Donate

Saturday, July 9, 2016

Carmon Elliott Files a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Ted Cruz Not Being a Natural Born Citizen



Carmon Elliott Files a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Ted Cruz Not Being a Natural Born Citizen
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 9, 2016

Image result for image us supreme court
On June 28, 2016, I filed on behalf of Pennsylvania resident Carmon Elliott a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court.  The Petition can be accessed at https://www.scribd.com/document/317863645/Petition-for-a-Writ-of-Certiorari-Elliott-v-Cruz-Filed-6-28-16 .  The Court docketed the Petition on June 30, 2016.  Ted Cruz’s response to the petition is due by August 1, 2016.  The U.S. Supreme Court docket can be read at http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/16-13.htm .   
The parties stipulated in the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania that Cruz was born on December 22, 1970, in Calgary, Alberta, Canada; that his mother, Eleanor Darragh, was born on November 23, 1934, in the State of Delaware; that his mother is and has always been a U.S. citizen from the moment of her birth; that at the time of Cruz’s birth, his mother had been physically present in the United States for more than ten years, including at least five years after she reached the age of fourteen; and that Cruz was a citizen at birth.  
Elliott filed a petition with the Pennsylvania Secretary of State to set aside the nomination petition of Ted Cruz pursuant to which he sought to appear on the April 26, 2016 primary election ballot for the Office of the President.  In his objection, petitioner alleged that given that Cruz was born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, his name should be stricken from the Pennsylvania 2016 primary ballot because he is not a “natural born citizen” within the meaning of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the United States Constitution.   
Cruz filed his opposition, contending that Elliott’s objection raised a non-justiciable political question.  As to the merits, Cruz contended that a person born to at least one U.S. citizen parent, regardless of where the child may be born, if a citizen at birth under any law, is an Article II natural born citizen through inheritance of citizenship from the parent (jus sanguinis) and without needing to be born in the United States (jus soli).     
The lower court ruled that the political question doctrine did not apply and then went on to decide the merits of Elliott’s objection.  After discussing some articles written by some authorities, the court held that: “Having extensively reviewed all articles cited in this opinion, as well as many others, this Court holds, consistent with the common law precedent and statutory history, that a ‘natural born citizen’ includes any person who is a United States citizen from birth.  Accordingly, because he was a citizen of the United States from birth, Ted Cruz is eligible to serve as President of the United States, and the objection filed by Carmen Elliott to the Nomination Petition of Ted Cruz is denied.”         
Elliott appealed the Order of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which affirmed that Order on March 31, 2016, and also denied Victor William’s Notice to Intervene as Appellant and Elliott’s application for oral argument. 
In our Petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, we argue that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided an important question of constitutional law concerning the definition of an article II natural born citizen that has not been but should be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court.  Having a person sit as President and Commander in Chief of the Military who is not a natural born citizen puts the national security of the United States vitally at risk.  Whether or not the President and Commander in Chief is legitimately sitting in those offices impacts the nation’s foreign policy.  The nation needs a definition of “natural born citizen” for future presidential and vice presidential elections.  Congress, the executive, the political parties, and the voters cannot define a natural born citizen.  Only the judiciary can define a natural born citizen.    
We argue that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has decided an important constitutional question in a way that conflicts with relevant decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.  Under those precedents, Cruz is at best a naturalized citizen of the United States “at birth,” but only by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress, not an Article II natural born citizen under the common law to which the Framers looked to define the clause when they drafted and adopted the Constitution.   
We also argue that U.S. Supreme Court review is warranted because the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and it Secretary of State, by allowing an ineligible presidential candidate to place his name on the presidential primary election ballot, has violated Elliott’s Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment right and privilege to life, liberty, and property and equal protection of the law which is implicated if Elliott is forced to live under a president who is not an Article II natural born citizen. 
Finally, we maintain that the important constitutional issue raised by Elliott’s ballot challenge has not been mooted by Cruz voluntarily suspending his presidential campaign because there is nothing stopping Cruz from again running for President or Vice-President and the issue of whether Cruz is a natural born citizen is capable of repetition yet evading review.  
We urge Americans who are committed to having our politicians and government respect our Constitution and the rule of law to support our cause.  Express yourselves not only privately, but also in public.  Write letters and leave comments in print and electronic media.  Call into radio shows and tell the hosts what you think.  Mr. Elliott is also conducting a fund raising campaign to raise funds to meet our printing and filing expenses.  We will appreciate your contribution which you can make at https://www.gofundme.com/h3xff4m4   .  
I will be posting updates as the Petition makes its way to a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. 
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 9, 2016

http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####
Copyright © 2016
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved  


UPDATE as of July 29, 2016:
On July 14, 2016, Ted Cruz filed a waiver of his right to respond to the Petition.  The Clerk has distributed the case for the U.S. Supreme Court conference of September 26, 2016.  Here is how the docket appears: 

No. 16-13           
Title:     
Carmon Elliott, Petitioner
v.
Ted Cruz
Docketed:           June 30, 2016
Lower Ct:            Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District
  Case Nos.:         (29 MAP 2016)
  Decision Date:  March 31, 2016
~~~Date~~~        ~~~~~~~Proceedings  and  Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jun 28 2016         Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 1, 2016)
Jul 14 2016          Waiver of right of respondent Ted Cruz to respond filed.
Jul 27 2016          DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2016.





102 comments:

Teo Bear said...

Very good Mario, you are right in your observation that this is not moot simply because Cruz suspended his campaign. The very nature of the word suspend is to temporarily prevent from continuing, and he could continue at any moment.

God speed,

Teo

Ilíon said...

I certainly hope this goes forward and to the correct conclusion.

Yet, I don't expect that. For, after all, there is BHO to consider.

Unknown said...

Question: Before Esquire Apuzzo got involved in this case, did Carmon Elliott argue to his Courts that a native-born child of a foreigner was excluded from the presidency? Did Mr. Elliott also challenge Marco Rubio's eligibility, or just R. Ted Cruz? When the Justices or law clerks of the SCOTUS read the record from the courts below, will they find that the plaintiff argued what the linked petition for cert does? Specifically, had Mr. Elliott already argued:
"Under the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution, 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."

To be clear: I'm not here asking for opinions on whether this argument in the petition for cert is right or wrong. I'm asking about whether it was Carmon Elliott's stated legal position before Esquire Apuzzo got involved.

-Bryan

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Bryan Gene Olson,

First, you are not able to articulate a definition of a natural born citizen with any relevant historical and legal sources to support it.

Second, maybe you can understand that in the case of private U.S. citizen parents (not in the diplomatic or military service of the United States whose child born abroad to them is reputed born in the United States and under its jurisdiction), it is necessary for their child to be born in the territory and jurisdiction of the United States in order for their child to be a natural born citizen. Clearly, Ted Cruz, born in a foreign nation (Canada) presumably to a U.S. citizen mother and alien father (Cuban), does not meet that necessary condition and so he is at best a naturalized "citizen" of the United States "at birth" by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress, and not a "natural born citizen" of the United States as defined by the common law upon which the Framers would have relied for a definition of the clause at the time they drafted and adopted the Constitution. The rest of what you write is your pathetic concern for your false leader, Barack H. Obama.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Bryan Gene Olson ("Unknown"),

I have rejected your latest comment to this article. If you want your comments to be accepted here, they must be of your opinion on the meaning of a natural born citizen and whether Ted Cruz meets that definition or any other related matter. I will not simply post here your comments which you have repeated on this blog and others for over 7 years which are nothing more than your attacks against me personally. If you want to continue along those lines, you will have to find yourself another place to do that.

ajtelles said...

The ultimate citizen voter definition...

Mario,

In the last three sentences of paragraph seven you wrote:

"The nation needs a definition of “natural born citizen” for future presidential and vice presidential elections.

"Congress, the executive, the political parties, and the voters cannot define a natural born citizen.

"Only the judiciary can define a natural born citizen."


~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In a possible future President Trump administration, with three to five new justices, we might get a definition of "natural born Citizen" that reinforces the original intent of the 1875 Minor v Happersett court's stipulation that Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen since she was born to U.S. citizen parents, plural, so they did not need to adduce the Fourteenth Amendment to determine that she was a U.S. citizen before giving the Court's opinion that supported clerk Happersett's decision that because she was a female U.S. citizen she would not be allowed to vote in her home state.

