization Act, for John Jay wrote a letter dated July 25, 1787 to then-General George Washington recommending that only a natural born citizen be allowed to serve as Commander in Chief and George Washington wrote back thanking him for the suggestion without asking him what he meant by a natural born citizen."

Sentence #10 with the logical inference about the tacit agreement between John Jay and George Washington is what I have been saying since 2012 when Jay became my "natural born Citizen" new best friend when I understood that Jay's prescient suggestion was intended to be perpetual, generation to generation, and that his perpetual "original genesis original intent" was implied when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to Washington who obviously agreed with Jay's "original genesis original intent."

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

Unknown said...

Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:
"Apart that Bryan Gene Olson does not address the supporting evidence"

That you have lots of wrong arguments does not change that your inference from the language of the early naturalization acts is an "inverse error". That's the one you were on before the ALJ, when, as the P&E quoted you, "he just looked at me; he didn’t know what I was talking about." Judge is a very different role from debunker. I now do understand your fallacious reasoning, but judges are unlikely to dive that deep.

Your courts also rejected your other "supporting evidence", and your debunkers have addressed it many times; for example, see the familiar thread at CafeconlecheRepublicans. The one exception is the essay that Rep. Romulus Saunders put into the House record in 1855. Perhaps surprisingly, your first hearing before ALJ Masin has a lesson on that.

In your 2012 hearing before the NJ Office of Administrative Law, you tried to introduce a comment made in a foreign parliament as if it were some kind of official statement. Opposing counsel objected, noting that we don't know whether the speaker had floor immunity. The Judge agreed with that point.

That was a reference to the U.S. Constitution's Speech or Debate clause, Article I, Section 6, Clause 1: "for any Speech or Debate in either House, they [members] shall not be questioned in any other place". A minor tradition of the House is that individual members can and do put silliness into the record, protected by their immunity. Taking such a piece seriously is just naive.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Can you believe it folks, this silly riddler, who goes by the stage name of Bryan Gene Olson, and who is a low level political operative working for Barack Obama, seeks to dismiss Rep. Romulus Saunders' statement, made in his Judiciary Committee Report on naturalization that he presented to the House of Representatives in 1845, that the early naturalization Acts of Congress applied to both children born in and out of the United States, by resort to the Speech or Debate Clause found in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the Constitution. He suggests that what Rep. Saunders said in his report is so ridiculous, but that no one in Congress or in any other place could take issue with it because Rep. Saunders had immunity to make the statement under the Speech or Debate Clause. Needless to say, Mr. Olson has some major education problems.

To properly understand this clause, we have to read the full context of the Article of the Constitution in which it is found:

The Senators and Representatives shall receive a Compensation for their Services, to be ascertained by Law, and paid out of the Treasury of the United States. They shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

No Senator or Representative shall, during the Time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil Office under the Authority of the United States, which shall have been created, or the Emoluments whereof shall have been encreased during such time; and no Person holding any Office under the United States, shall be a Member of either House during his Continuance in Office.

~~~~~

Article I, Section 6, protects legislators from arrest in civil actions while they are in session, but they may still be arrested in criminal matters. To prevent prosecutors and others from using the courts to intimidate a legislator because they do not like the legislator's views, through the Speech or Debate Clause, legislators are granted immunity from criminal prosecution and civil lawsuits for the things they say and the activities in which they engage as legislators. This does not mean that members of Congress cannot question each other on the views that a member of Congress may express either during a speech or in some report to Congress. Surely, Congress itself is not "any other Place," and Congress has been the place for healthy legal and political debate since the beginning of our nation. Nor does it mean that the Judiciary or the Executive cannot take issue with what a member of Congress might say during a speech or in an official report. In fact, the courts and the executive do that on virtually a daily basis.

Mr. Olson is so off his rocker on this that there is not enough mocking in the English language to express what he has attempted to do here.

ajtelles said...

Video...

Mario,

I was seconds from posting here that Bryan Olson had a comment for you at NewBostonPost.com when your post with video url appeared.

>> http://newbostonpost.com/2016/06/02/rep-pushes-resolution-to-keep-nieces-white-house-dreams-alive/

In the first sentence of paragraph two you wrote:

>> "By the way, New Jersey ALJ Jeff S. Masin in the same New Jersey 2012 case that Mr. Olson cites in his comment ruled that it did not matter who Mr. Obama was, where he was born, or to whom he was born, for even "Mickey Mouse" could run for President."

What time is it?
It's Mickey Mouse time.
The Judge so stipulated.

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

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

Bryan Gene Olson strikes again. He responds to my comment on the Massachusetts resolution on adoption and natural born citizen:

Note that Mario Apuzzo Esquire wants not only to crush 11-year-old Alena Mulhern's dreams of being president, he'd also crush Barack Obama's dream of holding that office. Esquire Apuzzo has litigated the issue. He lost all his cases and all his appeals. One Judge found: “The petitioners’ legal position on this issue, however well intentioned, has no merit in law.” -- ALJ Jeff S. Masin for the NJ Office of Administrative Law, 10 April 2012, ballot challenge of Purpura and Moran v. Obama. Mr. Apuzzo appealed. The Appellate Court wrote: “We have carefully considered appellants’ arguments and conclude that these arguments are without merit. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in ALJ Jeff S. Masin’s thorough and thoughtful written opinion of April 10”. -- Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division, Purpura v. Obama, May 31, 2012

Whether or not Congress can define the Article II term "natural born Citizen" by statute, the theory that losing attorney Mario Apuzzo spouts is simply crank nonsense. We've already had two president that do not meet what Esquire Apuzzo claims is a requirements to be president. Trying to crush childrens' dreams with such garbage is a nasty thing to do.

http://newbostonpost.com/2016/06/02/rep-pushes-resolution-to-keep-nieces-white-house-dreams-alive/#comment-2711935440

~~~~~

Here is my response:

The silly riddler, who goes by the stage name, Bryan Gene Olson, is a low-level political operative who has been working for Barack Obama for over 7 years spreading false information on the internet to protect whatever legacy Obama is trying to create. Notice how Mr. Olson injects himself into a debate regarding whether adopted children can be Article II natural born citizens, a debate which he believes negatively impacts upon Barack Obama. For over 7 years, Mr. Olson has been repeating in every corner of the internet about what some administrative law judge or lower court decided concerning whether Obama is a natural born citizen, but has never been able to address and refute the merits of the constitutional arguments that I make regarding the original meaning of an Article II natural born citizen. Mr. Olson and his cause have been the real losers and as we can see from the comment that he posted here, which includes something about the dreams of little girls (a fallacious appeal to pity), they continue to be such losers. If Mr. Olson wants to stop being a loser, he should try making a legal argument that is well based on historical and legal sources and reasoning.

