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.

UPDATE as of October 3, 2016:

The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari.  See ORDER LIST: 580 U.S., published on Monday, October 3, 2016, accessed at https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100316zor_9ol1.pdf ,  The Court did not give any reason for the denial which it normally does not give.  The denial of such a petition is not a ruling on the merits.  We will just have to wait until another day.  





163 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

Ilíon said...

"Also this is not "Gotcha" - rather it's an attempt to understand the detailed mechanics (and any possible exceptional cases)"

And yet, except for your last post (about a living father), you keep asking the same question that Mr Apuzzo has already answered.

Unknown said...

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

The conferences are closed, so no one really knows. Cruz waived response, and the Court has not called for a response from Cruz. They court essentially never grants cert without calling for a response, so the chance of them granting cert at this time is pretty much nill. If they are at all interested they'll request a response from Cruz and, once they have it, schedule for a future conference.

A list of cases from the conference of September 26 that are granted cert is up, and Elliott v. Cruz is not on it. The cert denied list should be out soon, perhaps today (Monday 03 Oct 2016) which happens to be the official first day of the Court's 2016 term.

I predict the court will deny cert. Quite a few people have suggested the U.S. Supreme Court should take such a case an settle the matter, but the petition Mr. Apuzzo wrote is not a good candidate. He contradicts the position that Elliott had taken, and that Professor Mary McManamon argued in an amicus brief, by pushing his theory that a native-born child of a foreigner is not a natural-born citizen.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

Bryan Gene Olson (“Unknown”) is reading comprehension challenged. This is what I argued in my Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in Elliott v. Cruz.

A natural born citizen had already been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court before it decided United States v. Wong Kim Wong (1898). That was done by Minor v. Happersett (1875). Virginia Minor had been born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents. The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court held that under the common law to which the Framers looked when they drafted and adopted the Constitution all children born in the country to parents who were its citizens were "natives, or natural-born citizens," and that all the rest of the people were "aliens or foreigners" who could become "citizens" of the United States through naturalization by Congress or maybe under the Fourteenth Amendment. Since 1790 and up to that time, Congress's naturalization Acts treated such children as aliens. Minor therefore left open the question of whether children born in the United States to alien parents were now "citizens" under the Fourteenth Amendment. The unanswered question was not whether such children were "natural born citizens," who under the Court's common law definition of the clause were not.

Wong had been born in the United States, but to two alien parents. They were however domiciled and permanently residing in the United States and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders. The United States maintained that Wong was an alien. The U.S. Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark, because Wong was born to alien parents, had to answer the Fourteenth Amendment "citizen" question left open by Minor. It first confirmed Minor's common law definition of a natural born citizen. It then moved on to address the Fourteenth Amendment. It held that Wong was a "citizen" of the United States from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment because given that he was born in the United States to parents who were permanently residing in the United States and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders, he was born in the United States while subject to its jurisdiction. It is not necessary to ask the question of whether a child born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents is born there subject to its jurisdiction. Wong Kim Ark did not hold that Wong was an Article II "natural born citizen" under the common law to which the Framers looked for the clause's definition when they drafted and adopted the Constitution.

Wong Kim Ark also confirmed that any child born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States even to two U.S. citizen parents cannot enjoy being a "citizen" by birthright alone, for he or she needs Congress to naturalize him or her through a naturalization Act and in default thereof the child is born an alien. A long line of subsequent U.S. Supreme Court cases (all cited in my petition) confirmed this fundamental principle of U.S. citizenship. Hence, there is no doubt that children born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, even to two U.S. citizen parents, are at best "citizens" of the United States "at birth," but only by virtue of an Act of Congress, and not by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment which defines a "citizen" of the United States "at birth," let alone by the Framers' common law that defines an Article II "natural born citizen."

Continue . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

So, the definition of a "natural born citizen" under the Framers' common law is found in Minor while the definition of a "citizen" of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment is found in Wong Kim Ark. All other "citizens" of the United States "at birth" are found in the naturalization Acts of Congress. Today, an Article II natural born citizen is still a child born or reputed born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens (natural born citizens or just citizens of the United States) at the time of the child's birth.

Being born in a foreign country (Canada) to a non-U.S. citizen (Cuban) father and presumably to a U.S. citizen mother, who were not in the foreign country as U.S. diplomats or for purposes of serving the U.S. national defense, Senator Ted Cruz is a "citizen" of the United States "at birth," but only by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress. We can easily see that Cruz is not a natural born citizen, for if he had been born before 1922, when Congress allowed for the first time women to transmit their U.S. citizenship to their children born out of the United States, he would have been born an alien and needed naturalization to become a citizen of the United States. He is therefore a naturalized "citizen" of the United States "at birth," not a natural born citizen of the United States.

John McCain is a natural born citizen because, even though he was born in Panama, he was born to two U.S. citizen parents who were serving the defense of the United States, which makes him reputed born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents.

Mr. Olson just does not get it.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Update: The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. See ORDER LIST: 580 U.S., published on Monday, October 3, 2016, accessed at https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100316zor_9ol1.pdf , The Court did not give any reason for the denial which it normally does not give. The denial of such a petition is not a ruling on the merits. We will just have to wait until another day.

Unknown said...

Mario Apuzzo Esquire wrote:
"Update: The U.S. Supreme Court denied the petition for a writ of certiorari. See ORDER LIST: 580 U.S., published on Monday, October 3, 2016, accessed at https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/100316zor_9ol1.pdf , The Court did not give any reason for the denial which it normally does not give."

Yeah, see, that's what I just predicted. You, Mr. Apuzzo, called me, "reading comprehension challenged".

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Mr. Olson,

Your prediction proves nothing given that the U.S. Supreme Court denies the vast majority of petitions for a writ of certiorari. And yes, you are reading comprehension challenged given your comment on my petition.

Unknown said...

Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:
"This is what I argued in my Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in Elliott v. Cruz. A natural born citizen had already been defined by the U.S. Supreme Court before it decided United States v. Wong Kim Wong (1898). That was done by Minor v. Happersett (1875). Virginia Minor had [...]"

Oh, I comprehended that that's what you argued. You and I have argued over it many times. Thing is, this time you argued it in a petition for the U.S. Supreme Court to review a case in which your client, Carmon Elliott, had been arguing:

"In American law the matter of being a natural born citizen is not complex. As the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly held, a natural born citizen is an individual who was born within the boundaries of the United States. Because the law of the soil (lex soli), and not the citizenship of parents (lex sanguinis), is the basis for natural born citizenship, individuals born outside the United States are not natural born citizens even if a naturalization statute passed by Congress gives them automatic citizenship at birth." [Appelant's brief to PA Supreme Court in Elliott v. Cruz, March 2016]

Your theory about native-born children of foreigners was not at issue. The one time it appears in the record was when a Harvard Law professor, writing as amicus curiae in favor of Carmon Elliott's position, said it had nothing to do with the the case:

"Nor does this case have anything to do with far-fetched legal claims that even Presidents or Presidential candidates who were born in the United States, such as President Obama, Charles Evan Hughes, and Marco Rubio, are not natural born citizens because their father was not a U.S. citizen when they were born." [Einer R. Elhauge, Amicus brief to PA Supreme Court, Elliott v. Cruz, March 2016]

I disagree with the pure jus soli position that Mr. Elliott argued, but I never called it nonsense. When Mr. Elliott put it to the test where he lives, in the Great State of Pensilvania, he lost, but he got impressive support in the form of amicus curiae briefs by two noted law professors, Mary Brigid McManamon and Einer Elhauge. Challenges to Obama's eligibility never had anything like that.

-Bryan

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Mr. Olson, the big problem that Mary Brigid McManamon, Einer Elhaugehave, and you have is that you do not present historical and legal evidence demonstrating what the Founders' and Framers' definition of a natural born citizen was. On the other hand, I do present such evidence and my position has yet to be refuted in a court or on the internet.

sf said...

You mean, of course, except for every court that has looked at the issue.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

sf,

Your comment is of no value. "Every court" has not "looked" at "the issue."

Different courts have decided different issues for different reasons.

The degree of how these various courts "looked" at whatever they looked at is all different.

These courts did not all decide the same issue.

In short, we can see how your statement proves nothing.

Reality Check said...

Of course Mr. Apuzzo "every court" has looked into the arguments you have made in every eligibility case and found them to be wrong. On that account you and attorney Orly Taitz are of equal stature. Your record on standing and justicibility arguments is every bit as pathetic as your record on the merits of your losing argument on the definition of natural born citizen.

Be a man and own your record.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Reality Check,

It musts really hurt not having the backing of the U.S. Supreme Court. Face it, you just can't have it your way and I do have it mine.

Carlyle said...

Well, I see Arpaio and Zullo are to have a press conference in a couple of weeks to explain what they have found in the birth certificate investigation. As I have stated before, while appreciating Mario's focus on the legal aspects of NBC, I have always maintained that The Obama is no kind of American Citizen at all. It will be very interesting to see:

1. If Arpaio/Zullo live that long.

2. If they are otherwise "brought to their senses" and "encouraged" to cancel the report.

3. Who else is implicated in the fraud.

4. If they are able to state their results and if anybody cares?

Stay tuned. Could be very enlightening.