Two points.

First, in an active suit only the judiciary, the U.S. Supreme Court, can define a natural born citizen, not the Congress, not the Executive, not the political parties, and definitely not the citizen voters.

Second, what can citizen voters do if the current Supreme Court or a future Trump Supreme Court with three to five new justices did not define a natural born citizen in agreement with the Minor v. Happersett Court but instead defined a natural born citizen to correspond with the 1952 Immigration and Naturalization Act as any "citizen" who is born to only one U.S. citizen parent on U.S. soil or foreign soil such as Canada or Mexico, there is only one citizen voter solution.

An Article V "...Convention for proposing Amendments..." would be the last resort for the citizen voters to stop judicial tyranny if the Supreme Court were to define natural born citizenship as possible by birth alone to only one U.S. citizen on U.S. soil or foreign soil.

Just as people are saying that the Fourteenth Amendment should be revisited by the Supreme Court to clarify that citizenship by judicial fiat, aka naturalized by the Court, as in the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark decision, because that was not the original intent of the Fourteenth Amendment, but if not revisited the Constitution should be amended to clarify the "citizen" in the Fourteenth, so also people are saying that the Supreme Court could make the wrong decision again about the definition of a natural born citizen so we should be proactive and start the process of educating the legislatures of the states about the efficacy of amending the Constitution to define natural born citizen as being born with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, which is ONLY possible "by birth alone" on U.S. soil/jurisdiction, ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, not multiple wives as in Islam or in Mormon offshoots, and definitely NOT two U.S. citizens who are NOT married ONLY to each other.

Tyranny start quietly but citizen voters must be vigilant and proactive and not simply reactionary, and ignore the running dogs.

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

Cody robert judy said...

Mr. Apuzzo two questions:

1) If the Court were to hear this Case would it open a flood gate of cases heretofore rejected on damages? Reference Judy v. Obama SCOTUS Case # 12-5276 & 14-9396

How curious it would be for the Court to consider a Citizens rights but not a Presidential Candidates in the Race 2008, 2012, and 2016 www.codyjudy.us

2) Why do you think the lower Courts in this Case interceded in [opinion] on when standing was obviously the preferred way to handle Obama's Ineligibility Challenges?

If you think by chance an Motion for an enjoinder would help your Case, my current and active Presidential Candidacy in the Democratic Party is at your service.

If by chance the period to modify or enjoin is not over. My latest Case 14-9396 was dismissed by a cruel and arbitrary denial of a Motion for Forma Pauperis.

Quite an embarrassment to the pay-to-play scheme of the Court.

www.codyjudy.us

CRJ

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

sj,

I rejected your comment because you just can't help yourself in attacking me personally. If you have an argument to make, make it without the added baggage which only show how much of an ass you are.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Bryan Gene Olson ("Unknown") and sj,

Your personal attacks against me do not nor can they change the reality that the best that Ted Cruz can be is a naturalized "citizen of the United States" "at birth," by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress (the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952). He is not nor can he be a "natural born citizen” of the United States, who is a citizen of the United States by virtue of his or her birth circumstances alone, i.e., born or reputed born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents.

sf said...

I assume you meant sf, not sj. I did not make a personal attack on you, I simply asked a series of questions, which you did not answer, I assume that you did not answer them because you have no answer for them.

There is no argument to make. Your stated definition of NBC has been rejected by every single court that has heard it. And no, Minor v. Happersett did not provide an exclusion definition of NBC, In fact, it did not provide a definition of NBC at all. It provided a non-exclusive definition of citizens at birth. It then went on to say that these (citizens at birth) are native or natural born citizens. It then expressly stated that it was not going to provide an opinion as to the citizen status of people born to non citizens. Further, the definition of citizens at birth is dicta.

The dissenting opinion in WKA lamented the fact that the decision would allow WKA to run for president. Accordingly, the dissenting opinion understood that the majority opinion meant that WKA was a NBC.

Please explain to me how that analysis is incorrect.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

sf,

You really do demonstrate how astute you are by recognizing the difference between sf and sj.

sf said...

Well you blocked my first post. But I noticed that you didn't answer my question, again. It is a simple question. How is my analysis wrong?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

sf,

You bring up that I blocked your first post. I explained to you that your first post contained personal attacks against me. You did leave out the offending language in your second post, but without an apology. Now you complain that I blocked your first post. Do you want to continue to debate me about your conduct or about the definition of a natural born citizen?

sf said...

I did not attack you. There is no need to apologize. Are you going to answer my question or admit that I am right?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I will do neither.

sf said...

And we all know why.

ajtelles said...

"analysis"...

Mario,

On July 18, 2016 at 12:49 PM "sf", after opining about "NBC", "Minor v. Happersett" and "WKA" without adducing sources or articulating reason, calling his opinion "analysis," which is what snippets of comment without articulate reason are called by "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers, he/she asked you to "Please explain to me how that analysis is incorrect."

Just as the bark of running dogs sound the same, "sf's" snippet comment without articulate reason looks similar to how Bryan Olson/Unknown writes. Why doesn't he/she/they simply quote what you have already written and simply correct your informed opinion with "facts," not "analysis," "facts" that you "may" have missed?

I have a different way of engaging the "nbC" new meaning neobirthers which absolutely nobody has EVER, NEVER rebutted and refuted. I simply invite into the conversation the implicit original genesis original intent of John Jay and George Washington.

This is just too much fun, but it seems that the "nbC" new meaning neobirthers never want to play pitch and catch with point/counterpoint in defense of their 2000s theory of "one" or "zero" U.S. citizen parents.

If "sf" and "sj" and "Bryan/Unknown" really believe their "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirther 2000s theory/myth is the authentic original intent reason of John Jay underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington (who obviously understood Jay's original genesis intent for underlining the word "born"), all he/she/they, or any neobirther reading this, need to do is articulate with coherent reason how/why Jay meant implicitly ONLY "one" OR "zero" U.S. citizen parents would make a person eligible to be president, and how/why Jay did NOT mean ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth alone ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.

In 1787 America, to be eligible to be president, the word "born" implied married ONLY to each other. In 1787 America "born" did NOT imply one U.S. citizen male being single and having multiple female U.S. citizen sex partners and children.

In 2000s America, there are U.S. citizen males who have multiple U.S. citizen female sex partners who give birth to at least one child from that one U.S. citizen male.

Are the neobirthers contending that John Jay was implying that all of the children are eligible to be president if born to U.S. citizen mothers who were not married to that one U.S. citizen male sex partner?

If the "born" new meaning neobirthers believe that John Jay was implying and George Washington was agreeing that the two persons must be U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth but did NOT need to be married ONLY to each other, the "born" new meaning neobirthers are incoherent.

If the "born" neobirthers believe that Jay WAS implying that the two persons do NOT need to be U.S. citizen even if they are married ONLY to each other, the "born" new meaning neobirthers are incoherent.

Mario, as he has done before, Bryan/Unknown will NOT respond to my common sense reason about what John Jay was implying and the implication that George Washington was agreeing with. ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, ONLY by birth alone ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents.

But, as with the running dogs who bark without relevance at the tires of moving vehicles, the "nbC" neobirthers and their 2000s theory, their 2000s myth of "one" OR "zero" U.S. citizen parents will continue to be irrelevant for the same reason that they are not convincing -- they are not persuasive -- with sources OR reason.

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

sf said...

The people who are trying to articulate new meaning of NBC are the birthers. There really has never been a dispute as to what NBC means. It simply means a person who is a citizen by virtue of his/her birth, without having to do anything else. Literally, every case ever decided has come to that conclusion.I am really sorry that is hard for you to understand. I really am.

By the way, my references were very specific and I was talking to someone who professes to be knowledgeable on the subject. I cited two well known cases that have been referred to literally thousands of times. Neither case is difficult to understand. Unfortunately for birthers, they simply do not say what you represent them to say.

There are only two types of citizenship. Natural born and naturalized. It is a logical truism that if a person is a citizen and is not a naturalized citizen, then he/she must be a natural born citizen. There is no mechanism in our laws to naturalize someone at birth. As such, if a person is a citizen at birth, he must be a natural born citizen.