By the way, New Jersey ALJ Jeff S. Masin in the same New Jersey 2012 case that Mr. Olson cites in his comment ruled that it did not matter who Mr. Obama was, where he was born, or to whom he was born, for even "Mickey Mouse" could run for President. Mr. Olson runs about the internet lying about this inconvenient fact, saying it is not in the written decision itself. First, ALJ Masin in his latitudinarian decision itself held that Mr. Obama to run in the New Jersey primary had no burden to prove he was constitutionally eligible. Second, ALJ Masin agreeing that even Mickey Mouse could run for President is in the transcript of the oral arguments before him. ALJ Masin can also be seen and heard agreeing to it in the video of the 2012 hearing which is available on YouTube. Listen to ALJ Masin accept that Obama did not provide any evidence to the State of New Jersey as to where he was born or to whom he was born, and to Obama's lawyer argue that Obama did not have any burden to prove such facts or that he had any burden to prove that he was constitutionally eligible, that "Mickey Mouse" could run for President, and ALJ Masin agree. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qRcQcgiVf9I . Thank God for YouTube which allows us to preserve and share such precious moments of American history.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Concerning Mr. Olson’s broken dreams of some little girl and me being such a bad guy for crushing such dreams, that “is a matter entirely within the choice of the father [adopting parents], there would seem to be no reason why such a situation should be anomalous. As the father [adoptive parents] may exercise his [their] option in accordance with the law, so citizenship will follow that option. Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 669 (1927).

Of course, we will not see Mr. Olson provide any substantive legal argument. He will as he normally does simply run off to troll some other corner of the internet and repeat what he has stated here.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Notice that we have not heard from the silly riddler, Bryan Gene Olson, who says that no one challenged Rep. Romulus Saunders' statement made in his Judiciary Committee Report on naturalization that he presented to the House of Representatives in 1845, that the early naturalization Acts of Congress applied to both children born in and out of the United States, because he had immunity under the Speech or Debate Clause found in Article I, Section 6, Clause 1 of the Constitution. He suggests that what Rep. Saunders said in his report is so ridiculous, but that no one in Congress or in any other place could take issue with it because Rep. Saunders had immunity to make the statement under the Speech or Debate Clause. I'm still laughing.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of IV

Here is the latest from Bryan Gene Olson and my response at http://newbostonpost.com/2016/06/02/rep-pushes-resolution-to-keep-nieces-white-house-dreams-alive/#comment-2722966092 on the question of whether a child born in a foreign nation to alien parents, adopted by U.S. citizen parents during her years of minority, is an Article II natural born citizen.

The silly riddler who goes by the stage name, Bryan Gene Olson, said:

Still getting the order of implication wrong after seven years of arguing it? Yes, that's crank nonsense. Minor has it the other way: Children born in a country to parents who were its citizens are natural-born citizens. Of course they are. I've never said otherwise.

~~~~~

This Mr. Olson is not only a silly riddler, but he also has poor reading comprehension and logical skills and is intellectually dishonest to boot. This is what Minor held with respect to who was a natural born citizen and therefore ipso facto a citizen of the United States at common law:

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 [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875).

Note how Mr. Olson dishonestly leaves out the part of Minor that explained that those natural born citizens, as it defined them, were “distinguished from aliens or foreigners.” According to the U.S. Supreme Court, at common law, all those who were not born in the country to parents who were its citizens were “aliens or foreigners,” who could become “citizens” of the United States through naturalization and possibly under the Fourteenth Amendment. (U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) later held that a person 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 was a “citizen of the United States” by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment; it did not hold that such person was a “natural born citizen” by virtue of the common law that defined an Article II natural born citizen.) With Minor’s explanation, it exhausted all possible persons who could be natural born citizens. There were no other persons who could be natural born citizens, for all the rest of the people were “aliens or foreigners.” Indeed, the Court explained that at common law if one was not born in the country to parents who were its citizens, one was an alien or foreigner. For sure, the Court provided an all-inclusive and all-exclusive definition of a natural born citizen. Hence, only those born in the United States to parents who were its citizens were natural born citizens. Hence, there is no order problem with how I said Minor defined a natural born citizen.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of IV

It’s utterly hilarious that this silly riddler lectures on logic when he really is a dullard at it. He still has not figured out what the fallacy of affirming the consequent is even though I have explained it to him for about 7 years now. He thinks that all natural born citizens are born citizens, and therefore all born citizens are natural born citizens, as smart as saying that all poodles are dogs, therefore all dogs are poodles.

If Mr. Olson were to take some basic logic courses, he should learn that what Minor provided in its definition of a natural born citizen are necessary and sufficient conditions to be satisfied in order for one to be a natural born citizen. That means that at common law if one did not satisfy one or the other of those conditions, one was not only not a natural born citizen, but one was an alien or foreigner in need of naturalization. That naturalization occurred through the naturalization acts of the states and then exclusively through those of Congress starting in 1790. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1866, that also occurred under those laws.

The silly riddler said:

I said that the eligibility of foreign-born children who receive citizenship by statute upon birth is a fairly recent consensus of the America legal community. I started saying so after John S. McCain III became the 2008 Republican nominee but before Ted Cruz ran for his Senate seat. All along I allowed that a serious scholar might make a case against it, and when Ted Cruz ran for President we saw a few do so.

~~~~~

Firsts, Mr. Olson falsely claims that the John McCain example helps him. John McCain was physically born in Panama to two U.S. citizen parents who were serving the armies of the United States at the time of his birth. Given that his parents were in the U.S. military at that time, McCain was born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. He is thus reputed born in the United States. So, he was born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. He is therefore a natural born citizen.