Rich Schaum said...

Many of us has tried to educate sheriff Joe and Mike Zullo about some very basic history notes before they pursue trying to expose criminal behavior at this level of personnel. Or they will waste their time and give to many uneducated false hopes.

1st., The Constitution has been suspended since 1933 and all on Capitol Hill know of this.
2nd., The Organic Constitution preamble states "for the united States of America.
3rd., All that have taken the oath to the Constitution since the time it has been record recite "of the United States, omitting the words of America.
4th., The words recited as the title to which the swear to as a document - do not exist anywhere In Law or At Law.
Therefore, it is all fraud and Obama and those on Capitol Hill that work for USA INC are not obligated to abide to a document that does not exist. Remember, those that work for the District of Columbia work for that district alone and that is not a part of the Continental united States of America.
Washington DC represents the Rule of Law of the Sea (Kings & Queens) not the Law of the Land, God's law or Natures Laws for the guidance in doing no harm to another Human, the Soil, the Water, the Air and all of the Creators Creations.

RodCrosby said...

I know it's not on point, and I'd have more sympathy if the Electoral College had done its duty in preventing a non-NBC from assuming office... but I'd love to hear Mario's views on the "Hamilton Electors" !

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Rod Crosby,

Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 68 explained how the nation is to elect the President of the United States. He explains that the Convention took great steps to make sure that the President is not elected through any process that is prone to intrigue and corruption. He saw the Senate electing the President as being just such a corrupt process. Rather, the Convention decided to let the people of the United States elect certain people (electors) from among the masses whose duty it would be to then in turn elect the President. The duty of these electors would be to elect that person who was best qualified in giving the nation the best government administration possible. It would take “ability and virtue” to accomplish that. The Convention felt that this special group of electors would “possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations.” What this means is that as originally conceived in the Convention, these electors are free to vote as they please to make sure that the nation elects the most “fit” person for the Office of President.

The Convention also devised that each state would have a number of electors equal to the number of Senators and Representatives that it had in the federal government. To win, a candidate for President would need a majority of all those votes across the United States. Today our 50 states combined have 538 electoral votes. That means that a majority of that number is 270. Should any one person not get a majority of those votes, the House of Representative would elect the President.

With President-Elect Donald Trump, he received presumptively 306 electoral Republican votes. He needs 270 actual electoral college votes to be elected to the Office of President. Hence, there would have to be 37 Republican electors not voting for him, in which case he would receive a total count of 269 electoral votes. In such case, he would not win the electoral college vote. If that were to happen, the House of Representatives would elect the President.

As constitutionally conceived, the Electoral College is free to vote any way it wants. The Electoral College should follow the “sense of the people” which has spoken on election day. The reason that these Republican electors are given the opportunity to elect the next President is that the people who voted for them expect them to vote for the person for whom they voted. That means that the Republican electors are expected to vote for Donald Trump. Despite this moral understanding, there may be some Republican electors who decide not to vote for Donald Trump. But personally, I do not think that that number will reach 37. Hence, while he might not get all the electoral votes that he would like to receive, Donald Trump should be able to be elected by the Electoral College and officially become the next President of the United States.

Ilíon said...

"... and officially become the next President of the United States."

And the first actual (as in, legal) president in 8 years.

roderick said...

the behavior and actions of obama right now talking about how he would have won the election had he been allowed to run a third term are exactly what Kerchner was wary of some eight years ago. These particular actions show indisputably that obama has NO caution for right and wrong. It is NOT his place to open his mouth about term limits. To put it another way. Bush and Clinton are NOT opening their collective mouths about term limits and if the term limit amendment were to be `lifted' Bush and Clinton are able to run for president again. obama talks as if he would have been the only one eligible to run for executive office at that point when NOTHING could be further from the truth. Bush v. obama and Bush is a clear winner.
Also if the Russians were involved in any `hacking' that is up to the law enforcement branch of government to come up with a solution to it. One solution might be to run the election over again assuring that NO Russian involvement takes place. But this is all a fabricated hoax by the biggest fraud of all time obama. This is what Kerchner knew instinctively was going to be taking place years ago. Basically Kerchner knew that obama is a `FRAUD'. obama still is a `FRAUD'. his wife is a `FRAUD'. he wanted to be permanently in the white house

Carlyle said...

@roderick - "he wanted to be permanently in the white house"

It is not over yet, and he is not gone

Some of us remain SERIOUSLY concerned that, one way or another, Trump will never see the inside of the white house.

At a minimum, STRANGE forces are at work. It has NEVER been like this. IMPOSSIBLE to predict what happens next.

roderick said...

By hook or by crook, obuma will be carted out of the oval office and I'm going to laugh my ass off when it happens on january 20 at noon eastern time. I know and Kerchner knew that this scumbag would try to pull this stunt 8 and 9 years ago. obuma is a communist and believes in totalitarianism. The only reason he `TRAVELS' under the democratic party is to garner their support and financial assistance. obuma is a `CON'man. The news media is part and parcel in on it too. You see what you don't understand is that obuma (correct spelling) is half kenyan. Kenyans and foreigners in general come into this country and will hold you up at gunpoint without realizing the consequences. It is this mere fact that is already on public display that obuma is `A' `kenyan' that should be Harper upon NOT `NECESSARILY' the hoax birth certificate. George Washington and Thomas Jefferson never would have allowed this man to be put on the ballot.

Unknown said...

roderick claimed:
"I know and Kerchner knew that this scumbag would try to pull this stunt 8 and 9 years ago."

No Roderick, the record shows that you were wrong. You did not predict Obama's hypothetical musing as he prepairs to leave office. You thought Obama would try to stay permanently in the White House. See, for example: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-citizen-vs-natural-born-citizen.html Obama did no such thing.

I had a different take. Seven years ago, Dr. Conspiracy ran a contest for birther jokes. I Sumbitted:

When will America finally accept that Barack Obama is constitutionally ineligible to be President?

January 20’th, 2017.


-Bryan

Carlyle said...

Wow, it has been very quiet here for well over a month!

But I must say - How remarkable it is to see how very interested
is the MSM about EVERYTHING Trump, and yet how disinterested they
were about ANYTHING Obama.

Can you imagine if there were even the slightest question or
inconsistency with Trump's background or narrative, of bona fides?
Can you imagine if Trump or any of his agents posted a demonstrably
false supporting document on an official website.

Just mind boggling.

Ilíon said...

The trouble is that only a handful of citizens care that the US Constitution be obeyed in all regards.

Carlyle said...

FWIW

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/malik-obama-shares-photo-brother-baracks-kenya-certificate-birth/

This seems to be the same one that was floating around years ago. It was "discredited" at the time by people who wanted it to be false. Of course the MSM never touched it.

Perhaps this time, there will be more interest in investigating.

ajtelles said...

Scalia said...

Hi Mario,

Larry Solum has a long article about originalism at his Legal Theory Blog:
>> http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2017/04/originalism-roundup-the-case-for-the-constraint-principle-and-much-else.html

Although Solum does not reference natural born Citizen in his post, his discussion about originalism, original intent, original public meaning, plain text meaning, etc., does give a sense about why the original intent of John Jay's "natural born Citizen" language in his short note to George Washington, the "original intent" that was adopted by the framers September 17, 1787 and eventually by the several states ratifiers as meaning ONLY singular U.S. citizenship that was possible ONLY by birth alone on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, was not a big issue for Larry Solum and Mark Levin, to name only two well known deep thinkers about constitutional issues, and so many other educated persons who are considered constitutional scholars today.

Here are two short excerpts from paragraphs 4 and 7.

Paragraph 4:

"Originalism was "dead, dead, dead." But unbeknownst to me (and almost everybody else), originalism was flourishing. A key development was the talk given by Scalia to the Office of Legal Counsel in the Department of Justice; Scalia argued that the "jurisprudence of original intent" was a dead end and urged a shift to "original public meaning" as the touchstone of originalist analysis."

[...]

Paragraph 7:

"As the intellectual infrastructure for originalism was developed in the academy, Justice Scalia continued to champion plain meaning textualism and public meaning originalism. On the statutory front, his accomplishment was monumental. One case at a time, one justice at a time, one statute at a time, Justice Scalia moved the Supreme Court's practice away from intentionalism (in its will-of-Congress form) and purposivism (the purpose the statute would have had if elected by an ideal "reasonable Congress") towards textualism."

PS:

Isn't it very interesting that absolutely NOBODY has posited the absurd theory that President Donald Trump is NOT a "natural born Citizen" BECAUSE he was born on U.S. soil to a U.S. citizen father and a naturalized U.S. citizen mother AFTER his mother naturalized.

Hmmm...

Art
http://original-genesis-original-intent.blogspot.com/

ajtelles said...

Larry Barnett vs. Larry Solum...