One mistake that Mario consistently makes is not understanding that a citizen of the United States means the same thing as citizen. Both represent the umbrella category, under which there are the two types of citizenship mentioned above. In other words, citizen or citizen of the United States encompasses all citizens. Natural born and naturalized are simply subsets of the larger group. If Mario was correct, then a person who is eligible to be a congressman or senator would not be eligible to be President. As we know, that is simply not the case.

js said...

Logical fallacy sf..."Literally, every case ever decided has come to that conclusion"

You stood up and made the point but failed. While you keep talking about two cases, you omit dozens. Omission means you failed, again.

Two types of citizenship? But your case requires that English Common Law is the foundation of all that no? So how is it that Calvin stated without exception that the King is the direct representative of Jesus on earth, and that if anyone was not Christian, they could not be a citizen? According to Calvin, every non Christian was the enemy of the King. Just replace the word King with President for your claim, and it, also fails. If British Common Law were the precedent that liberals keep chasing, then you all ignore the fact that the founding fathers would no doubt have noted that the same Common Law contained irreconcilable conflicts to what they put into the US Constitution, namely that the Government could not establish itself as a church, as the King of England was the head of the Church of England...there is no way they would have entered into any agreement that made English Common Law the US Common Law or the basis for our Constitution.

There are citizens which attain citizenship in accordance with the Law of Nations, a reference cited by the US Constitution. Then there are citizens that we recognize as citizens but are not fully under the jurisdiction of the US, we call them dual citizens because they hold citizenship of other nations. And, there are those who are citizens who are naturalized by the power of Congress.

The first two were familiar to the founding fathers. The founding fathers did not recognize dual citizenship at any time. It was the original belief that a wife attainned the citizenship of her husband the moment they were married, and that is the basis under which they wrote the US Constitution, the original inetent and meaning, which can only be changed by an amendment to the Constitution.

ajtelles said...

1/

Citizenship 101...

Mario,

sf is all over the place and is consequently confusing to others who might not notice that John Jay is not referenced to support sf's opinion about what "nbC" means to sf, and how sf's understanding of the meaning of "nbC" applies to natural born citizenship vs. naturalized citizenship.

If federal representatives or federal senators are NOT born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents, they must naturalize. That means that they are naturalized at the age they are when they become singular U.S. citizens "by oath" alone, not "at birth" according to ALL naturalization acts of Congress, or "by birth" alone according to Article II Section 1 clause 5.

If federal representatives or federal senators ARE born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents, they are natural born Citizens "by birth alone" and have ONLY singular U.S. citizenship "by birth alone" from the first cry at birth and do not need to naturalize with an oath when they are older.

Mario, an example of sf's incoherence is this quote on the penultimate sentence:

"If Mario was correct, then a person who is eligible to be a congressman or senator would not be eligible to be President."

ajtelles said...

2/

Does sf not know, comprehend, understand, grasp, that naturalized federal representatives and naturalized federal senators are ONLY eligible to be representatives and senators "by oath alone"?

The federal representatives are eligible to take office from age 25 and after 7 years as U.S. citizens. The federal senators are eligible from age 30 and after 9 years as U.S. citizens.

This is citizenship 101 that sf does not seem to grasp.

Naturalized citizens, citizens with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship "by oath alone" to a federal officer are eligible to be federal representatives or senators and are not eligible to be president at any age.

Natural born citizens, citizens with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship "by birth alone" to two U.S. citizen married parents are eligible to be federal representatives from age 25 and federal senators from age 30.

Notice that Article I Section 2 clause 2 of the Constitution says that the federal representative must "...have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, ... ."

Notice that Article I Section 3 clause 3 says that the federal senator must "...have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, ... ."

The fact that federal representatives and senators must be U.S. citizens for 7 years and 9 years respectively obviously means that they were not born on U.S. soil to one or zero U.S. citizen married parents.

Natural born citizens are citizens from birth "by birth alone" so all that "nbCs" need to be eligible to be federal officers in the federal legislature is to attain to the ages of 25 or 30 for the respective federal offices, and to be president, in addition to attaining to the age of 35 from birth, to residing on U.S. soil for the last 14 years up to and including the day before the day of election, whatever the age is on the day of election.

To paraphrase the language of Article I, notice that natural born Citizens are, first, at least "thirty five Years a Citizen of the United States.", second, 35 years of age, third, 14 years a continuous U.S. resident for the last 14 years up to and including the day before the day of election.

What does that tell us, "sf" and citizenship 101 class?

John Jay was not implying that a citizen is a natural born Citizen "at birth" to only "one" OR "zero" U.S. citizen parents. By underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note toe George Washington, John Jay implied eligibility to be president ONLY "by birth alone" ONLY on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, the ONLY way to have ONLY singular U.S. citizenship.

Mario, whoever "sf" is, a pertinent final comment to "sf" is found in "sf's" last sentence of paragraph one on July 21, 2016 at 3:05 PM: "I am really sorry that is hard for you to understand. I really am."

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

sf said...

I am hardly all over the place. And perhaps you have not read as many of Mario's posts as I have. But he has, on numerous occasions, claimed that natural born citizen was not a subset of citizens of the United States. He knows the reference, you don't.

In WKA, the Court stated that NBC comes from the English common law Natural Born Subject.

And tes, every case ever decided is consistent with what I posted.

You se terribly confused. You actually believe that There must be a marriage to create an NBC. Are you suggesting that pregnant widow's child could not be NBC? What about a divorcee? What about a woman who was raped, could the product of a rape be NBC? Your posts make no sense. But then again, neither do Mario's. By refusing to answer my question, Mario has conceded my point.

sf said...

The Law of Nations is not the Law of the United States. It never has been and never will be.

sf said...

Having dual citizenship does not preclude anyone from being NBC.

I am curious. If the founding fathers were so concerned about foreign influence, why is the residency requirement limited to 14 years? One could spend most of his/her life living in another Country for most of his/ her and still be eligible to be president. Couldn't that person be influenced by that life?

Your entire argument is based on what you believe is implied by other words? You have no support for your understanding. There is no caselaw, no statutory law, no anything. Your argument is grasping at straws. It is a fantasy. And yes, I am sorry that you don't understand that. I really am. The world would be a much better, saner and more rational place without birthers.

sf said...

By the way, if original intent is so important, why is there a mechanism to amend the Constitution?

sf said...

By the way, if someone is a citizen from the moment of birth, why would he/she have to be naturalized?

ajtelles said...

"all over the place" redux...

Mario,

sf is all over the place again, so I'll reference only one item.

On July 21, 2016 at 7:49 PM sf wrote:

"You se [you're ?] terribly confused.
"You actually believe that There must be a marriage to create an NBC.
"Are you suggesting that pregnant widow's child could not be NBC?
"What about a divorcee?
"What about a woman who was raped, could the product of a rape be NBC?
"Your posts make no sense.
"But then again, neither do Mario's.
""By refusing to answer my question, Mario has conceded my point."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario, sf has finally semi-articulated with a snippet opinion/analysis a position about marriage that reveals the incoherence of ALL of the "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers who promote the 2000s theory, the 2000s myth that, according to ALL naturalization acts of Congress since 1795, only "one" U.S. citizen parent, OR, according to the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision, "zero" U.S. citizen parents, makes a child eligible to be president.

sf again and still does not adduce John Jay and George Washington to support his "nbC" new meaning neobirtherism that ONLY "one" OR "zero" U.S. citizen parents makes a child eligible to be president.

sf references marriage, pregnant widows, divorce, rape, and tacitly suggests that John Jay with George Washington's agreement was implying that "born" in "natural born Citizen" included the progeny of U.S. citizens who were not married only to each other, whether only one male U.S. citizen procreating with only one female U.S. citizen, or whether one male U.S. citizen had multiple female sex parthers and children.

Of course, sf and other "nbC" new meaning neobirthers never defend with coherent reason how and why John Jay, a 1787 American citizen who lived in a society where marriage was expected, would or could imply the "nbC" status for children born to unmarried U.S. citizen sex partners, and consequently "how" the children would have ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth to unmarried U.S. citizens.

Mario, I know what sf or other "nbC" new meaning neobirthers will respond to the "how" point in the previous sentence, so I'll leave that point open for them to comment before responding...if they take the bait and are open to make an articulate and coherent pitch on "how" children have ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth to ONLY one unamrried U.S. citizen OR birth to two unmarried U.S. citizens.

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

sf said...