Second, there have been some persons with law degrees arguing that certain persons running for the Office of President and born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents neither in the U.S. military nor in its diplomatic service are natural born citizens. These persons are very small in number compared to the great number of persons with law degrees. Some members of Congress have even several times tried to introduce such legislation, but their efforts have always failed. A demagogue like Mr. Olson throwing his two cents into the sordid pot surely does not mean or change anything.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of IV

Mr. Olson believes that he has not squeezed enough blood out of the meaning of a natural born citizen. Now he further expands the number of persons who he claims are natural born citizens. Now he even claims that a person who was born an alien can also be a natural born citizen. Again, this silly riddler’s ridiculous position is contrary to the teachings of the U.S. Supreme Court. In Elk the U.S. Supreme Court, written by Justice Gray who also wrote Wong Kim Ark, explained:

This section contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two sources only: birth and naturalization. The persons declared [p102] to be citizens are "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof." The evident meaning of these last words is not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance. And the words relate to the time of birth in the one case, as they do to the time of naturalization in the other. Persons not thus subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth cannot become so afterwards except by being naturalized, either individually, as by proceedings under the naturalization acts, or collectively, as by the force of a treaty by which foreign territory is acquired.

Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101-02 (1884). The Court explained that if one is subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth, one can become a citizen thereof at that time under the Fourteenth Amendment and needs no naturalization after birth. The Court further explained that if one is not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States at the time of birth, then in order for one to be a citizen of the United States one must be naturalized, under either a naturalization Act of Congress or a treaty. Surely, if one is naturalized to be a “citizen” of the United States at birth or after birth only under a statute or treaty, one is not nor can one be a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment, let alone an Article II “natural born citizen” at common law. The inescapable conclusion from these teachings is that a child born in a foreign nation to alien parents, even though later adopted by U.S. citizen parents during the child’s years of minority, is not born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore cannot be a citizen of the United States “at birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment (like Obama, Rubio, Jindal, and Haley, who are generally not considered to be naturalized because they do not need a naturalization statute to make them citizens of the United States, but who are nevertheless naturalized according to the original meaning of the term under the original Constitution). Nor can that child be a naturalized “citizen” of the United States “at birth” under a naturalization Act of Congress (like Cruz). Rather, the best that such a child can do is become a naturalized “citizen” of the United States after birth under a different naturalization provision of an Act of Congress (like Arnold Schwarzenegger).

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

IV of IV

The silly riddler said:

Looking at your actual results, Mr. Apuzzo, don't I get any credit for turning out be right all the time?

~~~~~

Here we can see how much more Mr. Olson is a dullard at logic. Now he tells us that if a judge makes a statement, it is necessarily correct, and since he adopts the judge’s statement, he too is correct. Mr. Olson does not understand that with that thinking he is committing the fallacy of appeal to authority. No, Mr. Olson does not want to admit that my position is very good, for it stands on relevant legal and historical sources and on valid and sound reasoning. If it were not that good, Mr. Olson would have been able to refute it after 8 years trying to do so. Rather, the furthest Mr. Olson has ever gotten is to merely parrot some state judge’s conclusion, never providing the sources and reasoning that support that conclusion, a sure sign that the conclusion is not only not binding on the nation, but plainly wrong.

The silly riddler said:

And in the other major party the highest person in the order of succession condemns a candidate's racism while endorsing him.

~~~~~

Here we see more of this silly riddler’s poor logic. His fallacious moral equivalency is a big failure. First, he concedes that we have come to a President endorsing for President a person who is being criminally investigated by that President's chief law enforcement authority. Second, he has no evidence that Donald Trump is a racist. I have told him numerous times that he is a despicable demagogue. That he seeks to exploit race (in this article he also seeks to exploit pity for a little girl) for purposes of political gain does not prove the assertion and also shows how much of a loser he is.

Barack Obama was born to an alien father (British and then Kenyan). Ted Cruz was born in a foreign nation (Canada) to an alien father (Cuban). Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, and Nikki Haley were all born to alien parents (Rubio's were Cuban and the others Indians). That little girl was born in a foreign nation (China) to alien parents (not identified). Hence, they are all not natural born citizens, for not being born in the United States to parents who were its citizens. Except for the little girl, they are all “citizens” of the United States “at birth,” either under the Fourteenth Amendment or naturalization Act of Congress (the latter applies to Cruz). The little girl is a naturalized "citizen" of the United States after birth. None of them are natural born citizens at common law. Remember, all natural born citizens are born citizens, but not all born citizens are natural born citizens. In the case of the adopted foreign girl, she cannot even claim to be a born citizen.

So, let’s see if Mr. Olson has any more riddles for us to solve.

ajtelles said...

"kookologist"...

Mario,

Bryan Olson calls himself a "kookologist" and his kookery is evident over at NewBostonPost.com in his "silly riddler" shallow thinker snippets to you and me.

>> http://newbostonpost.com/2016/06/02/rep-pushes-resolution-to-keep-nieces-white-house-dreams-alive/

Art

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Art,

I'm happy to see that Bryan Gene Olson has at least enough intelligence to admit that he is a kook and indeed he is. He argues over at http://newbostonpost.com/2016/06/02/rep-pushes-resolution-to-keep-nieces-white-house-dreams-alive/ that a child born in a foreign nation presumably to parents of that nation and who becomes a citizen of the United States under a naturalization Act of Congress by virtue of being adopted by U.S. citizen parents, even occurring as late as age 15, is an Article II natural born citizen, but a child born under the same birth circumstances who is not adopted, but who at age 6 months becomes a naturalized citizen of the United States through his or her naturalizing alien parents is not a natural born citizen. This kook fails to realize that adoption under our immigration laws only allows an otherwise alien child to immigrate to the United States and does not through some miracle of law retroactively convert him or her into a natural born citizen of the United States. Even under the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, these adopted children do not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth. Rather, they are automatically granted U.S. citizenship when they enter the United States as permanent legal residence (PLR). Hence, clearly these adopted children acquire U.S. citizenship after birth and therefore cannot possibly be natural born citizens, given that they do not satisfy one of the necessary conditions of being a natural born citizen (which is not a sufficient condition for one to acquire the status), which is being a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth.

Mr. Olson views himself as some clever intellectual. Well, we can surely see how clever he is.

ajtelles said...