Hi Mario...again,

Larry Barnett has a brief response to Larry Ssolum on Barnett's Volokh Conspiracy blog on the Washington Post:

Larry Solum on “Originalism in Constitutional Time”

"My Georgetown Law colleague Lawrence Solum has an interesting post today called, Originalism in Constitutional Time, in which he discusses “the idea that constitutional possibilities are sometimes open and sometimes closed, given the configuration of politics and the jurisprudential gestalt at any given point in constitutional time.”

Read the four short paragraphs here:

>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2017/04/08/larry-solum-on-originalism-in-constitutional-time/?tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.7a3af4a722b3

What is the significance of originalism and original intent?

If words mean anything, what John Jay thought "natural born Citizen" meant in 1787 has more significance than what ANY founder or contemporary said about "nbC" after Jay died and definitely more significance than what constitutional "scholars" have written since 1787 that is contrary to what Jay meant in 1787.

Either John Jay meant that "natural born Citizen" meant

_ONLY singular U.S. citizenship
_ONLY by birth alone
_ONLY on U.S. soil
_ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents
_ONLY married to each other

or he did not.

In that case, what else could John Jay have meant?

_Born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent married to the foreign spouse?
_Born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent NOT married to the foreign spouse?
_Born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents married to each other?
_Born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents NOT married to each other?
_Born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens married to each other?
_Born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizens NOT married to each other?

Mario, I don't doubt that your blog visitors will see how absurd the alternatives to John Jays original intent are.

When the constitutional "scholars" discuss originalism and original intent when it is NOT related to a constitutional concrete event such as "natural born Citizen" meaning ONLY birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents as the foundation to the definition of singular U.S. citizenship, it is as if the "scholars" are blowing soap bubbles and exclaiming ooh aah about the color of the soap bubbles and how their shapes change before they POP!

The way that the constitutional "scholars" discuss originaism and original intent, while it has relevance as an ephemeral construct, it has absolutely zip, zero, zilch, relevance to Article II Section 1 clause 5 and John Jay's original intent for proposing that ONLY a "natural born Citizen" is qualified to sit in the Oval Office and to be commander in chief of the U.S. military.

Larry Solum, Larry Barnett, Mark Levin and everybody in Solum's Legal Theory Blog

>> http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2017/04/originalism-roundup-the-case-for-the-constraint-principle-and-much-else.html

that he adduces as significant commentators about "originalism" are insignificant. Period. They are as insignificant as high falutin' soap bubble blowers.

POP!

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

ajtelles said...

1/

1790-1795 Naturalization Act Serendipity
or
From Error in 1790 to Clarity in 1795 and 2017
or
A Compass – A Perfect Circle – John Jay – nbC


I also posted this on my Original Genesis Original Intent blog:
>> http://original-genesis-original-intent.blogspot.com/2017/05/1790-na-and-1795-na-serendipity.html

Hi Mario...again,

I wanted to clarify a couple of things in my previous comment here on your blog (April 14, 2017 at 12:46 AM) about Larry Solum and his ten articles about originalism, The Case for Originalism.

>> http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2017/04/the-case-for-originalism-links-to-all-the-posts.html

First I will clarify my previous comment, followed by a long quote about the value of a centered circle, a perfect circle drawn with a compass instead of freehand. Then I will briefly relate the centered perfect circle to John Jay and his original meaning of "natural born Citizen" and how John Jay and HIS original meaning of "nbC" is the "center" that brings understanding and "centers" the discussion without discussion of ephemeral constructs, ethereal constructs, airy constructs, vaporous constructs that like soap bubbles go POP when not attached to a concrete issue like what did John Jay mean when HE authored the phrase "natural born Citizen" in the context of eligibility to be POTUS. That is the unsatisfying aspect of reading all of Solum's originalism articles. If he had discussed something as concrete as the original intent of "natural born Citizen" instead of esoteric legal issues, which I find interesting and worth analyzing and discussing, he would probably have included the discussion in Part One: Framing the Debate, Part Four: The Fixation Thesis, and Part Five: The Argument for Originalism from the Rule of Law.

I noticed that what I wrote seems to imply that Mark Levin was mentioned in Solum's originalism articles. What I intended to say, concerning the constitutional "scholars" and their public statements about the original meaning of "natural born Citizen" is that they do not include any reference to John Jay's 1787 original meaning, and that everybody that Solum "adduces as significant commentators about 'originalism' are insignificant," for that reason, and the "insignificant" commentators includes others like Mark Levin whom Solum did NOT reference in his series of articles.

Now, they are not insignificant, and here is the clarification:

Absolutely none of the constitutional "scholars" that Solum mentions, including Solum himself, and none of the constitutional "scholars" that he does not mention, which includes Mark Levin and others, are "insignificant" as constitutional "scholars." They are "insignificant" in that their conclusions are "insignificant" when they try to define "natural born Citizen" without adducing the source of the phrase, John Jay in his July 25, 1787 note to his good friend George Washington. In fact, Solums' The Case for Originalism *, starting with the introduction, "Part One: Framing the Debate," is brilliant! After reading it people will probably say that it is excellent, so, how can Solum, whose congressional testimony endorsing the nomination of Judge Gorsuch was also excellent, be so wrong about Barack Obama being "eligible to the Office of President" when he had ONLY one U.S. citizen parent?

ajtelles said...

2/

* The Case For Originalism:
Part One: Framing the Debate
Part Two: Methods of Justification
Part Three: The Baseline Comparison of Originalism with Constitutional Eclecticism
Part Four: The Fixation Thesis
Part Five: The Argument for Originalism from the Rule of Law
Part Six: The Argument for Originalism from Legitimacy
Part Seven: Underdeterminacy and the Construction Zone
Part Eight: Some Objections to the Constraint Principle
Part Nine: The Importance of Pairwise Comparisons
Part Ten: Implementing Originalism and a Conclusion

So,, how could Solum be so excellent about Gorsuch's originalism and for that reason be fit to be a SCOTUS justice and so wrong about Obama's eligibility to be POTUS? Well, maybe because Solum was not "centered" on John Jay and Jay's "original genesis original intent" meaning about "natural born Citizen."

The point of being "centered" brings me to the quote below (p. 330-31) from Joseph Telushkin's 2016 HarperCollins softcover biography: REBBE – The Life and Teachings of Menachem M. [Mendel] Schneerson, the Most Influential Rabbi in Modern History (1902-1994).

Instead of paraphrasing this conversation between the Jewish seventh Lubavitcher Rebbe and a young student, how the Rebbe "centers" the student is relevant to how Solum, a true constitutional "scholar" and other true constitutional "scholars" like Mark Levin can become informed about John Jay's 1787 meaning of "natural born Citizen" by becoming constitutionally "centered" about "natural born Citizen" by analyzing Jay's original "nbC" phrase and how the U.S. Congress corrected their 1790 Naturalization Act "natural born Citizen" language error with their 1795 Naturalization Act "citizen" language, which is how I will finish this extended comment about my natural born Citizen "new best friend" John Jay.

(The quotes and emphases from "In the 1950s" to the end of the quote are in the original.)

In the 1950s, a nineteen-year-old student at the Lubavitch yeshiva came for a yechidus to to discuss his intention of going to college. More than three decades later, the then middle-aged man related to Rabbi Simon Jacobson the story of the encounter he had that day with the Rebbe.

"I told the Rebbe that the reason I wanted to go to college was because I felt I had done my studies in Torah and I wanted to expand my horizons." He explained that he intended to remain a Chasid but hoped a secular education and a college degree would help prepare him for a future livelihood.

After the student concluded his presentation, the Rebbe responded "Are you asking for an eitzah [advice] or a bracha [blessing]?"

The young man, perhaps sensing the response that was coming, answered, "I came in for a blessing."

"A blessing with advice is always better than one without advice." The Rebbe then proceeded to tell him, "In my opinion, you shouldn't go. You should continue your studies in yeshiva. You will be matzliach [successful] and you can be a leader in the Jewish community with that."

For the young man, the stakes were sufficiently high that he found it impossible simply to accept the Rebbe's veto of his plan. "How can the Rebbe tell me that when the Rebbe himself went to college?"

ajtelles said...

3/

"Precisely because I went to university ["I studied science on the university level from 1928 to 1932 in Berlin, and from 1934 to 1938 in Paris" (p. 318)], I know what it's about. I know the environment, and I think it will have a detrimental effect on you instead of a positive one." Seeing that the young man was still unconvinced, the Rebbe tried another tack. "Can you draw a circle?" he asked.

"Yes," the young man answered, presumably perplexed by the question.

"Can you draw a perfect circle?"

"No, I can't, not on my own."

"What would you need to draw a perfect circle?" the Rebbe pressed.

"A compass."

The Rebbe, whose interest in and aptitude for mathematics was well known, continued, "Tell me the difference between the circle you would draw on your own and the circle you would draw with a compass."

"The circle I draw on my own won't have a sturdy center around which to draw the borders, but the compass's center creates a perfect circle."