Well, you didn't answer any of questions. I will take that as your concession.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

sf,

You said: "There really has never been a dispute as to what NBC means. It simply means a person who is a citizen by virtue of his/her birth, without having to do anything else."

All babies of the world are born into it "without having to do anything else." Yet only some of them are natural born citizens of the United States. How did the Framers decide which ones were natural born citizens of the United States?

Ilíon said...

what a fool: "By the way, if original intent is so important, why is there a mechanism to amend the Constitution?"

That is just one example of this fool.

Ilíon said...

Isn't it odd? George Washington Adams -- the son and grandson of two presidents -- wasn't a natural born US citizen because he was born outside the territory of the US (*); yet these fools try to pretend that children born to non-citizen fathers and who have US citizenship in the first place only due to Acts of Congress -- that is, naturalization laws -- are natural born US citizens?

(*) He was born in Berlin, Prussia, as his father, John Quincy Adams, was part of the US mission to the court of Prussia.

sf said...

I said who is a citizen. That is the accepted definition.

sf said...

How about answering the question. The founders understood that what they intended in the original document did not cover everything. So they included amendment provision. If there origa all intent was sa crossbar there would be no such provision.

sf said...

If a person is a citizen at the time of his birth, he is a NBC.

sf said...

Sorry the typos. Last sentence should have said; If their original intent was so important, there would be no such provision

ajtelles said...

Original intent...

Mario,

sf is obviously not a deep thinker, as the comment posted on July 22, 2016 at 10:38 AM and at 11:08 AM about original intent and the amendment process reveals.

>> "If their original intent was so important, there would be no such [amendment] provision"

sf, here is your citizenship 101 class lesson for today:

The Article V amendment process was designed by the founders so that future bicameral congresses and/or the "several states" could use the Article V amendment process to change the original intent of the founders.

sf, since the original intent of John Jay for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington, a sentiment which Washington agreed with, and which was agreed to by the September 17, 1787 con con delegates, was ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth alone ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents, the Article V amendment process allows for "nbC" new meaning neobirthers to suggest that "nbC" should now mean in 2000s America ALSO "one" OR "zero" U.S. citizen parents would make a child eligible to be president.

Simple, huh?

sf, all you "nbC" new meaning neobirthers need to do is present your "nbC" new meaning of "one" OR "zero" U.S. citizen parents to "...the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States,..." and then get your amendment proposal to be "...ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, ...."

sf, citizenship 101 is easy to understand if you read the relevant text first.

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

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

sf,

You said: "There really has never been a dispute as to what NBC means. It simply means a person who is a citizen by virtue of his/her birth, without having to do anything else."

All babies of the world are born into it "without having to do anything else." Yet only some of them are natural born citizens of the United States. How did the Framers decide which ones were natural born citizens of the United States?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

sf,

You said: "If a person is a citizen at the time of his birth, he is a NBC."

In the eyes of the Framers, how did one become "a citizen at the time of his birth" so as to make him or her a natural born citizen?

sf said...

You repeat yourself ad nauseum. I have alreadyanswered that..

sf said...

the Supreme Court decided this issue in WKA. You should read it, well maybe you should understand it.

sf said...

I am using the historical definition of NBC. Birthers are the ones trying to change it.

And thank you for making my point about the amendment process. Thank you for the concession. Original intent is meangless. You might actually get it. I am proud of you.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

sf comes on here as if he had something to contribute to the debate on the meaning of a natural born citizen. As we can see, he is a big faker and knows nothing about the subject.

sf said...

You have already conceded my point. The only one who has proven himself clueless is you.

You have never come close to winning a case on this issue. Your argument has been rejected consistently.

If I know nothing about this subject, please explain why my conclusion is same one to which the Courts keep coming.

Mario between you and I is that I am stating the law as it is while you state the law as you want it to be. I could have some respect for you if you were trying to change the existing law. But the fact that you insist that anyone, including the Courts, who understand the historical meaning of NBC in a way that is contrary to your belief is wrong or lying puts you out of contention for such respect.

Another difference is that I have no emotional tie to the definition of NBC. Should any Court break from the historical definition and decide that you are correct and the US Supreme Court affirms, I will accept this as the law of the land despite my personal beliefs. Birthers, including yourself, will never accept the opposite. If a case is decided by the Supreme Court which affirms the historical definition, birthers would say that the Court is wrong, or have been threatened or been blackmailed. Such is level of self deception among birthers.

Birtherism is a cult and its followers are incapable of believing or accepting anything that tends to prove them wrong.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

You do have yourself deluded, pal. My arguments are based on historical and legal sources and reason. Your arguments are based on politics, racism, ridicule, personal attack, and wishful thinking. We win hands down.

sf said...

I have not attacked anyone. Your argument is nothing of the sort. That is why it has been consistently rejected.

Your complaints of personal attacks is actually funny. I have seen you call people dullards and worth. You have a real problem with people who confront you with reality and truth.

Odd that you say my arguments are based on wishful thinking when my arguments have prevailed every single time. It strikes me that you have deluded yourself.

You win? Since when. The birther track record is something like 0-400. Just another example of your delusions. How many courts have to tell you that your arguments are devoid of merit before you take the hint?'

You have consistently misread legal sources and ignored everything that is contrary to your position. And what you claim is reason is actually a fantasy of the grandest magnitude.

Go back to handling DWI cases. I understand that your ego wants this to be your legacy, but you will only be a boil on the butt in a footnote to history.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I have given you a chance to present your argument here. You have done nothing more than present typical Obot crap which addresses nothing of what I have presented. Go back to Fogbow where you are well received among your fellow Obots. You have no place here where we argue from historical and legal sources and reason. Again, we win hands down.

sf said...

You haven't presented anything.

How do you win?

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

Bryan Gene Olson, or "Unknown" here and "brygenon" there, is such a cornball that he actually posted a comment at Dr. Conspiracy's blog warning all the Obots there that I am reading Dr. Conspiracy's article on the Elliott filing to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Ilíon said...

"As we can see, he is a big faker and knows nothing about the subject."

It's even worse than that -- he has no intention of learning the truth of the matter.

ajtelles said...

shallow...

Mario,

sf/Bryan/Unknown/etc. is such a waste of time.

On July 22, 2016 at 6:19 PM I quoted sf/whoever wrote:

"sf is obviously not a deep thinker, as the comment posted on July 22, 2016 at 10:38 AM and at 11:08 AM about original intent and the amendment process reveals.

>> " 'If their original intent was so important, there would be no such [amendment] provision' "


Mario, it is obvious that sf/whoever is afraid of little ole me and prefers to malign you with shallow comments.

sf/whoever, how does a person who is born on U.S. soil to "zero" U.S. citizen parents become a "natural born Citizen" by birth alone with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship?

I'll make it super easy for you. Adduce only one credible source or, if you can't adduce only one source, simply use reason. You know, a simple "if-then" reason will do for now.

Come on, sf/whoever, take the bait. Give Mario and his other reader a break from your shallow reasoning.

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

sf said...

Art, I simply wanted the answers to easy questions. Both you and Mario refused to
provide those answers. You both use word salads in order to avoid reality.

Neither of you could pass a HS civics exam. The law is very clear and settled. You are forcing facts to comply with your belief as to what should be. It does not work that way.

sf said...

Art, the WKA case is the answer to your question. Two non citizen parents gave birth to a NBC. If you read the dissenting opinion you would understand that.

Teo Bear said...

sF wrote "Another difference is that I have no emotional tie to the definition of NBC. Should any Court break from the historical definition and decide that you are correct and the US Supreme Court affirms, I will accept this as the law of the land despite my personal beliefs. "

Yet he conviently disregards the definition of a natural born citizen that the Supreme Court has consistatly used, and not changed since the Venus, which is essentially that of Vattel. So he is accusing birthers of the actions that he or she practices.

The simple fact is that no Supreme Court case since the Venus in 1812 has changed the accepted definition of a natural born citizen, but I am certain SF will also conviently neglect the fact that the court found WKA to be a citizen of the United States and not a natural born citizen, and instead point to the errata of the dissenting opinion.

ajtelles said...

"WKA case is the answer..."

Mario,

sf/Bryan/whoever, in a friendly manner, took the bait offered in a friendly manner on July 23, 2016 at 11:38 PM.