Racism...

Mario,

This is in response to what "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirther "kookologist" Bryan Olson wrote about Donald Trump over at NewBostonPost.com
>> http://newbostonpost.com/2016/06/02/rep-pushes-resolution-to-keep-nieces-white-house-dreams-alive/

Jeffrey Lord's article on The American Spectator is very clear about the racism of "The Race--La Raza" and ALL of the lawyers and judges who are promoting racism of browns against whites, blacks, yellows, reds.

>> http://spectator.org/trump-is-right-the-shame-of-paul-ryan-and-mitch-mcconnell/

Since Mexico has browns, whites, blacks, yellows and reds, what race is Mexico? That is kin to the question of what race is "Islam??

Also, what race is the United States or Canada?

Also still pertinent after all these many years are the words of Cesar Chavez in this 9 minute YouTube video:

César Chávez: La Raza Is Racist
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mTHuhRfwlrA
<

Notice in the last sentence in the text that the distinction is between nationalism and humanism.

So, what "race" does "The Race--La Raza" and Judge Curiel want the nations of Mexico and the USA to be exclusively?

Brown?
White?
Black?
Yellow?
Red?


As Trump might say, I hope Judge Curiel isn't racist even though La Raze ("The Race")<.b> is racist like Cesar Chavez said many years ago.

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

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Bryan Gene Olson ("Unknown") said:

“I've been a kookologist since before Leo Donofrio came out with the twofer-birther theory in October or November of 2008. I've studied 9-11-inside-jobbers, Einstein deniers, and designers of perpetual motion machines.”—Bryan Gene Olson at http://newbostonpost.com/2016/06/02/rep-pushes-resolution-to-keep-nieces-white-house-dreams-alive/#comment-2732569809

This statement from Mr. Olson is really delicious. He equates the constitutional debate on the meaning of a natural born citizen with debates by “9-11-inside-jobbers, Einstein deniers, and designers of perpetual motion machines.” Indeed, Bryan Gene Olson is a real kook.

Unknown said...

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"I'm happy to see that Bryan Gene Olson has at least enough intelligence to admit that he is a kook and indeed he is. He argues over at http://newbostonpost.com/2016/06/02/rep-pushes-resolution-to-keep-nieces-white-house-dreams-alive/ that a child born in a foreign nation presumably to parents of that nation and who becomes a citizen of the United States under a naturalization Act of Congress by virtue of being adopted by U.S. citizen parents, even occurring as late as age 15, is an Article II natural born citizen,"

False. I never argued that. Such a child is not eligible. The article Mr. Apuzzo links is about *changing* the law so that such a child could someday be president.

Mr. Apuzzo, please retract your false claim of what I argued.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Massachusetts Rep. Josh Cutler, who is 11-year-old Alena Mulhern’s uncle, said, “She wants to be president, and we want to see her dreams be able to be alive.” With his niece in mind, Cutler filed a resolution (H 3317) calling on Congress to recognize children born in a foreign country to alien parents who are adopted by U.S. citizens parents prior to reaching their 16th birthday as natural born citizens under the Constitution. "It doesn’t mean we have to make any changes to the Constitution,” Cutler told the News Service. Bryan Gene Olson supports Cutler's efforts and has attacked me for expressing my opinion that his resolution is misguided given that naturalized children are not nor can they be natural born citizens. I demonstrated how much of a wack job Mr. Olson is for supporting such a resolution and now he says that he is only advocating a "change" even though Cutler said that what he is proposing does not involve changing the Constitution. Poor Mr. Olson, he is always so confused.

Unknown said...

Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:
"Bryan Gene Olson supports Cutler's efforts and has attacked me for expressing my opinion that his resolution is misguided given that naturalized children are not nor can they be natural born citizens."

That is simply not true. I took no position for or against Cutler's resolution. I attacked Mr. Apuzzo's response for stating a theory on who can be president under which the actual president could not be president.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Bryan Gene Olson is that type of guy who when proven to be wrong on what he said, says that he did not say it.

Here are Mr. Olson's own words: "Note that Mario Apuzzo Esquire wants not only to crush 11-year-old Alena Mulhern's dreams of being president, he'd also crush Barack Obama's dream of holding that office."

The article to which I commented was about whether a child born in a foreign nation to alien parents who is adopted by a U.S. citizen couple before the age of 16 is a natural born citizen. Mr. Olson is so concerned about helping Barack Obama create his legacy that he injected him into the picture. But the point remains that Mr. Olson attacked me for being wrong about the little girl's dreams to be President. At no time did he state that the little girl was not a natural born citizen but that Barack Obama was. On the contrary, he said that I wanted to crush her dreams of being President, implying that she was a natural born citizen under the Constitution. Mr. Olson is a typical Obot. As far as he is concerned, anything that moves on the planet is a natural born citizen, including Ted Cruz, all for the sake of protecting Obama.

Carlyle said...

WOW - finally some actual truth!

"I attacked Mr. Apuzzo's response for stating a theory on who can be president under which the actual president could not be president."

I have said since the beginning that these OBOTs have no logic and no legal ground to stand on, but are simply trying to pound square pegs into round holes. Now they admit it in their own words.

What could be more pernicious? Twisting the law to justify and backfill a desired outcome!

Unknown said...

Mario Apuzzo Esq. named and quoted me accurately:
"Bryan Gene Olson is that type of guy who when proven to be wrong on what he said, says that he did not say it.
Here are Mr. Olson's own words: 'Note that Mario Apuzzo Esquire wants not only to crush 11-year-old Alena Mulhern's dreams of being president, he'd also crush Barack Obama's dream of holding that office.'"

That's from http://newbostonpost.com/2016/06/02/rep-pushes-resolution-to-keep-nieces-white-house-dreams-alive/

Did Mr. Apuzzo actually miss it? Didn't get the point of: "crush Barack Obama's dream of holding that office"? Mr. Apuzzo's favorite name for me at newbostonpost.com is "silly riddler". Wow. Riddles were not my intent. Ironic, sure. Joke maybe. No riddle.