The Rebbe then elaborated: "All knowledge you'll ever learn, every experience you'll have in life, are the circles. They're not the center. If you don't have a solid center, you'll have jagged circles, incomplete circles, many different circles. I sense that you need that center before you start building your circles."

When the man, then in his fifties, related this story, he added, "I didn't listen. I went anyway." He then started to cry softly. "And I still don't have a complete circle. I have many circles, this one, that one, none complete."

Mario, this brings me to the point about Solum, Mark Levin and et. al. not being "centered" on John Jay's original intent for writing "natural born Citizen" in his short note to George Washington. They discuss everything but the central issue, or in other words, the fulcrum, John Jay's original intent and by implication, why George Washington accepted jay's language and forwarded it to the full Constitutional Convention delegates for debate and adoption, and eventual ratification by the states. Also, Jay's "centering" authority will clarify what I meant in the fourth paragraph above, "After reading it people will probably say that it is excellent, so, ... how can Solum be so wrong about Barack Obama being "eligible to the Office of President" when he had ONLY one U.S. citizen parent.' "

The students response about how to draw a perfect circle pertains, "the compass' center creates a perfect circle." John Jay and HIS understanding of "natural born Citizen" is the very center of the perfect circle, the discussion of Jay's original intent, his "originalism" defines HIS original intent, not the commentators who wrote about citizenship concerning the laws of nations or who is a citizen. The commentators ideas are the circle, but John Jay's original intent is the center where the spokes are tethered. John Jay is the "compass" and his original intent is the "center" that creates the "perfect circle" and which gives meaning to being a "natural born Citizen" and being eligible to be president as compared to being a "citizen" and not being eligible to be president.

ajtelles said...

4/

The 1790 Naturalization Act was erroneous and the 1795 Naturalization corrected the error. The serendipity is that the error and the correction reveal to us today in 2017 what "natural born Citizen" meant to the 1795 "citizen" Congress that corrected the 1790 "natural born citizen" error. Congress corrected the language of the 1790 NA to mean the same thing that John Jay meant in 1787: to be a "...natural born Citizen...eligible to the Office of President" a person must be born to two U.S. citizen married parents on U.S. soil..

In 1787 America and until the 1920s, the U.S. citizenship of the husband determined, by marriage, the citizenship status of the wife and the children born to them. If the husband was a U.S. citizen, the wife automatically acquired the U.S. citizen status of her new husband, and the child born to them on U.S. soil automatically had the same U.S. citizenship status as the father. If the husband was not a U.S. citizen and the wife was a U.S. citizen, the foreign citizenship status of the husband determined the foreign citizenship status of the new wife, and when a child was born, the foreign citizenship status of the father determined the foreign citizenship status of the child.

The language of the 1790 Naturalization Act stated that a child born to two U.S. citizen married parents on foreign soil was a U.S. "natural born citizen," implying that the child is "...eligible to the Office of President." The 1795 Naturalization Act repealed the 1790 NA language and said that a child born to two U.S. citizen married parents on foreign soil was a "citizen" only, implying that the child was NOT "...eligible to the Office of President."

The 1795 NA = 2 U.S. citizen married parents + born on foreign soil = U.S. "citizen" = NOT eligible to be POTUS. So also, a child born on foreign soil to ONLY 1 U.S. citizen parent = only a U.S. "citizen" = not eligible to be POTUS. Now, if a child born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen married parents is not eligible to be POTUS, then Senator Ted Cruz, who admits that he was born on foreign soil to only one U.S. citizen parent, is certainly not "eligible" to be POTUS.

The 1790 NA error and the 1795 NA correction serendipity = 2 U.S. citizen married parents + birth on U.S. soil = U.S. "natural born Citizen" = eligible to be POTUS = Donald J. Trump is constitutionally a "natural born Citizen" because his mother naturalized as a U.S. citizen before her son was born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents.

Also, just as a child is not eligible to be POTUS if born on foreign soil to TWO U.S citizen married parents OR born on foreign soil to only ONE U.S. citizen parent, so also, a child is not eligible to be POTUS if born on U.S. soil to only ONE U.S. citizen parent.

That is the serendipity, the unexpected discovery, that the 1790 NA error of the first congress and the 1795 NA correction by the third congress reveal to us today in 2017.

ajtelles said...

5/

The serendipity also reveals the judicial fiat error of the 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS "declaration" that a child born on U.S. soil to parents who are not U.S. citizens is a U.S. "citizen" by birth alone – "by birth alone"!? Well, since the congress did not correct the Supreme Court the decision stands until it is overturned by the court or by amendment, but it does not change the history of the 1790 NA error and the 1795 NA correction that ONLY "by birth alone" on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. citizen married parents does a child become eligible to be president. That means that U.S. Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, Gov. Bobby Jindal and Florida Senator Marco Rubio, all three are NOT eligible to be president. Since having ONLY one U.S. citizen parent disqualifies eligibility to be president, certainly ZERO U.S. citizen parents, married to each other or not, disqualifies a person from eligibility.

The serendipity reveals to us today in 2017 America why John Jay is the center of the "natural born Citizen" perfect circle for understanding Jay's 1787 original genesis and original intent. The original "genesis" is "by birth alone" on U.S. soil ONLY to TWO U.S. citizen married parents, and the original "intent" is ONLY TWO U.S. citizen married parents can pass on their singular U.S. citizenship to a child, making that child "by birth alone" a U.S. "natural born Citizen" who alone of all U.S. citizenship designations is "...eligible to the Office of President."

So, Mario, and maybe I should add Larry Solum and Mark Levin, or anybody, correct me if I am wrong in any phrase or wording or the history of the 1790 NA and the 1795 NA. I could be wrong about something, but not about the history of the two naturalization acts.

Mario, I'm not a constitutional "scholar" and everything I know about the purpose for limiting eligibility to the office of president to a "natural born Citizen" I have learned from you, mostly, and my personal study since 2008 (I got into the game late, I know) when Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio gave his March news conference about President Obama's bogus birth certificate. Even if Obama was born in a hospital in Hawaii (no hospital has published a public notice of his birth or posted a public plaque on a hospital wall since Obama became president, which tells us what the hospital administrators either know or do NOT know... which is a "tell" that Obama does not control) he has admitted that he was NOT born on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. citizen married parents.

Now, a friendly challenge to Mark Levin, a true constitutional "scholar" who challenged anybody in 2016 to a debate about the meaning of "natural born Citizen" but then would not accept those who responded because he thought they were not of high enough legal and scholarship status. Well, why did he not debate them and correct their erudition with his own erudition?

See my last comment here on your blog on July 25, 2016 at 9:43 PM where I posted Levin's refusal to follow through on his debate challenge, and where I also posted some info about all five of President Trump's children not being eligible to be president.

ajtelles said...

6/

“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 [2016].”


So, my challenge to Mark Levin or Larry Solum or anybody is simple. Respond to this extended comment, not to me personally, of course, since I am definitely not a constitutional "scholar" like Mark and Larry Solum and others are, but Mark, for example, can respond to his audience on his radio program or on his online tv program. It shouldn't take Mark very long to correct my articulation of the "serendipity" revealed by the 1795 Naturalization Act correction of the 1790 Naturalization Act error since he has stated on his radio program more than once that Sen. Ted Cruz was eligible to be president and the 1790 Naturalization Act was his proof text, and, for some reason, he never referenced the 1795 Naturalization Act.

In conclusion, Mario, here again is the Lubavitcher Rebbe's advice to the young student: "I sense that you need that center before you start building your circles."

I also "sense" that Larry Solum, Mark Levin and other constitutional "scholars" who are not informed like you are Mario, about John Jay and his original intent for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington "need that center" of Jay and HIS "natural born Citizen" original intent, HIS "public" meaning, before they start building their arguments – their "circles" – about why a person is eligible to be president with less than two U.S. citizen married parents.

See, that's how simple it would be to correct non-scholars like me and Article II Section 1 clause 5 constitutional "scholars." However, Mario, what I have learned in the five years that I have been reading your erudition on your Natural Born Citizen blog, is that I won't be found to be wrong about the history of the 1790 NA error and the 1795 NA correction and the perpetual significance of John Jay's original genesis original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen": ONLY "by birth alone" on U.S. soil to TWO U.S. citizen married parents is a person "...eligible to the Office of President."

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

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Art,

The Constitution means what is says and when what it says is not clear what the Framers and their generation meant it to say. The Constitution does not within it four corners define what a "natural born Citizen" is. Nor does it define a "Citizen of the United States." But it does provide clues and there is plenty of outside evidence which informs what meaning the Framers meant to convey through the natural born citizen clause.