>> "Art, the WKA case is the answer to your question.
>> "Two non citizen parents gave birth to a NBC.
>> "If you read the dissenting opinion you would understand that."


So, sf/Bryan/whoever, the day before the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court decision, WKA and ALL children born to "non citizen parents" were NOT "nbC" and NOT eligible to be president, and the day after ALL future children born to "non citizen parents" ARE "nbC" and eligible to be president?

sf/Bryan/whoever, the 1898 WKA decision of the Supreme Court is the historical "fact" that the 1787 Article II Section 1 clause 5 "natural born Citizen" language did NOT include children born to "non citizen parents" OR born to ONLY "one" U.S. citizen parent as "nbC" new meaning neobirthers assert with their 2000s theory, their 2000s myth that "one" OR "zero" U.S. citizen parents is the constitutional definition of "nbC" for POTUS eligibility.

Your statement gives credence to the historical "fact" that the United States Supreme Court can NOT "declare" a child born to "non citizen parents" to be what the Article II Section 1 clause 5 language does NOT imply.

See, sf, even John Jay would agree with your conclusion about WKA and children born to "non citizen parents".

Also, sf, Jay would add that it was not until the 1898 WKA court decision that Jay's implicit reason for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington, an implicit reason that Washington and the con con delegates and state ratifiers agreed with, was to promote America first by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents.

What did John Jay imply from generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS by underling the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in 1787?

_ONLY singular U.S. citizenship
_ONLY by birth alone
_ONLY on U.S. soil
_ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents
_ONLY married to each other
_ONLY before the child is born

sf, if you're up for more yummy bait, how did the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment that freed slaves born before 1868 OR after 1868 make a child born to only "one" OR "zero" U.S. citizens make them "nbC" and eligible to be president if, and that's a BIG "IF", if BEFORE 1868 since 1787 they were NOT "nbC" and NOT eligible to be president?

OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com
Art

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Teo,

Sf is so confused. Article I and II speak of a "natural born citizen" and a "citizen of the United States," with only the former being eligible to be President for those born after the adoption of the Constitution. SF uses the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified 81 years after the original Constitution was adopted and which clearly from its text defines a "citizen of the United States" and no more, to define an Article II "natural born citizen." Surely, reading comprehension and logic are not his forte.

Ilíon said...

The US supreme Court, the Venus (1814) decision, quoting Vattel in its decision -- "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 indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."

In this quote, Vattel uses "natives or indigenes" to refer to natural born citizens.

That is, in this early supreme Court decision, the Court reiterated the commonly understood meaning of the phrase 'natural born citizen' to be "those [citizens who are] born in the country of parents who are citizens" and, as under the doctrine of 'coverture', a woman's citizenship followed from her husband's, the Court also reiterated that "... those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights"

sf said...

I didn't use anything. As the Court in WKA clearly stated, the 14th Amendment was only an affirmation of the the way Citizenship has always been defined.

I am not the confused one. I am not the one who is ignoring historica precedent. Art keep keeps talking about Jay implying things. How silly, how ridiculous. Could he be more desparate? In fact could any of you be more desparate? I doubt it.

Mario, you sit there an belittle anyone who tells you the truth. You claim you win when you never have, neither in a debate nor in a Court room. How you can continue to maintain the correctness of your position in light of being rebuked by Court after Court is beyond comprehension.

The only reason that I hope that the Supreme Court hears your case is so that you can can be shut down for good. But alas, it never take it. Why you ask? Because there is no legal issue to settle. Every circuit court faced with this issue has ruled the same way. So the courts are uniform.

Good luck Mario. You are on the wrong side of history and, again, if you are remembered at all, it will be only as part of a dark footnote where a very small, but loud, portion of this Country went insane.

sf said...

Again, Mario is confused. He does not recognize that NBC is a subset of Citizen of the United States. How funny.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

sf,

As I said, reading comprehension and logic are not your forte. I have for years said that the natural born citizens is a proper subset of the born citizens. This means that all natural born citizens are born citizens, but not all born citizens are natural born citizens. So what's your problem?

sf said...

It is. It a proper subset of born citizen. There are no subset of born citizens. It is a subset of citizens of the United States. When you get that you may, possibly, begin to understand how wrong you are.

When you have to create new forms of citizenship to support your fantasies, you lose.

sf said...

My problem is that you are a pseudo intellectual, a terrible lawyer, and simply make things up, which makes you intellectual dishonest. You give my profession a bad name.

Orly Taitz may be the worst lawyer in the world and even she knows that you are wrong.What does that say about your argument?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

sf comes on here and makes things up as he goes along. He believes that he has said something so far.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

My problem is that you are full of crap.

ajtelles said...

"How silly..."

Mario,

sf/Bryan/Unknown's "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirther antipithy to John Jay is revealed with this silly comment on July 24, 2016 at 4:54 PM about "...Jay implying things".

>> "Art keep keeps talking about Jay implying things.
>> How silly, how ridiculous.
>> Could he be more desperate?
>> In fact could any of you be more desparate?
>> I doubt it."


sf, how silly of you.

John Jay was obviously implying ONLY one thing, not two.

ONLY singular U.S. citizenship
or
ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship

ONLY birth on U.S. soil
or
ALSO birth on foreign soil

ONLY birth to two U.S. citizen married parents
or
ALSO birth to "one" OR "zero" U.S. citizen parents, married OR not married

sf, you keep talking about anything EXCEPT John Jay's 17987 ONLY perpetual implication, and you have revealed your antipathy to the author of the "natural born Citizen" language. Antipathy means having a strong feeling of aversion to something or someone.

Either original birther John Jay was implying what you "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers are asserting, dual U.S./foreign citizenship at birth to "one" OR "zero" U.S. citizen parents is sufficient for a child to be eligible to be president, or he was not.

Either original birther John Jay was imply what "natural born Citizen" original intent birthers are asserting, ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents is necessary for a child to be eligible to be president, or he was not.

Was Jay's implication for underling the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington intended to be "exclusive" and perpetual -- ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth alone on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents?

Or.

Was Jay psychic in 1787 and implying with the word "born" an original intent meaning that was accepted by the con con delegates and state ratifiers, an "inclusive" and perpetual meaning that would NOT be articulated for 111 years until 1898 by the WKA Court?

sf, how silly of you.

Why did it take 111 years for "one" OR "zero" U.S. citizen parents to be thought of as the 1787 original intent of "nbC" and sufficient for a child to be eligible to be president?

sf, that's some yummy bait. Take it.

OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com
Art

sf said...

Then why does my side whim every case?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

sf,

If you are the great lawyer that you claim you are you would know that you have not won. Moreover, you have not been able to articulate a winning argument. As I already said, you are a faker and only here to make a lot of meaningless noise taken from the Obot playbook.

sf said...

You wouldn't stand a chance with me in any court on any subject. I certainly wouldn't declare victory when I have lost every single lawsuit. Your comment shows that you have lost grip with reality. Get helps

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I have given you a chance to show us what you can do. It has become evident that it is nothing. Your previous comment is your last one here, you big dope.

ajtelles said...

Trump Children are not “nbC”

Mario,

On July 25, 2016 at 1:07 AM I said to sf/Bryan/Unknown/whoever:

"Why did it take 111 years for "one" OR "zero" U.S. citizen parents to be thought of as the 1787 original intent of "nbC" and sufficient for a child to be eligible to be president?"

sf/Bryan/whoever could have responded with something relevant to the 1787 to 1898 one hundred eleven (111) year "issue" (pun intended) of who is an "nbC" and eligible to be president, but instead he chose to continue his incessant ridicule and mockery.

Oh well. As a “natural born Citizen” new meaning neobirther, sf/whoever was not challenging anyway.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Here is something relevant to the “nbC” “issue” issue; an update about the POTUS eligibility of Donald Trump’s five children, Don, Ivanka, Eric, Tiffany, Barron.

_Ivana naturalized four years after third child Eric was born.
_Fourth child Tiffany was born before Donald and Marla were married.
_Melania naturalized four months after fifth child Barron was born.

I posted the dates earlier here on July 7, 2016 at 1:46 PM, and here is another Wikipedia page that has the dates all on one page in the Personal Life – Family section. Melania’s naturalization date of July 28, 2016 is not noted but she did reveal it during her RNC speech on July 19, 2016.