My complaint here and now is that Mr. Apuzzo misrepresented my position. As I explained, and contrary to Mr. Apuzzo's reporting, I never argued that a child such as Alena Mulhern is an Article II natural-born citizen. She is not. I think she should be eligible, eventually, and I join her uncle in favoring a change of law that would keep her dream alive. I'd rather the change be a constitutional amendment.

Mr. Apuzzo, please correct your false reporting of my position.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

As I have often said, Mr. Olson imagines himself being some clever intellectual. There is nothing for me to correct. He spoke his piece and I spoke mine. I will add that his trying to squeeze lemon juice out of a dry piece of bread will just not cut it for him.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Bryan Gene Olson (who also goes by brygenon, Unknown, and NotLinda) just loves to lie when caught in a lie. I have pointed out to him that he has many times said that the natural born citizens is a proper subset of the born citizens. He continues to respond that he never said any such thing. Below are quotes directly from him which show that I am correct. Even with me providing this evidence to him, he still insists that he never said that the natural born citizens is a proper subset of citizens at birth (born citizens). Here are his several comments which he (operating as Unknown) has not cared to re-post and explain in his defense. These comments appear on my blog at http://puzo1.blogs.com in my article, The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause: A Response to Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter and at Café Con Leche Republicans:

Unknown a/k/a NotLinda/brygenon/Bryan Gene Olson said:
“My position is, and has been for some years, that the Article II natural born citizens are the proper subset of United States citizens that gained their citizenship upon birth. If you’ll quote where I said that there is no difference I will be happy to correct.”
February 5, 2014 at 3:09 PM

“My position is, and has been for some years, that the Article II natural born citizens are the proper subset of United States citizens that gained their citizenship upon birth.”
February 10, 2014 at 11:33 PM

“What I’ve been telling you is that the natural-born citizens are the subset of citizens who received their citizenship at the moment of birth, and, as I’ve noted here before, it’s a proper subset.”
April 19, 2014 at 4:50 AM

“That little point appeared in this thread on Feb 5 when I wrote, ‘My position is, and has been for some years, that the Article II natural born citizens are the proper subset of United States citizens that […].’”
April 25, 2014 at 12:56 AM

Notice that in his last comment he attempted to hide “gained their citizenship upon birth” which signifies the born citizen class.

Then at Café Con Leche Republicans he said:

“Once again we see that Apuzzo doesn’t even understand the theory he attacks. I do not say that that ‘natural born Citizen’ is the same as ‘Citizen of the United States.’ The natural-born citizens are the (proper) subset of citizens that obtained their citizenship at birth.”
July 20, 2014 at 6:07 AM

~~~~~

To say that the natural born citizens is a proper subset of the born citizens is to say that all natural born citizens are born citizens, but not all born citizens are natural born citizens. These quotes are more than clear on their face and demonstrate that Mr. Olson has repeatedly said that the natural born citizens is a proper subset of the born citizens. Hence, he has said many times that not all born citizens are natural born citizens which is correct. These quotes also clearly show that he continues to lie when saying that he did not say it. Will Mr. Olson acknowledge how he has lied or just ignore this post like he ignores my argument which destroys his position on what the Framers’ definition of a natural born citizen is?

ajtelles said...

dittos to "What a mess"

Mario,

Since 5 days ago, Bryan has choseen to not respond to this simple request for clarification that I posted to him on NewBostonPost.com

>> http://newbostonpost.com/2016/06/02/rep-pushes-resolution-to-keep-nieces-white-house-dreams-alive/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Bryan, your response is so silly.

Bryan Olson wrote something irrational.

"What a mess. I've told you over and over, I have no such theory.
Remember I gave you a hint: Marco Rubio is a natural-born citizens.
Also, ... ."

Yes, Bryan, what a mess you continue to make defending your "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirther kookery for Article II POTUS eligibility, whether it's kookery about the "one" U.S. citizen parent (Obama and Cruz, etc.) OR your kooky "hint" about the "zero" U.S. citizen parent (Rubio, Jindal, Haley).

Bryan, you're not stupid, right?

So, if you can, simply spell out [with reason, at least, if not with sources, since there are none] how and why "one" U.S. citizen parent OR "zero" U.S. citizen parents trump original birther John Jay's implication of ONLY "two" U.S. citizen married parents when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington.

You can do that in one paragraph with only three sentences, right?

If you respond with a "what a mess" snippet, then you are either stupid or ignorant or deliberately deceptive for your own "nbC" neobirther "kookologist" taqiyya* reason to conceal something. You're either concealing an agenda or lack of ability to reason why "one" or "zero" trump "two" U.S. citizen married parents for a child to be eligible to be president.

"This practice [taqiyya] is emphasized in Shia Islam whereby adherents are permitted to conceal their religion when under threat of persecution or compulsion. However, it is also permitted in Sunni Islam under certain circumstances."

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taqiya

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario, just in case I was inaccurate in the penultimate paragraph, since Bryan is obviously not stupid, it is still appropriate to ask if he is ignorant or is simply deliberately "taqiyya" deceptive and is concealing his true reason for spending, aka wasting, eight years of his time defending the kookery of the 2000s theory, the 2000s myth, of "zero" or even only "one" U.S. citizen parent was John Jays implication for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his good friend General George Washington.

Will he won't he spell out how and why "zero" or "one" U.S. citizen parent trumps ONLY two U.S. citizen married parents for POTUS eligibility?

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

ajtelles said...

A source...at last...

Mario,

On June 21, 2016 at 9:30 PM I mentioned that Bryan had not responded for five days (12 days today).

Well, it seems that Seventh Circuit Judge Richard Posner has responded in his own way to my request from Bryan request for clarity about a source for how and why "zero" or "one" U.S. Citizen parent trumps two U.S. citizen married parents for a child to be eligible to be POTUS.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Slate.com, June 24, 2016 -
>> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2016/supreme_court_breakfast_table_for_june_2016/law_school_professors_need_more_practical_experience.html?wpsrc=sh_all_mob_tw_top

"I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries—well, just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments).

"Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century.

"Which means that the original Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the post–Civil War amendments (including the 14th), do not speak to today."


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

So, since Bryan has not responded for 12 days, we can assume that the judge could be adduced in the future by Bryan and other "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers who spout the 2000s theory, the 2000s myth, that "zero" or ONLY "one" U.S. citizen is sufficient for a child to be eligible to be POTUS because, as the highly educated Federal Judge wrote on Slate, "...the original Constitution...[does] not speak to today" because, as the highly educated Federal Judge might say, what John Jay implied by underlining the word "born" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington does "not speak to today" and John Jay has not spoken to his posterity since the next day, July 26, 1787.

How dumb is that?
Is that dumb, or what?

Whether it's one day or 83,585 days (229 years later - 1787 to 2016), future Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay's implication, written before he was a ratifier of the Constitution, the original intent of "born" was obviously to be perpetual -- unless and until changed with an amendment according to Article V.

Judge Posner should be called before Congress to clarify his allegiance to protect and defend the original intent of the U.S. Constitution.

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



ajtelles said...

A source...at last #2...

Mario,

On Slate.com, Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar has a response to judge Richard Posner about academics taking on judges that Bryan and other "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers can not refute...ever, about the original intent of Article II Section 1 clause 5 and the original genesis original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" as being intended to be perpetual, generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS as meaning ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birnt on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.

>> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2016/supreme_court_breakfast_table_for_june_2016/how_to_keep_supreme_court_justices_accountable.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

"Dick, when I wrote these words about how the Constitution is typically 'wiser than judges acting under their own steam' please know that I did in fact have you specifically in mind. (In fact, I think about you often!) You are a truly wise man. But the Constitution itself is vastly wiser than any one of us—even you!—and your failure to appreciate this democratic fact is not wisdom, but hubris. And in saying this to you bluntly, here and now, I think I am also refuting your thought that academics are afraid to take on judges directly."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

So, Mario, it seems that the original intent of the Constitution is being defended by a progressive and "living document" Yale professor and long time friend of judge Posner, which does not help the case of Bryan and other neobirthers who want to promote the 2000s theory of "zero" or ONLY "one" U.S. citizen parent was John Jays implicit reason for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington.

Why?

Well, as Amar says, "... the Constitution itself is vastly wiser than any one of us" and judge Posner does not realize that "...your failure to appreciate this democratic fact is not wisdom, but hubris."

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

ajtelles said...

A source...at last #3...

Mario,

Here's one more quote about the "source" that Bryan and other "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers might want to adduce in the future to support their 2000s theory/myth that either "zero" OR "one" U.S. citizen parent is sufficient to make a child eligible to be president.

Judge Posner responds to Amar in a way that reveals why the eligibility issue is not being dealt with in the courts, state, federal and SCOTUS.

Slate.com June 26, 2016 - the last three paragraphs.

>> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2016/supreme_court_breakfast_table_for_june_2016/the_supreme_court_s_immigration_decision_won_t_do_much.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

"As to Akhil’s points and to you, Dawn, ... what I’d like to see is evidence of impact. Amicus briefs? Working for nonprofits? Blogging? “Speaking truth to power?” Absurd: speak all you want, professors, power doesn’t listen to the likes of you. ....

"In other words, show me the professoriate’s accomplishments, not the activities or aspirations.

"With all due respect Akhil, you are certainly a very smart and successful law professor, but have you succeeded in changing judicial behavior? Judicial appointments?

"Dick Posner"


~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario, relative to the courts you have been in trying to "educate" the judges about Article II Section 1 clause 5 and the eligibility of Obama and others, it seems that lawyers and professors are nobodies to judges like Posner who think that they are not bound by the original intent of the Constitution, as Posner says in his Slate.com quote that I posted above on June 28, 2016 at 9:30 PM: "...the original Constitution...[does] not speak to today".