As you know, I have through the years provided on this blog and in the courts evidence that the clause means a child born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. One convincing piece of evidence (and there is plenty more) is how the Third Congress, led by then-Representative James Madison, and with the approval of President George Washington, changed the citizenship treatment of children born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States. Regarding children born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States to U.S. citizen parents, the Third Congress removed from the new naturalization act any reference to them as natural born citizens. The Naturalization Act of 1790 had said that those children “shall be considered as natural born citizens.” In the 1795 Act, they said that those same children “shall be considered as citizens of the United States,” hence, not natural born citizens but rather citizens of the United States and consequently clearly disqualifying Ted Cruz from being President. Additionally, both Acts treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens themselves and in need of naturalization. Reading those Acts in tandem amply demonstrates that the only child Congress did not see a need to naturalize was one who was born in the United States to parents who were U.S. citizens. Congress did not need to naturalize that child because that child was a natural born citizen. These Acts clearly show that Congress concluded that all the rest of the people, whether born out of the territory and jurisdiction of United States to U.S. citizen parents or born in the United States to alien parents, needed to naturalize if they were to become "citizens of the United States" (not natural born citizens). Indeed, under the original definition of a natural born citizen, Barack Obama (presumably born in the United States to a U.S. citizen mother and alien father) and Marco Rubio (born in the United States to two alien parents) also both needed to naturalize in order to become citizens of the United States (not natural born citizens).

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

Ilíon said...

"The Constitution does not within it four corners define what a "natural born Citizen" is. Nor does it define a "Citizen of the United States.""

Nor does the Constitution define "State" nor "legislative Powers" nor "executive Power" nor "judicial Power", nor for that matter does it define "year". The US Constitution doesn't define most of the terms it uses -- because those terms were already understood.

ajtelles said...

1/

Dittos Mario,

For a long time I have been searching for a way to articulate the “implicit” intent in John Jay’s underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington, and then the “serendipity” revealed itself to me recently, a couple of months ago. In my previous comment here two days ago I said that I got into the game late, in 2008, but I meant 2012, the day after March 1, 2012 when Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio held his news conference about Pres. Obama’s bogus birth certificate. That means that it took me 5 years to make this unexpected discovery of the implicit meaning of Jay’s underlining “born” and the now obvious to me connection with the error of the 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” language and the correction in the 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen” language.

First, the serendipity that is revealed by the language of the 1790 and 1795 acts is that both the first congress and the third congress, with the use of the plural word “parents”, implicitly stipulated that “two” parents are required for a child to be either a U.S. “natural born Citizen” or a U.S. “citizen”.

Second, the implicit serendipity, the unexpected discovery of what is implicit in the language of the two naturalization acts, is that not only “two” parents are required, but both congresses also implicitly stipulated that “two” married parents were required for, as you have written for years, the “naturalization” of the child born on foreign soil.

Third, implicit in the ”two” married parents stipulation is that, according to both congresses, both parents were expected to be U.S. citizens AND married only to each other before the child is born on U.S. soil/jurisdiction or born on foreign soil that is not under U.S. jurisdiction.

Fourth, the serendipity about the implicit intent of the language of the two naturalization acts adds credibility to the substance of the naturalization of children that you have articulated for years. The error of the first congress that passed the 1790 NA that the third congress corrected with the 1795 NA is that the U.S. Congress has constitutional authority to naturalize a “citizen” but it does NOT have authority to naturalize a “natural born citizen”, whether the child is born on foreign soil that is not under U.S. jurisdiction or born on foreign soil that is under U.S. jurisdiction OR born on the U.S. soil of the 50 states.

To sum it up briefly, here are my recent serendipitous conclusions based on what I have learned from you since 2012 and by reading what you have written since 2008:

1790 Naturalization Act
Two married parents – both U.S. citizens – before the child is born on foreign soil that is not under U.S. jurisdiction = the naturalization error – the child is a U.S. “natural born citizen”.

1795 Naturalization Act
Two married parents – both U.S. citizens – before the child is born on foreign soil that is not under U.S. jurisdiction = the naturalization correction – the child is a U,S. “citizen”.

ajtelles said...

2/

The serendipity derived from the two naturalization acts and connected to John Jay underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” in his note to Washington is that John Jay knew that the common law of the 1700s meant that in 1787 America ”by marriage” the U.S. citizenship of the husband determined the U.S. citizenship of the wife, whether she was foreign born or U.S. born, and the singular U.S. citizenship of BOTH married parents determined the U.S. citizenship of the child. By underling the word “born” Jay implied that in 1700s America two U.S. citizen married parents, married only to each other, are the common sense requirement for a child to be, “by birth alone” a “natural born Citizen” and “...eligible to the Office of President”, and that, as wJay rote in his note, the “command in chief” authority should NOT “devolve” on anybody except a “natural born Citizen” who is also ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, etc., and the implication continues generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS.

In conclusion, Mario, do you remember the Englishman Mr. Vaughn who asked Jay to administer "... an oath of allegiance to the United States" and your response? I’ll put just my intro comment and your intro comment response here:

ajtelles said...
"Unity of citizenship ...

"Mario, here is a brief letter from John Jay to a person called Del Campo about an Englishman named Mr. Vaughn who wanted to become a U.S. naturalized citizen, and who asked Jay, who was in Madrid, Spain in 1781, prior to the signing of the 1783 Treaty of Paris by John Jay, Benjamin Franklin, and John Adams, to administer the oath of naturalization [correction: oath of allegiance].

"This indicates that in the late 1781, six years before the adoption of the September 17, 1787 U.S. Constitution, the common law understanding of John Jay about the "unity of citizenship and allegiance" was that the citizenship of the husband determined the citizenship of the wife, AND the citizenship of BOTH parents determined the citizenship of the child."

[...]

ajtelles said...

3/

"Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...
"Art,

"I of II

"Thank you for sharing with us such a great find. I have the following comments on that letter of John Jay, the father of the natural born citizen clause.

"Jay’s letter to De Campo, Confidential Secretary to Florida Blanca at the Spanish Court, was written by Jay on November 3, 1781, before Congress passed its first naturalization act, the Naturalization Act of 1790. Jay’s letter goes to prove two things.

"First, the letter confirms that at common law a child born out of the United States (John Vaughan was born in England) to an alien father (British) who married a U.S. citizen mother was neither a natural born citizen nor a citizen of the United States. I assume that Mr. Vaughan’s parents were married from the tone of Jay’s letter. The letter shows that central figures of the Founding era were following the maxim partus sequitur patrem (children follow the condition or citizenship of the “father,” which under the doctrine that wives took on the citizenship of their husbands meant “parents.”) Hence, under the common law, born out of the United States to a citizen mother and an alien father was not sufficient to be accepted as a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen. "

[...]

For those who want to read your entire response, here are the time stamps of my two posts on June 19, 2014 at 12:23 AM and June 19, 2014 at 10:30 AM and your response on June 19, 2014 at 8:24 PM, and the url link to your original 2013 post – The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause: A Response to Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter.

Here is the url to the original source for Jay’s letter:
>> http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2328&layout=html

Here is the url on your blog:
>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=13

PS. Mario,

For Mark Levin, or anybody, to rebut and refute your eleven years of commentary about the constitutional meaning of natural born citizen, all they need to do is center their opening argument on the center point of the perfect circle – John Jay and his original genesis original intent. So, is Sen. Ted Cruz a "citizen" or a "natural born citizen" is a question with only one answer, that it seems to me, was implicitly dealt with by John Jay and implicitly by the third congresses 1790 Naturalization Act "citizen" correction of the first congresses 1790 Naturalization Act "natural born citizen" error.

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

ajtelles said...

1/

Dittos 2 Debates...

Mario,

On May 31, 2017 at 7:53 AM you wrote:

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

Mario, if Mark Levin never accepts your offer to debate him, Georgetown Law Professor Larry Solum might be an alternative, although, being a classroom educator, the professor might not be as combative as Levin definitely could be, as Levin's phone responses to irritant callers who challenge him indicate, "get off my phone you big dope".

I would prefer Levin because, if he follows through on his challenge to all comers, he definitely needs to clarify his radio declarations that Sen. Cruz is a "natural born citizen" because his proof text, the 1790 Naturalization Act "natural born citizen" language, says that a child born to "parents", implying TWO U.S. citizen married parents, on foreign soil is a "natural born citizen", and so that is why Sen. Cruz, born on foreign soil to only ONE U.S. citizen parent is a "natural born citizen" and "...eligible to the Office of President."

Levin also needs to explain why he ignores the 1795 Naturalization Act "citizen" language which he knows, being a constitutional scholar and all, he knows that what has been repealed by the congress, i.e., by statute, does not pertain. Does Levin not know that the U.S. Congress can "naturalize" a "citizen" but it cannot "naturalize" with positive law language a "natural born Citizen", which, as written in Article II Section 1 clause 5 of the constitution, can only be changed by amendment? Of course Levin knows that basic constitutional vs. Legislative issue, right?

So, Mario, if (if "if" is the right word), if Levin never responds to your challenge to a debate at William and Mary, Professor Solum may be a viable alternative, he being a constitutional scholar, and all, as his series on originalism, , shows.