>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#Family

Listen to Melania at 5min. 35sec. of her RNC speech. She naturalized July 28, 2006, three months and three weeks after Barron was born March 20, 2006.

>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVQsj95dI1c

Mario, all five of Donald Trump’s children are not Article II Section 1 clause 5 natural born citizens.

Although all five children were born to at least “one” U.S. citizen parent on U.S. soil in accordance with the implication of the Fourteenth Amendment language that “All persons born...in the United State...are citizens of the United States….”, all five were not born to two U.S. citizen married parents in accordance with the implication of “born” and “citizen” in Article II Section 1 clause 5.

Because of that constitutional glitch related to having only singular U.S. citizenship, a common sense requirement which is only possible by birth alone to two U.S. citizen parents, all five of Donald Trump’s children are constitutional Fourteenth Amendment citizens and do not need an additional act of Congress to be recognized as U.S. citizens.

The implicit “glitch” of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship is a “glitch” similar to the “glitch” of the explicit language that eligibility requires being 35 years of age from birth before being eligible, and 14 years residence in the U.S. for the last 14 years up to and including the day before the day of election, whether the age on the day of election is 35 or 45 or whatever age.

Because all five children of Donald Trump are not A2S1ct natural born citizens, all five children are not eligible to be president or vice president of the United States.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario, if you were to write an article about the Trump children not being eligible to be president, I wonder if Mark Levin would finally agree to debate you?

I wonder if Levin is really afraid to debate you.

Levin implied that he has chosen to not debate anybody because everybody who has accepted his challenge is beneath his legal stature, or something like that. I heard him say it only once on his radio program a few months ago, last April or May.

OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com
Art

Ilíon said...

^ I have to agree. Since our law no longer operates under the legal doctrine of 'coverture' with respect to the rights and duties of women (*), since women now have their own individual citizenship independent of their husband's citizenship, to be born a natural born US citizen now requires that both parents be either born US citizens or naturalized US citizens.


(*) To be more precise -- married men still have the same duties-and-restrictions that they had under explicit 'coverture', but women have been "liberated"

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Ilion,

I of II

The history of world civilization shows that membership in a nation from the moment of birth has been obtained either by being born to generations or at least parents who were members of that nation (jus sanguinis) or by being born within the boundaries of that nation (jus soli). Western republics have for millennia given the name of "citizen" to their members. In the 18th century, the law of nations of the western world defined a "natural born citizen" as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797). Historically, some countries, such as Great Britain, in addition to following the law of nations rule (place of birth and subject parents) also relied upon place of birth alone (birth in the King's dominion and under his protection or jurisdiction) to naturalize children born in the King's dominion to alien parents, and upon naturalization Acts of Parliament to adopt as if they were born in the King's dominion and jurisdiction and therefore as if they were "natural-born subjects" children born out of the King's dominion and jurisdiction to English natural born subjects.

From this history and with the free and independent states having taken the form of republics upon their separation from Great Britain, the Framers adopted the name "citizen" for the new members of the new nation. Any person who became a member of the new nation by whatever means was its citizen. They also understood that those who were born to those citizen parents were to be the natural born citizens of the new nation. They believed that both parents and place of birth had a great influence in creating love of and allegiance to country. That is why they adopted the law of nation's/national common law definition of a natural born citizen which 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). Wanting the President and Commander in Chief of the Military to be loyal and faithful only to the United States, they required that for those born after the adoption of the Constitution, only a natural born citizen could be President. Given that the Framers tied the natural born citizen clause to eligibility to be President and Commander in Chief, we can conclude that the citizenship status has the highest degree of political allegiance possible of all the forms of citizenship.

So, the Framers understood that a child acquired by jus soli as much foreign citizenship and allegiance from being born in a foreign nation to two U.S. citizen parents as if he or she had been born in the United States to two alien parents. They also understood that a child inherited by jus sanguinis as much foreign citizenship and allegiance from being born to two alien parent in the United States as he or she did from being born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States to two U.S. citizen parents. Hence, for the Framers, birth in the country to two U.S. citizen parents were necessary and sufficient conditions for being a natural born citizen.

Hence, when it comes to being a natural born citizen, it does not help at all when making the case for such status to maintain that one was born in the United States, but not to two U.S. citizen parents, or born to two U.S. citizen parents, but out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Throughout U.S. history, Congress has changed the requirements (conditions precedent and subsequent) for persons born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States to be adopted as citizens of the United States, either "at birth" or after birth. But these naturalization Acts did not nor could they amend the Constitution's requirement that birth in the United States was a necessary condition to be satisfied in order for a child born to be a natural born citizen.

Only with the Cable Act of 1922 (ch. 411, 42 Stat. 1021, "Married Women's Independent Nationality Act"), could a married woman maintain a citizenship separate and different from that of her husband. Prior to this Act, the common law doctrine of coverture (a married woman took on the citizenship status of her husband) had prevailed. But this Act did not nor could it amend the Constitution's requirement that both parents being U.S. citizens was a necessary condition to be satisfied in order for their child born to them to be a natural born citizen.

Senator Ted Cruz, born in Canada to a Cuban father and a U.S. citizen mother, acquired through jus soli citizenship in and allegiance to Canada. He also inherited through jus sanguinis citizenship in and allegiance to Cuba (from birth to a Cuban father) and the United States (through birth to a U.S. citizen mother). Hence, his birth circumstances did not allow him under U.S. law to be born with sole allegiance to the United States.

Senator Marco Rubio, born in the United States to two Cuban parents, acquired through jus soli citizenship in and allegiance to the United States. But he also inherited through jus sanguinis citizenship in and allegiance to Cuba, from birth to two Cuban parents. Hence, his birth circumstances did not allow him under U.S. law to be born with sole allegiance to the United States.

Both Cruz and Rubio were under U.S. law not born with sole allegiance to the United States. They can be citizens of the United States "at birth" under a naturalization Act of Congress (through jus sanguinis) and the Fourteenth Amendment (through jus soli), respectively, but they cannot be Article II natural born citizens which requires that at birth one satisfy both jus sanguinis and jus soli in order to be born with sole allegiance to the United States.

Ilíon said...

^ Exactly.

Ilíon said...

^ And so, while Donald Trump's children are not natural born US citizens (*), Donald Trump himself is a natural born US citizen, as his immigrant mother was naturalized on March 10, 1942 and he was born on June 14, 1946.


(*) for their mothers either where not US citizens at the times of their births or were not legally married to Donald at the time of birth

Teo Bear said...

Sf said - > "Then why does my side whim every case?"

Because in order to protect the first "affirmative action" pResident, and the theft of an American's right it has been ordained the truth will never prevail.

The creation of natural born Citizen not defined in the Constitution, nor uniformly defined among the states has always been reserved to we, the people.

Mick said...

"A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory, or by authority of Congress, exercised either by declaring certain classes of persons to be citizens, as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens, or by enabling foreigners individually to become citizens by proceedings in the judicial tribunals, as in the ordinary provisions of the naturalization acts". Wong Kim Ark, 169 US 649, 702, 703 (1898)

Rich Schaum said...

Will any one look at the constitution and it's foundation problems when stepping into the court of your enemy. they take an oath that doesn't exist. therefore you don't really exist.

First, there are actually, two (2) constitution documents in law with the following titles: The Constitution for the united States of America (de Jure)
The Constitution of the United States of America (de facto)

The oaths of office specify you repeat: "The Constitution of the United States" and this is the title that does not exist In law or At law and therefore all the oaths are a FRAUD.

Words, Words, Words!

de Jure = Legitimate; Lawful
de facto = In fact, in Reality, in actual Existence.

Are both meanings equal?

Presently when anyone takes the oath, they take it to a "document title Preamble" that doesn’t exist.
always leaving off the word America since the time the oath was recorded for all POTUS's.

Are the States are not united in America? Are the states united among themselves, meaning not belonging to another or anyone but the people of the land/State they reside in???

What are the meanings of or for the words OF and FOR? Is someone is FOR something or someone, or is someone OF something or someone??

We have no standing trying to present a cause for seeking remedy in a court that doesn't play by the rules within the body of the constitution Of or For the united States of America.They have their own referees in their court and control their score board.