As Posner said to Amar, "Akhil, you are certainly a very smart and successful law professor, but have you succeeded in changing judicial behavior? ...."

Well, "what now" seems to be simple to articulate but will be very difficult and will take years to accomplish and apply, even with a hopefully President Trump for eight years and future presidential aspirants who are "original genesis original intent" constructionists who would appoint Scalia-Alito-Thomas clones on the high court and lower courts, and also state judges being appointed who aspire to federal judgeships.

"What now" requires appointing judges who sincerely agree with John Jay and George Washington and the 1875 Minor v. Happersett court, for one court example, that Jay's original genesis original intent reason for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" was meant to be perpetual, from generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS, and that Jay's and Washington's and the September 17, 1787 delegates' "original genesis original intent" was ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, ONLY "by birth," ONLY on U.S. soil/jurisdiction, ONLY "by birth" to two U.S. citizen married parents who are married, ONLY to each other, NOT multiple wives as in Islam.

So, Mario, what now?

Simple to articulate but difficult to accomplish and to apply, unless somebody has a better way.

Also, with Hillary or Bernie as president, an Article II Section 1 clause 5 originalist would NEVER be appointed to the Supreme Court, and Posner would probably appointed, leaving professor Amar in legal limbo land forever without ability to influence Posner.

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

Unknown said...

Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"There is nothing for me to correct."

Here is a claim I ask you to correct:
"He [Bryan] argues over at http://newbostonpost.com/2016/06/02/rep-pushes-resolution-to-keep-nieces-white-house-dreams-alive/ that a child born in a foreign nation presumably to parents of that nation and who becomes a citizen of the United States under a naturalization Act of Congress by virtue of being adopted by U.S. citizen parents, even occurring as late as age 15, is an Article II natural born citizen, 15, is an Article II natural born citizen"

That is false. I never argued any such thing. If you won't correct it, how about you quote me arguing what you claim I argued?

Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"He spoke his piece and I spoke mine."

And then you, Mr. Apuzzo, spoke for what *I* argued, and what you claimed was false.

Mr. Apuzzo, if you neither quote me arguing what you claimed I argued, nor retract your claim of what I argued, then, well, I guess it's pretty clear what you are.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Mr. Olson, you said it and you are stuck with it. You did not advocate for a constitutional amendment. Rather, you support the notion that Congress with a statute can convert a naturalized citizen into a natural born citizen. There will not be any correction from me.

ajtelles said...

Byran said "...it's pretty clear"...

Mario,

You are an attorney with legal authority to put Esquire after your name and I am not a lawyer, but, for some reason, Bryan seems to think that you are an easy target to shoot at with his simplistic rhetoric instead of me.

Oh well.

For some reason Bryan simply can't answer my simple request for clarification from his "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirther perspective how and why "zero" or ONLY "one" U.S. citizen parent makes a child eligible to be president and why ONLY two U.S. citizen "married" parents is NOT John Jay's ONLY implication for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his good friend George Washington that was accepted by the September 17, 1787 constitution delegates.

Since Bryan does not have the intellectual depth to answer my previous posts here on your blog or on NewBostonPost.com,

>> http://newbostonpost.com/2016/06/02/rep-pushes-resolution-to-keep-nieces-white-house-dreams-alive/

maybe it's time to say, as Ray Charles said,

"Hit the road Jack,
and don't you come back back no more, no more, no more, no more,
hit the road Jack,
and don't you come back no more."


>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rEsVp5tiDQ

Of course, Mario, since it is obvious that Bryan has nothing else to do and nowhere else to go, Bryan MUST continue to "come back" here to your Natural Born Citizen blog because he is entertaining with his simplistic snippets without substance.

Origianl-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

Art

ajtelles said...

"hit the road Jack" 2...

Mario,

Simply for Saturday night entertainment at the expense of of Bryan and other "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers, here is Jamie Fox as Ray Charles in the movie "Ray" -- "hit the road Jack"

>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8DRen60X10

Art

Unknown said...

Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"Mr. Olson, you said it and you are stuck with it."

So that's no, Mr. Apuzzo will not quote me taking the position that he claimed I took:
"He [Bryan] argues over at http://newbostonpost.com/2016/06/02/rep-pushes-resolution-to-keep-nieces-white-house-dreams-alive/ that a child born in a foreign nation presumably to parents of that nation and who becomes a citizen of the United States under a naturalization Act of Congress by virtue of being adopted by U.S. citizen parents, even occurring as late as age 15, is an Article II natural born citizen, 15, is an Article II natural born citizen"

Mr. Apuzzo cannot cite me taking the position he stated I took, and will not retract his false reporting. Mr. Apuzzo is lying.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Mr. Olson,

Your last comment was accidentally deleted. You may repost it.

Teo Bear said...

A natural born citizen of the United States of America is a person who at birth owes allegiance solely to the United States of America and because of the circumstances of such a birth only the United States of America can demand allegiance from a natural born citizen of the United States of America.

This definition leaves no room for error. It takes into account jus sanguines and jus soli, to unify parentage and place of birth. This way the allegiance of the natural born citizen is unified to both blood and soil at the moment of birth.

Neither Ted Cruz or Barack Obama can claim that unification. From their birth they owed allegiance to foreign nations and foreign nations could have demanded allegiance from them. We may never have a clear ruling on whether or not English Common law or Vattel's Law of Nations was used to define the term natural born citizen, because of Justice Matthew's poison pill of injecting common law into the interpretation of the Constitution, even though both Madison and Mason categorically deny English Common law was used in the framing of the Constitution. But there is no mistaking the intent of Jay's letter to Washington, and that was the necessity of absolute allegiance to the United States of America by its Commander in Chief.

Carlyle said...

@TeoBear

Only a demented liberal would think that the NBC clause was meant to be other than as exclusionary as possible. It HAD to have been the smallest most pronounced subset of Citizens. Multi-culti, social justice, and political correctness, are inventions of the last few decades. I am sure such self-destructive thoughts were far from the minds of the Framers.

I have always maintained the square peg / round hole theory on this. The ONLY reason we get this continuous onslaught of twisted logic is for the sole purpose of justifying The Obamessiah. Without such an urgent need, even these hardcore "fiction writers" would not be so energetic in their fantasies.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Carlyle,

Please note that while the natural born citizen clause, representing one of the three requirements for being eligible to be President, is necessarily exclusionary, the natural born citizens represent the greatest number of U.S. citizens. In other words, most U.S. citizens are born in the United States to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth.

Carlyle said...

Yes, I understand. There may be many, but they are still the group (subset) with the strongest ties of allegiance. I meant "exclusionary" in that sense, not in the sense of narrowing to few in number. I used "smallest" in my comment. Removing that word better represents my intent. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, while still greenlighting my comment anyway.

ajtelles said...

1/

Donald Trump and the "nbC" status of his children...

Mario,

Politico has Eric Trump's response to a friendly hypothetical question about his sister Ivanka being the Vice President in her father's administration.

>> http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/ivanka-trump-vice-president-225200

Eric Trump: Ivanka would make a great VP

"Eric Trump says he agrees with Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) that his sister Ivanka would be a great pick for his father's for vice president."

[...snip...]

"Appearing on "Fox & Friends" Thursday morning, Eric Trump remarked of the clip, 'I agree, right? ... She's certainly got my vote."

" 'Is she 35?' co-host Steve Doocy asked, in reference to the constitutional requirement that the president be at least 35 years old."

" 'She'll just be 35,' Eric Trump said, noting that her birthday is at Oct. 30, 'so she'd just make that by about by, you know, seven, eight days.' "

" 'And she definitely has the business sense,' co-host Ainsley Earhardt remarked."

"Trump added, She's amazing.' "

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

This is my point.

All three of Donald Trumps children are not eligible to be president or vice president.