>> http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2017/04/the-case-for-originalism-links-to-all-the-posts.html

>> His twitter url is https://twitter.com/lsolum

All Professor Solum needs to do is clarify why he wrote two opposing conclusions in 2010: "Anyone born on American soil whose parents [plural = two – implying married to each other] are citizens of the United States is a 'natural born citizen'," and in an updated version he wrote "[b]ased on my reading of the historical sources, there is no credible case that a person born on American soil with one American parent was clearly not a 'natural born "citizen.' "

ajtelles said...

2/

Mario, on Wednesday, May 19, 2010 you wrote about Professor Solum in an article titled, A U.S. Constitution Article II “natural born Citizen” Is Not the Same As an English Common Law “natural born subject” .

This is your blog link to your article
>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-is-not.html

Paragraph 13:
"Solum continues in his essay: "Both Jay and Wilson’s opinions suggest that usage in the founding era reflected a significant conceptual distinction between the words “subject” and “citizen”—a distinction that was strongly associated with the ideas about the nature of sovereignty. The term “citizen” reflects the notion that individual citizens are sovereign in a republic, whereas the term “subject” reflects feudal and monarchical conceptual of the monarch as sovereign and the individual as the subject, owing a duty of allegiance and duty to the monarch. This conceptual distinction may be relevant to the original understanding of the phrase “natural born citizen” which was used instead of “natural born subject,” the phrase that served as a term of art in English legal usage. The notion of a natural born subject may reflect a feudal understanding of political obligation: those born in the kingdom owed a natural duty of allegiance to their king and were his natural subjects. Given a republic theory of popular sovereignty, citizens are sovereign and the notion of a “natural born subject” would be anathema. This leaves a gap in the theory of citizenship—a gap that the Constitution fills with the concept of a natural born citizen.” Id. at 10-11."

Paragraph 14the blog has the hot links to Solum's 2010 essays:
"In his earlier version of this essay, Solum stated: “Anyone born on American soil whose parents are citizens of the United States is a "natural born citizen." In this updated version, Solum explains that some readers misread what he wrote. Now he concludes that “[b]ased on my reading of the historical sources, there is no credible case that a person born on American soil with one American parent was clearly not a “natural born citizen.” I agree with Solum’s previous statement but disagree with his current one. See my essay entitled, The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birth for my reasons. Additionally, Solum does not cite what those “historical sources” are. What is also strange is that while the debate over Obama’s “natural born Citizen” status is currently raging, Solum, while now taking a position which benefits Obama does not even acknowledge that the issue exists. His essay is all about analyzing the eligibility of John McCain who was born in Panama to two United States citizen parents who were in military service which circumstances present a more defensible case per Vattel Sec. 217 than that of Obama whose place of birth has not been confirmed and who was born in 1961 to only one United States citizen parent (18 years old at the time of his birth)."

So, Mario, batter up! Put up or, uh, "get off my phone", or uh, professor, but, you said...

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

ajtelles said...

1/

Natural Born Citizen Debates

Mario Apuzzo, David Ramsay, Emer de Vattel
vs.
Mark Levin, Larry Solum, Robert Natelson


Mario,

After posting the previous comment today (June 2, 2017 at 12:38 PM) about debates with Mark Levin and Professor Larry Solum I remembered Professor Robert Natelson, author of The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant, 3rd Edition, published in 2014. He did not add anything to the text of the 2nd Edition published in 2011, but he did add footnote #25 about Emer de Vattel and how Vattel "clarified" what he meant by “parents”. After the quote from Natelson’s book about Emer de Vattel is your quote about David Ramsay that Natelson should be asked about to clarify what he, Natelson, meant about Vattel’s clarification.

Professor Rob Natelson

"...Vattel wrote of citizenship following "parents," at several later points he clarified that, as in England, foreign-born children followed the status of their fathers."

On pages 147-48 Natelson explains what the language of the U.S. Constitution in Article II Section 1 clause 5 "...actually said and meant"; the footnote is on page 148:

"The Constitution imposed certain qualifications on the President. The Constitution implied, although it did not state explicitly until adoption of the Twelfth Amendment, that the same qualifications applied to the Vice President. Both had to be at least 35 years old, which was a significant requirement in an age in which even people who survived childhood often did not live beyond their 50s. The idea was to better assure a certain amount of maturity and wisdom. Also, both had to have resided within the country for the previous fourteen years.

"Most importantly, the President and Vice President had to be natural-born citizens or citizens at the time of ratification. We know exactly what the founders meant by the phrase "natural-born citizen" because they adapted it from the English legal term, "natural born subject," which in Britain defined who could serve in Parliament or the Privy Council(25). Essentially, a natural-born citizen was one who met either one of two requirements. First, a person qualified if born within the United States or within American territory, even if the person's parents were aliens. Alternatively, an individual qualified even if born outside the country if the individual's father was an American citizen not then engaged in traitorous or felonious activities.

"These birth and residence requirements were designed better to assure that these officers were truly sympathetic to those they were to govern, and to guard against the risk that they might be sympathetic to a foreign power(26).

"There was no constitutional requirement that a President or Vice President be male. The pronoun "he" used throughout the Constitution was generic(27)."
__________
"(25)Since the publication of the first edition, several readers have contacted me to argue that "natural born" should be defined as Emer Vattel defined it in his international law treatise. Invariably their argument is driven by hope that Vattel's definition, if applied, would disqualify from the presidency some politician they dislike.

"The Constitution's meaning does not, however, depend on one's political hopes. The document generally employed domestic legal terms according to English usage.

ajtelles said...

2/

As Vattel acknowledged, the English standard for "natural born" varied from the international standard with respect to children born within the country; as to children born outside the country, the rules were the same. (Although at one point in his book Vattel wrote of citizenship following "parents," at several later points he clarified that, as in England, foreign-born children followed the status of their fathers.)”

David Ramsay

Mario, here is a short snippet of your comment about David Ramsay, and the url on your blog for those who want to read it all:
>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/07/july-4-1776-birth-day-of-nation-and.html

”Here we have direct and convincing evidence of how a very influential Founder defined a natural born citizen. Noah Webster, 1828, in explaining how an American dictionary of the English language was necessary because American words took on different meanings than the same word in England, placed David Ramsay among great Founders such as “Franklin, Washington, Adams, Jay, Madison, Marshall, Ramsay, Dwight, Smith, Trumbull...”

[...snip...]

“In giving us this definition, it is clear that Ramsay did not follow the English common law but rather natural law, the law of nations, and Emer de Vattel, who also defined the “natives, or natural-born citizen” the same as did Ramsay in his highly acclaimed and influential treatise, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, Section 212 (1758 French) (1759 English).

”We can reasonably assume that the other Founders and Framers would have defined a natural born citizen the same way that Ramsay did, ....

[...snip...]

”It is valuable because it is evidence of the public meaning of these terms at the time they were framed and ratified."

In conclusion, Mario, for those who may wonder why the definition of natural born Citizen is so important I have very simple questions. Which words of the U.S. Constitution are NOT important? Were the words of the First Amendment intended to be temporary or perpetual? How about the Second Amendment? Was the “...the security of a free state” intended to be temporary or perpetual? Was John Jay’s statement in his note to George Washington that the “command in chief” should “devolve” ONLY on a “natural born Citizen” and “...eligibility to the Office of President” intended to be temporary or perpetual, generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS?

Well, Mario, you have written that are ready to debate, so, Mark Levin, Larry Solum, Robert Natelson and et al., who will be the first to tap the plate? Batter up!

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com

Ilíon said...

"... his proof text, the 1790 Naturalization Act "natural born citizen" language, says that a child born to "parents", implying TWO U.S. citizen married parents, on foreign soil is a "natural born citizen" ..."

Actually, the 1790 Act doesn't say that such a person *is* a "natural born citizen", but that he shall be treated as though he were. The Act is, after all, a naturalization act.

Ilíon said...

"and in an updated version he wrote "[b]ased on my reading of the historical sources, there is no credible case that a person born on American soil with one American parent was clearly not a 'natural born "citizen.' ""

Oddly enough, that was just what was at issue in the dispute over whether Chester A. Arthur was or was not a natural born citizen.

ajtelles said...

the meaning of the word "is"

You observation about "as though" being a naturalization phrase is correct llion.

Actually, the "is" word is a reference to Mark Levin's language during the 2016 election season about the eligibility status of Sen. Cruz.

Of course, Levin was not being specific with his words, simply stating that he thought that because Sen. Cruz had at least one U.S. citizen parent he was and "is" a natural born citizen" and eligible to be president.

Art

Unknown said...

Ilíon wrote:
"Actually, the 1790 Act doesn't say that such a person *is* a 'natural born citizen', but that he shall be treated as though he were. The Act is, after all, a naturalization act."

The part of the act at issue reads:

"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 [...]" -- First United States Congress, 'An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization', 26 March 1790

If we read the entire act -- and it's just one paragraph long -- we see that it uses the same 'shall be considered as' language in two other places:

"[...] 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." -- ibid

Does that mean, as Ilíon's theory would have it, that aliens who naturalized and their minor children were not really citizens, but should be treated as though they were? Of course that's just silly. The 'shall be considered as' phrasing was common terminology in legislation of the time to declare status under law.