We are playing in the BAR's Royal Court not the Peoples Court. It's all a fraud.

Ilíon said...

Let us emphasize a relevant portion of Mick's quote -- "A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States can only become a citizen by being naturalized ... as in the enactments conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens ..."

Ted Cruz is --
1) "A person born out of the jurisdiction of the United States"
2) the "foreign-born child[ of a]citizen"
3) whose US citizenship was acquired via naturalization pursuant to an "enactment[ of Congress] conferring citizenship upon foreign-born children of citizens"

ERGO: Ted Cruz is a naturalized US citizen and is thereby prohibited by the US Constitution from occupying the Office or US President.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Mick,

The Constitution gives to Congress in matters of citizenship only the power "[t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . throughout the United States. Article I, Section 8, Clause 4. This power cannot be reasonably read to include the power to define a natural born citizen who exists without having to be naturalized by Congress. Even if Congress's power to naturalize included that power, Congress would have to explicitly state in a naturalization Act that it was defining a natural born citizen rather than just a citizen of the United States.

By the simple and plain words and meaning of the natural born citizen clause, a naturalized citizen of the United States is not and cannot be a natural born citizen.

Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) clearly and simply explained that a child born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States to U.S. citizen parents, if a citizen of the United States under a naturalization Act of Congress, is a "naturalized" citizen of the United States. 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.

Under these precedents of the U.S. Supreme Court and of other courts, Cruz is a naturalized citizen of the United States, only by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress, not an Article II natural born citizen who derived its meaning from the law of nations and U.S. national common law. Additionally, Congress said in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1955, which made Cruz a citizen of the United States, that he is a "citizen of the United States" "at birth." In the Act, it did not say like it did in the Naturalization Act of 1790, which was repealed by the Naturalization Act of 1795, that a person born under Cruz's birth circumstances (assuming that one U.S. citizen parent was sufficient to satisfy the 1790 Act) is to be "considered as a natural born citizen."

Cruz is not a natural born citizen under both the common law that defines the clause and under the very naturalization Act of Congress which made him a citizen of the United States "at birth," and he lies when he says that there is no constitutional or legal question as to whether he is such a citizen. Whether the U.S. Supreme Court will finally put an end to the politically manufactured doubts concerning the meaning of a natural born citizen and whether Cruz is a natural born citizen is driven by other concerns.

Ilíon said...

On my blog: a short analysis of two supreme Court rulings touching on naturalization and natural born citizenship as relates to DisTrusTed Cruz.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

UPDATE:

On July 14, 2016, Ted Cruz filed a waiver of his right to respond to the Petition. The Clerk has distributed the case for the U.S. Supreme Court conference on September 26, 2016. Here is how the docket appears:

No. 16-13
Title:
Carmon Elliott, Petitioner
v.
Ted Cruz
Docketed: June 30, 2016
Lower Ct: Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Middle District
Case Nos.: (29 MAP 2016)
Decision Date: March 31, 2016

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jun 28 2016 Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 1, 2016)
Jul 14 2016 Waiver of right of respondent Ted Cruz to respond filed.
Jul 27 2016 DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2016.

thalightguy said...

If the power of Congress is limited to the Constitution; then, how can a person born prior to 1934 not be born a "Citizen of the United States", and a person born in 1970 with the exact same birth circumstances be a “natural born Citizen”?

Ilíon said...

thalightguy: "If the power of Congress is limited to the Constitution; then, how can a person born prior to 1934 not be born a "Citizen of the United States", and a person born in 1970 with the exact same birth circumstances be a “natural born Citizen”?"

You're not even trying, are you?

1) "If the power of Congress is limited to the Constitution; ..."

If the power of the Congress is not limited to the powers explicitly granted it by the Constitution -- and explicitly declared by that same Constitution to be the only powers that the Congress has -- then the Constitution is meaningless and we are not citizens of a Republic-bound-by-Law but subjects of an unbounded dictatorship.

2) "... then, how can a person born prior to 1934 not be born a "Citizen of the United States", and a person born in 1970 with the exact same birth circumstances be a “natural born Citizen”?"

The Constitution gives the Congress the power to enact laws on naturalization -- this is the point made time and time again: Cruz's US citizenship was acquired under Acts of Congress pursuant to naturalization; Cruz is a naturalized US citizen.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

thalightguy,

The hallmark of falsehood is when one presents an inconsistent and unreasonable argument.

In order to strengthen their defense of Barack Obama's eligibility status, the Obots have decided that they have to save Ted Cruz from being exposed as not being a natural born citizen. Hence, the Obots and their enablers have joined forces with the Cruzbots and now maintain that a natural born citizen is simply any person that Congress made or makes a citizen at birth under any law at any given time in the past, present, or future. There are two problems with this argument. First, under this formula, a person who because of birth circumstances was not a natural born citizen in the past can become one in the present or in the future and vice versa. It is silly to think that the Framers would have given Congress legislative power to turn a natural born citizen (the person eligible to be President) on and off as it pleases like it does naturalized citizens. Yet, this is the new born-a-citizen Obot argument, which even throws the English common law, jus soli, and Wong Kim Ark (what they used in the past to argue that Obama is a natural born citizen) under the bus.

Second, and more simple, as can be seen from the plain text of Congress's naturalization statutes, like the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment, these laws do not make anyone a "natural born citizen." What they provide is that the person is being made either a "citizen" of the United States "at birth" or after birth, as the case may be. The first and only time Congress used the clause "natural born citizen" in a naturalization Act was in the Naturalization Act of 1790 (it only naturalized children who otherwise were alien born and said that they "shall be considered as natural born citizens"), which through the Naturalization Act of 1795 it repealed and carefully replaced "natural born citizen" with "citizen" of the United States, the nomenclature that it has used in all its naturalization Acts to the present. Thus, Congress has demonstrated through the centuries that the status of natural born citizen comes into being through birth circumstances alone and not its naturalization Acts, as confirmed by the common law, and therefore does not need positive law for its existence. It is therefore more silliness to maintain that Congress can or does make one a natural born citizen through its naturalization powers when it has never done so.

So there you have the Obot and Cruzbot position, both inconsistent and unreasonable and therefore false.

ajtelles said...

Yeah, but, Mark Levin said...

Mario,

On August 9, 2016 at 9:24 AM in the second paragraph you wrote:

>> "The first and only time Congress used the clause "natural born citizen" in a naturalization Act
>> was in the Naturalization Act of 1790
>> (it only naturalized children who otherwise were alien born
>> and said that they "shall be considered as natural born citizens"),
>> which through the Naturalization Act of 1795 it repealed and carefully replaced
>> "natural born citizen" with "citizen" of the United States,
>> the nomenclature that it has used in all its naturalization Acts to the present."

Mark Levin has written and also stated on his radio program that the 1790 Naturalization Act "natural born Citizen" language is sufficient to affirm that Sen. Ted Cruz, born to one U.S. citizen parent after the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act was adopted, is a natural born citizen and eligible to be president since 1952.

So, Mario, all Levin needs to do is say, "yeah, but" to your clear articulation about 1790 and 1795, and defend his assertion that the clear language and obvious intent of the 1795 Naturalization Act does not negate the clear language and obvious intent of the 1790 Naturalization Act.

See how simple it would be for Levin (or other "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers) to win the debate with you if he fulfilled his open challenge to any and all comers to debate him about the original intent of "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 clause 5?

StopIslamizationOfAmerica.blogspot.com
Art

Roderick Lee said...

do you `SEE' `NOW' why Kerchener was on the money about obam getting into office...obam wants special respect and special interests and wants to hide his dissolute lifestyle in general from the public..obam is a `WASTELAND' and a danger to `US' `ALL'

Robert Pilchman said...