It seems that 35 years of age is easy to understand, but what "natural born Citizen" means is still not clear after about 8 years to the Fox & Friends hosts and to Eric Trump, and by implication, also not clear to Donald Trump and his advisors.

On February 22, 2016 at 6:59 PM I posted here on your Natural Born Citizen blog the text below.

"...birth alone..."

Mario,

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

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

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

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

ajtelles said...

2/

Donald Trump and the "nbC" status of his children...

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

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

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

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

[...]

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

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

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

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

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

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario, do you think it would help the eligibility debates of the future if you were to send a certified letter from your office and as an attorney to the RNC and to the Trump candidate headquarters with references to the Fox & Friends appearance of Eric and the Politico article?

Do you think it would help if you, an attorney, were to point out in your letter that the mother of Trump's three eldest children did not naturalize until after the children were born, so that means that the children are not natural born citizens? Do you think that would get some traction?

Did somebody say don't hold your breath?

Maybe if 1,000+++++ postcards that can be read by others were sent to the Trump office he might get the message that he and his advisors are not fully informed about what an Article II Section 1 clause 5 "natural born Citizen" meant to John Jay when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington, a suggestion that was accepted by the delegates when they adopted the Constitution on September 17, 1787.

Well, I'm off to mail my postcard.
How many thousands more will be mailed to Trump?

Mario, Eric Trump's honest statement implying that he thinks his sister Ivanka is eligible to be president reveals that your (and our) eight year effort to educate the American people is not finished.

Will Trump learn the original genesis of "natural" and "born" (birth) and original intent of "Citizen" (singular U.S. citizenship) in addition to the easy to understand 35 years of age and 14 year residence in the U.S.?

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

Glen Smith said...

THE BLAZE: Cruz Accepts Trump’s Invitation to Speak at GOP Convention...

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/07/07/cruz-accepts-trumps-invitation-to-speak-at-gop-convention-but-still-no-endorsement/#comment-11684917

This is very troubling, Ted Cruz attempted to Usurp the United States Constitutional “natural born Citizen” requirement for who can be President, not one member of Congress stood up to honor their Oath, and now he’s invited to speak at the Convention.

Canadian born Ted Cruz did not inherit U.S. citizenship from his mother, he acquired U.S. citizenship at birth by fulfilling Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which Congress enacted by expressing its Constitutional “Power To…establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”. If starting in 1934, Congress had not established these rules, then Cruz would not have acquired U.S. citizenship at birth.

The United States Supreme Court, many times over, has determined, persons like Ted Cruz (a foreign born person who acquires U.S. citizenship at birth by fulfilling an Act of Congress), as far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned, are citizens by Naturalization. [1] The Court, has also already determined, the only difference between a “Naturalized” citizen and a “natural born Citizen” is that only the latter is eligible to be President. [2]

1. Montana v. Kennedy 366 U.S. 308 (1961); Miller v. Albright 523 U.S. 420 (1998); … (so on and so on)

2. Schneider v. Rusk 377 U.S. 163 (1964)

Glen Smith said...

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
TUAUA v. UNITED STATES
No. 13–5272.

(No. 15-981 Supreme Court of the U.S.: Jun 13 2016 Petition DENIED. http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15-981.htm)

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1703195.html

"Unlike those born in the United States' other current territorial possessions—who are statutorily deemed American citizens at birth..."

Am I reading this correct, persons born in U.S. Territories, are not considered "....born...in the United States...."; as such, merely acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by U.S. Statute (Congress expressing its “Power To…establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”); Therefore, are U.S. citizens by naturalization?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Glen Smith,

Persons born in the territory and under the jurisdiction of the United States become citizens of the United States by force of the Constitution. If born to U.S. citizen parents (father and mother), they are under the common law and original Constitution natural born citizens. Minor v. Happersett (1875). If born to one or two qualifying alien parents, they are under the Fourteenth Amendment citizens of the United States "at birth," but not natural born citizens. United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

Persons born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States need either a Congressional naturalization statute or treaty in order to be adopted as citizens of the United States. Rogers v. Bellei (1971) and other authorities. If born to one or two U.S. citizen parents and if they can benefit from an applicable statute, they are citizens of the United States "at birth." If born to two alien parents, upon satisfying the requirements of an applicable law, they become citizens of the United States after birth. In both cases, the persons are naturalized by the force of the applicable positive law and are not natural born citizens.

Tuaua v. United States, No. 13-5272 (D.C. Cir. 2015), petition for certiorari denied on June 13, 2016, confirms that for those born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, it is Congress and only Congress that decides whether they become upon their birth or thereafter citizens of the United States. Under that decision, those who are born in American Samoa, an unincorporated territory, to alien parents are "non-citizen nationals" by virtue of 8 U.S.C. sec. 1408(1), meaning they are not "citizens of the United States" "at birth" under the Fourteenth Amendment (are not guaranteed U.S. citizenship by virtue of their birth circumstances) or any Act of Congress (granted U.S. citizenship "at birth" only by virtue of the naturalization power of Congress).

Unknown said...

Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:
"Your last comment was accidentally deleted. You may repost it."

Accidentally deleted by me too. I try to keep a copies of my writing, but the version in my archive file is too long. Your web-site rejects it for being over 4K. I must have edited it down and forgotten to save it as posted. I'll repost it as close as I can.

Bruce Lytle said...

Mario,
I've used your essay for years, to point out the "little" problem with "NBC" requirements for President.
I've read many rebuttals to your essay, none hold up.
The one argument that arises, is concerning Vattel's "Law of Nation" and it's description of a natural born citizen.
That argument is that the "Law of Nations" is not in the Constitution. This seems to give the "anybody goes" group some sort of boost.
I would like to have everyone take a glance at the line, in Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 10 that states: Congress shall have the power....

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations....

Now, the wording of that, would "indicate" to me, that the founders HAD referred to the "Law of Nations".
Why else would it be punctuated the way it is? Like, kinda sorta, the name of a book or something.
Looks to me as though, the founders incorporated the "Law of Nations" into our Constitution, and most folks, desire to ignore it.

Just Sayin

roderick said...

in four days `bamo gonna need a birth certificate for everything

batazoid said...

This a great piece of work, Mr. Auppzo.


I have been re-reading Garrett Epps' 2010 work, entitled: "The Citizenship Clause: A 'Legislative History'". Among the many errors Mr. Epps makes, I find his statement, "In particular, the authors [Schuck and Smith of "Citizenship by Consent"] suggest that children of illegal immigrants did not at the time of Framing, do not now, and should not fall within the meaning of subject to the jurisdiction. This is because the children carry
at birth the taint of their parents‘ criminality: ―The parents of such children
are, by definition, individuals whose presence within the jurisdiction of the United States is prohibited by law. They [the parents] are manifestly individuals, therefore, to whom the society has explicitly and self-consciously decided to deny membership," to be most egregious. As you and I know, it is because such children are not born exclusively under U.S. sovereignty. The 14th Amendment also limits itself to natural born citizens.


All U.S. Citizens share two prescriptions: One, they all must be free individuals, either by renunciation of any foreign allegiances or by birth. Secondly, all must pledge to support and abide by the U.S. Constitution. An Art. II, Sec. I, Cl. 5 natural born citizen is a person born exclusively under U.S. sovereignty at birth.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 263 of 263   Newer› Newest»