Unknown said...

Ilíon quoted Ajtelles quoting Professor Lawrence B. Solum:
"[b]ased on my reading of the historical sources, there is no credible case that a person born on American soil with one American parent was clearly not a 'natural born citizen.'"

Then Ilíon followed:
"Oddly enough, that was just what was at issue in the dispute over whether Chester A. Arthur was or was not a natural born citizen."

Ilíon, can you back up your claim with any citation from the time?

What little dispute of Arthur's eligibility I can find was based on the theory that Arthur was born in Canada. See: A.P. Hinman, /How a British Subject Became President of the United States/, (New York, 1884).

One might expect that Breckinridge Long, writing 30 years after Arthur's death, would question Arthur's eligibility under the same theory than Long advanced against Charles Evans Hughes. Long did not. There's no sign that he was aware of any dispute over Arthur's eligibility. Long's essay mentions Arthur one time, in quoting "President Arthur" as an authority. See: "IS MR. CHARLES EVANS HUGHES A 'NATURAL BORN CITIZEN' WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION? A Legal Examination of the Subject by Breckinridge Long, of the St. Louis Bar.", Chicago Legal News, Vol. 146-148, pp. 220-222, 1916.

Not until late in 2008 do we find anyone questioning Chester Arthur's eligibility on the basis of his father's lack of U.S. citizenship. See: https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2008/12/06/urgent-historical-breakthrough-proof-chester-arthur-concealed-he-was-a-british-subject-at-birth/
If I'm wrong on that, please cite.

In the archives of this blog, our host, Mario Apuzzo Esq., first mentioned Arthur's case in an article dated 26 Dec 2008. Esquire Apuzzo noted the question of place of birth, but nothing, at that time, about Arthur's father's citizenship. See: http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2008/12/obamas-personal-right-to-privacy-cannot.html

-Bryan

Ilíon said...

^ Anyone who has followed these threads understands that 'Unknown' is intellectually dishonest: he is worse than a mere liar, for a mere liar lies about some fact or other, but an intellectually dishonest person lies about the very nature of truth and of reason.

Consider this lie: "Does that mean, as Ilíon's theory would have it, that aliens who naturalized and their minor children were not really citizens, but should be treated as though they were? Of course that's just silly."

Now, consider some truth --

Can the State, or its agents, revoke or cancel the citizenship of a real citizen? No.

Can the State, or its agents, revoke or cancel the citizenship of a naturalized citizen? Yes.

ERGO, a naturalized citizen is not *really* a citizen; rather, he is an alien whom we have granted the privileged of being treated as though he were a citizen.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

After almost 9 years, Unknown ( a/k/a NotLinda/brygenon/Bryan Gene Olson/Bryan) still does not understand the meaning of the naturalization language “shall be considered as natural born citizens” when used in a naturalization Act of Congress.

Consider that General George Washington met the foreign-born Marquis de Lafayette in Philadelphia at a dinner on August 5, 1777. Lafayette eventually became a member of Washington's staff, although it was not clear what his status was. While he considered himself a full commander to whom Washington would give control of a division when Washington deemed him prepared, Congress regarded his commission only as honorary. Washington told Lafayette that while he considered him as a “friend and father,” he could not give him a division because he was of foreign birth. David Clary, Adopted Son: Washington, Lafayette, and the Friendship that Saved the Revolution 100 (2007).

Further consider that the State of Maryland, to show its appreciation for what the Marquis de Lafayette did for the revolutionary cause, in December 1784 declared Lafayette and “his Heirs male forever” as “natural born Citizens” of the state of Maryland. Designated as Chapter XII, it was one of the laws passed at a session of the General Assembly of Maryland which began on November 1, 1784, and ended on January 22, 1785. It reads as follows:

Chap. XII

An Act to naturalize major-general the marquis de la Fayette and his heirs male for ever.

I. Whereas the general assembly of Maryland, anxious to perpetuate a name dear to the state, and to recognize the marquis de la Fayette for one of its citizens, who, at the age of 19, left his native country, and risked his life in the late revolution; who, on his joining the American army, after being appointed by congress to the rank of major-general, disinterestedly refused the usual rewards of command, and fought only to deserve what he attained, the character of patriot and soldier; who, when appointed to conduct an incursion into Canada, called forth by his prudence and extraordinary discretion the approbation of congress; who, at the head of an army in Virginia, baffled the manoeuvres of a distinguished general, and excited the admiration of the oldest commanders; who early attracted the notice and obtained the friendship of the illustrious general Washington; and who laboured and succeeded in raising the honour and the name of the United States of America:

Therefore,

II. Be it enacted, by the general assembly of Maryland, That the marquis de la Fayette, and his heirs male for ever, shall be, and they and each of them are hereby deemed, adjudged, and taken to be, natural born citizens of this state, and shall henceforth be entitled to all the immunities, rights and privileges, of natural born citizens thereof, they and every of them conforming to the constitution and laws of this state, in the enjoyment and exercise of such immunities, rights and privileges.

Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Virginia also granted him citizenship.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

With Maryland having naturalized Lafayette to be a citizen of Maryland in 1784, he could be taken to be a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” (1787). Lafayette was not, however, really a “natural born Citizen” of Maryland or of any state. Hence, he was also not nor could he be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States. Lafayette was born in France to non-U.S. citizen parents. Washington would not give him a division because he was of foreign birth. Surely, he was not a natural born citizen. But still, Maryland naturalized him through a naturalization act to be “deemed, adjudged, and taken to be” a natural born citizen of Maryland. John Jay in 1787 wrote to General Washington that the powers and office of the Commander in Chief should not devolve upon anyone who was not a “natural born citizen.” With the status of “Citizen of the United States” having been grandfather by Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, that requirement did not disqualify Lafayette from being eligible to be President, but it did disqualify anyone born after the adoption of the Constitution who did not meet the original definition of a natural born citizen, i.e., born in a country to parents who were its citizens, from being eligible to be President.

Lafayette, upon meeting other eligibility requirements of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, could have been eligible to be elected President. He was a citizen of the United States at the time of adoption of the Constitution, but he was not a natural born citizen. Under Bryan’s incorrect understanding of the phrase “shall be considered as natural born citizens” as used by the First Congress in the Naturalization Act 1790, he would advance the absurd notion based on the State of Maryland considering him a “natural born Citizen” of Maryland that Lafayette was a “natural born Citizen” of the United States.

Unknown said...

Ilíon insults me, then writes:
"""
Now, consider some truth --

Can the State, or its agents, revoke or cancel the citizenship of a real citizen? No.

Can the State, or its agents, revoke or cancel the citizenship of a naturalized citizen? Yes.
"""

Wrong. Under U.S. law the State may not revoke any citizen's status without a voluntary expatriating act by the citizen. Upon an expatriating act an American may lose his or her citizenship regardless of whether natural-born or naturalized.

In Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down as unconstitutional a statute that removed citizenship from naturalized individuals who returned to their native country and resided there for three years or more. The Court, in stark disagreement with Ilion's theory, rejected such discrimination between native and naturalized citizens.

"We start from the premise that the rights of citizenship of the native born and of the naturalized person are of the same dignity, and are coextensive. The only difference drawn by the Constitution is that only the 'natural born' citizen is eligible to be President. Art. II, § 1." -- Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U.S. 163 (1964)

"A native-born citizen is free to reside abroad indefinitely without suffering loss of citizenship. The discrimination aimed at naturalized citizens drastically limits their rights to live and work abroad in a way that other citizens may. It creates indeed a second-class citizenship." -- ibid

The precedent of Schneider v. Rusk was arguably narrowed in Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971), but only when the condition on which citizenship depends was stated in the act that naturalized the person.


Ilíon wrote:
"ERGO, a naturalized citizen is not *really* a citizen; rather, he is an alien whom we have granted the privileged of being treated as though he were a citizen."

I find that notion antithetical to American ideals, and, for personal reasons, disgusting. Fortunately it is also just plain wrong on the law. From long before Rogers v. Bellei, our highest court recognized subtle questions of citizenship, and concluded that immigrants really are citizens:

"A naturalized citizen is indeed made a citizen under an act of Congress, but the act does not proceed to give, to regulate, or to prescribe his capacities. He becomes a member of the society, possessing all the rights of a native citizen, and standing, in the view of the constitution, on the footing of a native. The constitution does not authorize Congress to enlarge or abridge those rights. The simple power of the national Legislature, is to prescribe a uniform rule of naturalization, and the exercise of this power exhausts it, so far as respects the individual." -- Osborn v. Bank of United States, 22 US 738 (1824)


I try not to put people on position they did not actually take. When I recently wrote, "as Ilíon's theory would have it, that aliens who naturalized and their minor children were not really citizens", I examined his argument pretty closely before stating that conclusion. Now he writes, "ERGO, a naturalized citizen is not *really* a citizen". I'm happy to see confirmation that I did *not* misrepresent Ilíon's position.