At approximately 1:22:05 of https://youtu.be/Xp-pTg2-Js4 ("LIVE Stream: Donald Trump Speaks in Washington, DC 9/16/16") (almost 10 minutes before Trump's statement) Admiral Don Loren stated that "George Washington said 'The willingness with which our young people are likely to serve in any war no matter how justified shall be proportional to how they perceive veterans of earlier wars were treated and are appreciated by our nation'" and Admiral Don Loren pointed out that the oath is to defend the constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic. (BTW: (1) Trump stated "Hillary Clinton and her campaign of 2008 started the Birther controversy. I finished it. I finished it. You know what I mean. President Barack Obama was born in the United States - period. Now we all want to get back to making America strong and great again." (2) "Bombshell: ‘Washington Post’ Confirms Hillary Clinton Started the Birther Movement" --- http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/09/26/washington-post-confirms-hillary-clinton-started-the-birther-movement/ (3) BTW: "Trump Campaign Statement Clashes With Recent Birther Claims Made By Trump And Surrogates To The Media" - http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/09/16/trump-campaign-statement-clashes-recent-birther-claims-made-trump-and-surrogates-media/213133 (4) "Media Outraged After Trump Tricks Them To Cover Endorsements From Military Heroes" - http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/16/media-outraged-after-trump-tricks-them-to-cover-endorsements-from-military-heroes/ If the "Media" is "Outraged" then that's a great sign :-) ; even when Trump possibly lies he tells the truth ... Hopefully, Lt. General Flynn will now stop indicating that Trump tells the truth too much; in any event, who would say that about Hillary (who apparently gave Russia 20 percent of our Uranium after receiving millions of dollars)?)

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

The media just refuses to report on the true issue regarding whether Barack Obama is constitutionally eligible to be President. Even if President Obama was born in the United States, that does not make him an Article II "natural born citizen." Under the original Constitution, being born in the United States to an alien father, which is Mr. Obama's case, did not qualify him to be a "citizen of the United States," let alone an Article II natural born citizen. Under the Fourteenth Amendment, born under those same circumstances makes Mr. Obama a "citizen of the United States" from the moment of birth, but not an Article II “natural born citizen.”

Robert Pilchman said...

Mario --- But don't you concede that at the time of the Constitution, a wife had the same citizenship status as that of her husband??? Moreover, the Supreme Court after the Civil War tried to suggest a line of reasoning that would have allowed the emancipated slaves to run for President? But in any event, Vattel argued birth in a land is not enough to inherit citizenship, but nowadays it's possible to have a mother with a different citizenship. Indeed, for argument sake if Cruz upon renunciation of his Canadian Citizenship, has no citizenship and his wife is considered a U.S. citizen and if such a couple would have a child in the United States (and in U.S. jurisdiction - not in a foreign embassy) then it's possible that even Vattel would hold that such a child would be natural born. The problem with natural law is that what may be considered natural (i.e. self evident) to some is not natural to others.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Sorry, Robert, but a child must be born or reputed born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth in order for that child to be a natural born citizen. Neither in our U.S. history nor today does a U.S. citizen woman marrying an alien man make him a U.S. citizen so that their child born to them is born to two citizen parents.

Robert Pilchman said...


But if at the time of the Constitution and Vattel there was no such thing as a wife having different citizenship than her husband then how do we know what the framers would hold?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

The Framers contemplated that husbands and wives were either both citizens or both aliens. I already told you what they had to be in order for their child to be a natural born citizen.

Ilíon said...

Robert Pilchnan: "But if at the time of the Constitution and Vattel there was no such thing as a wife having different citizenship than her husband then how do we know what the framers would hold?"

What the Framers would hold is that a change to Law A doesn't automatically make a change to Law B just because it would be more convenient if it did.

Robert Pilchman said...


Suppose Jane Doe - a wife (who is not a U.S. citizen) suffers the death of her husband (who is also not a U.S. Citizen) during the third month of pregnancy - and during the fifth month of pregnancy Jane Doe (while still a widow) becomes a U.S. Citizen - and Jane Doe (while still a widow) gives birth in the ninth month of pregnancy in the United States (and in U.S. jurisdiction). Would the framers hold that such a child is considered a "natural born Citizen"?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

For the Framers, the status of a natural born citizen was not only acquired by being born in the United States, but also by inheriting at birth the right to citizenship from both parents. If the child was born in the United States to an alien father, the Framers would not have accepted the child as a natural born citizen. Why should it be any different if the alien father died before the child was born in the United States to a U.S. citizen mother?

Ilíon said...

"DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2016."

Does that mean that September 26 (which is today) that the justices would collectively decide whether to hear the case?

Robert Pilchman said...


Mario - I am inclined to disagree with your answer (of "September 21, 2016 at 10:20 PM") to my Jane Doe question (of "September 21, 2016 at 7:21 PM"). Certainly I admit that if Citizenship is by definition exclusive allegiance then obviously if (when the child is born) one parent has U.S. Citizenship and the other parent has Citizenship to a different country then how would it be self evident (natural law) what the Citizenship of the child (at birth) would be? However, if there is only one parent alive when the child is born then I'm inclined to believe that it would be self evident the allegiance of the child at birth (when the child would also be born in the land). Moreover, while Vattel clearly holds that being born in the land is not sufficient, I'm not sure if Vattel would hold that it is always necessary to also have both parents at birth both alive when the child is born and with U.S. Citizenship. After all, according to your answer, even if Jane Doe's father would have had U.S. Citizenship but was not alive during the birth of the child then why would that be sufficient? If you would say that it wouldn't be sufficient I would be very skeptical. By the way, there was a recent headline in drudge about a baby from three parents ... (? https://www.newscientist.com/article/2107219-exclusive-worlds-first-baby-born-with-new-3-parent-technique/ )

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Robert,

I answer your objection with some quotes from David Ramsay which provides insight into the thinking of the Founders and Framers in 1789:

A citizen of the "United States," means a member of this new nation.

***

Citizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken a part in the late
revolution: but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens. Those who died before the revolution, could leave no political character to their children, but that of subjects, which they themselves possessed. If they had lived, no one can be certain if they would have adhered to the king or to congress. Their children, therefore, may claim by inheritance the rights of "British subjects" but not of "American citizens."

***

5th. Persons born in any country may have acquired citizenship by adoption, or naturalization, agreeably to law.

***

The citizenship of no man could be previous to the declaration of independence, and, as a natural right, belonged to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of "July," 1776.

***

From the premises already established, it may be farther inferred, that citizenship, by inheritance, belongs to none but the children of those "Americans," who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring. The children of those who died before the revolution, who are citizens, must have acquired that privilege in their own right, and by their own personal act; that is, by joining their country at or since that revolution (all emphasis in the original).

David Ramsay, "A Dissertation on the Manner of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen of the United States" (1789). See http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html

I filed Ramsay's dissertation with the New Jersey Federal District Court in Kerchner v. Obama. Neither the district court nor the Third Circuit Court of Appeals reached the merits of the argument, the latter dismissing on standing.

Notice that Ramsay is not referring to becoming a natural born citizen of any particular State, but rather that of the United States. He also makes no reference to the English common law. His definition of a natural born citizen follows from natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, and not from the English common law. Ramsay was an influential Founding-era historian. He lived among the Founders and Framers. He would have known whether they were looking to English common and statutory law or natural law, the law of nations, and Vattel to define a citizen and a natural born citizen of the United States.

Ramsay's dissertation informs who he accepted to be a natural born citizen, i.e., acquired citizenship "as a natural right" and therefore needed no law or form of naturalization to be a citizen. These were only children born in the country to parents (father and mother) who were its citizens. Indeed, being a natural born citizen could only come as a natural right which could only be acquired by being born in the country to citizen parents. If one was born in the country to alien parents or out of the country even to citizen parents, one "acquired citizenship by adoption, or naturalization, agreeably to law."

So, referring back to your specific question, if a child is born in the United States before or after his or her alien father’s death, even if born to a U.S. citizen mother, that child cannot be a natural born citizen. Only a child born or reputed born in the United States to a U.S. citizen father and U.S. citizen mother can through natural right be an Article II natural born citizen.

Robert Pilchman said...



Mario - In your opinion, for natural born Citizenship, is it necessary for the father of the child to be alive when the child is born?

Ilíon said...

Mr Pilchman,
Rather than trying to think up evermore Rococo attempts at "Gotcha", why don't you first just admit that Cruz (and Obama) is not a natural born citizen for Constitutional purposes.

Robert Pilchman said...


Ilion - Did I ever indicate that Obama and Cruz are natural born Citizens? Please review my earlier submissions (over approximately the past two years). Indeed, I filed legal paperwork regarding Cruz - in two cases (example: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/04/13/an-open-message-to-nj-ltgov-kim-guadagno-from-cdr-charles-kerchner-ret/ ). Also this is not "Gotcha" - rather it's an attempt to understand the detailed mechanics (and any possible exceptional cases) ... Thanks, Robert