David Lassing said...

Hi Mario,

What about Lafayette's male heirs? By the Maryland act his male heirs are forever natural born citizens of the state of Maryland. And it doesn't say anything about where they are born. So if he had a male heir that was born in France, the heir would be a natural born citizen of Maryland. Could someone be a natural born citizen of a state and not be a natural born citizen of the United States?

Unknown said...

Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:
"Under Bryan’s incorrect understanding of the phrase 'shall be considered as natural born citizens' as used by the First Congress in the Naturalization Act 1790, he would advance the absurd notion based on the State of Maryland considering him a 'natural born Citizen' of Maryland that Lafayette was a 'natural born Citizen' of the United States."

I would advance no such thing. Mr. Apuzzo botched it. The general assembly of Maryland spoke only for Maryland.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

It's the meaning of the language that you advance, Mr. Olsen, that is the issue. That Maryland only spoke for Maryland does not negate what meaning the First Congress gave to "shall be considered as natural born citizens." Maryland still used the similar language as did the First Congress which shows that you are wrong in telling us what Congress intended in the Naturalization Act of 1790 when it said "shall be considered as natural born citizens." If you were right, then the Marquis Lafayette would also be a natural born citizen which we know he was not.

Unknown said...

"It's the meaning of the language that you advance, Mr. Olsen, that is the issue. That Maryland only spoke for Maryland does not negate what meaning the First Congress gave to 'shall be considered as natural born citizens.' Maryland still used the similar language"

Indeed Maryland's language, "deemed, adjudged, and taken to be", is similar to the First Congress's, "shall be considered as", in that both declare status under law. Had the Maryland General Assembly enacted a statue reserving some opportunity for natural-born citizens of Maryland, I think Lafayette would have a case for eligibility, possibly subject to some question based on the honorary and ceremonial nature of act granting Lafayette citizenship.

What you wrote of me last time, Mr. Apuzzo, was false: "he [Bryan] would advance the absurd notion based on the State of Maryland considering him a 'natural born Citizen' of Maryland that Lafayette was a 'natural born Citizen' of the United States." No, I would not.

My argument against taking the First Congress' "shall be considered as" to mean "not really" was based use of the phrase elsewhere, including the very same act stating that upon the proper procedure, naturalizing aliens shall be considered as citizens of the united states. Ilion responded to my argument, stating: "a naturalized citizen is not *really* a citizen". You Mr. Apuzzo, did not respond to my argument there.

What's your position on that, Mr. Apuzzo? Is a naturalized citizen *really* a citizen?

ajtelles said...

Natural Born Citizen Debates – Redux

Mario Apuzzo, David Ramsay, Emer de Vattel
vs.
Mark Levin, Larry Solum, Robert Natelson & Akhil Amar


Mario,

I have another suggestion for a heavy hitter “natural born citizen” debate opponent for you, Yale Law Professor Akhil Reed Amar, However, if his page 38 footnote inserted into his 2008 Slate.com essay in his last book is an indicator, you don’t stand a chance... cough, cough, of staying awake.

After the quote from my previous comment here on June 2, 2017 at 8:18 PM about Prof. Robert Natelson being added to the opposition’s natural born citizen debate roster to “clarify what he, Natelson, meant about Vattel’s clarification about “parents”, there are some comments by Yale Law Prof. Akhil Reed Amar from his 2016 book incorporating his essays, The Constitution Today – Timeless Lessons for the Issues of Our Era. My suggestion is that Prof. Amar should be included in the debate roster of those who propose that dual U.S./foreign citizenship is the original genesis original intent of Article II Section 1 clause 5and the Fourteenth Amendment, and that dual U.S./foreign citizenship is sufficient for a person to be “...eligible to the Office of President”.

To put it another way, Yale Law Prof. Amar should be included in the list of debaters against you on the side of the opposition who promote the shallow proposition that dual U.S./foreign citizenship parents, married or unmarried to each other, can produce a singular U.S. citizenship child, aka a natural born citizen, “by birth alone”. Also, to add to my debate suggestion against the proposition that dual U.S./foreign citizenship is sufficient to be eligible to be president, and contrary to Prof. Amar’s comments below (see “relevant congressional statute conferred birth-based American citizenship” in footnote 38 below), citizenship by positive law is NOT citizenship by “birth” alone and positive law should NOT be adduced in opposition to the proposition that a “natural born Citizen” is by “birth” alone and so is the ONLY U.S. citizen eligible to be president. If Levin, Solum, Natelson, and Amar will stipulate that positive law (“conferring”) is not the solution to clarifying natural law (“birth”), then the concomitant proposition follows that a “citizen” by positive law should NOT be adduced into the debate to define the meaning of “natural born Citizen” if eligibility to be president can be ONLY by “birth” alone.

My point is that all that Levin, Solum, Natelson, Amar and pinch hitters/debaters et al. need to do is persuade us today, and, in absentia of course, John Jay, George Washington, 100% of the delegates who adopted the language of the Constitution on September 17, 1787 and eventually 100% of the ratifiers of the several states, which includes ratifier John Jay from New York, that when John Jay suggested on July 25, 1787 in his note to George Washington that military “command” should not “devolve” on anyone but a “natural born Citizen”, the dual U.S./foreign citizenship is sufficient to be “...eligible to the Office of President” proponents need to clarify why Jay did NOT mean that eligibility to be president was derived exclusively by
nesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com

ajtelles said...

2/

– ONLY singular U.S. citizenship; and
– ONLY “by birth alone”; and
– ONLY by birth to two U.S. citizen married parents; and
– ONLY married to each (NOT multiple wives as with Muslims); and
– ONLY before the birth of the child.

Also, in addition to what Jay did NOT mean exclusively in 1787 America, those who oppose ONLY singular U.S. citizenship need to persuade us today in 2017 America that Jay ALSO meant (and George Washington tacitly agreed when he passed Jay’s suggestion to the convention delegates) that “natural born Citizen” also meant, or, at least, “could” have meant, as the 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” language implied until corrected by the 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen” language, that eligibility to be president could be derived by those

1 – born on U.S. soil to only one U.S. citizen parent, married or not to the reproductive partner,
OR
2 – born on foreign soil to either two OR one U.S. citizen parent, married or not to the reproductive partner,
OR
3 – born on U.S. soil to ZERO U.S. citizen parents, married or not to the reproductive partner.

Number 3 is the absurd conclusion of the U.S. citizen parents are not necessary fiat decision of the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark court that Levin, Solum, Natelson, and Amar, who, as proponents of dual U.S./foreign citizenship, are really proposing a shallow legal assumption about the legal meaning of “natural born Citizen” in Article II Section 1 clause 5 that leads to the equally shallow conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment is constitutional authority for plop-and-drop “anchor babies” born on U.S. soil to alien parents and U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, Gov. Bobby Jindal, and Sen. Marco Rubio, also born on U.S. soil to alien parents, are “...eligible to the Office of President”.

Mario, all Levin, Solum, Natelson, and Amar and et al. need to do is persuade themselves first and then us that Jay was totally inclusive and not exclusive when he underlined the word “born” in his “natural born Citizen” note to Washington.

Simple, huh? That’s all they need to do.

For context about Prof. Amar, here is my previous comment about including Prof. Natelson into your debate roster.

“After posting the previous comment today (June 2, 2017 at 12:38 PM) about debates with Mark Levin and Professor Larry Solum I remembered Professor Robert Natelson, author of The Original Constitution: What It Actually Said and Meant, 3rd Edition, published in 2014. He did not add anything to the text of the 2nd Edition published in 2011, but he did add footnote #25 about Emer de Vattel and how Vattel "clarified" what he meant by “parents”. After the quote from Natelson’s book about Emer de Vattel is your quote about David Ramsay that Natelson should be asked about to clarify what he, Natelson, meant about Vattel’s clarification.”

Now, here are some of Prof. Amar’s comments related to why a “citizen” with only one U.S. citizen parent (see page 38 footnote below) is eligible to be president. He states on pages 4 and 5 that his book is composed of his essays: “The essays are organized by subject matter so that the reader may see the larger patterns of argument that run through them. … To preserve the integrity of the historical record, I’ve used this book’s footnotes and endnotes to identify all important substantive changes.”

ajtelles said...

3/

Mario, to me this statement about “substantive changes”, specifically his long footnote on page 38 about a “citizen” who is “...eligible to the Office of President” (my words), means that his footnote is all he thought was needed to deal with the “hullabaloo” about the “presidential eligibility” of then Senator Obama in 2008 and Senator Cruz in 2016.

Although “natural born citizen” is on page 36 in the text, the Index does not list “natural born citizen”, “natural”, “born”, or “citizen”, but it does list “citizenship rights, 406; birthright citizenship, 38(fn); detention of an “enemy combatant,” 207-208; Obama and Cruz’s presidential eligibility, 38(fn); presidential qualifications, 36, 263”. All empheses are in the original.

Page 36[-37]
– Slate essay: The Constitution and the Candidates (2008)
– presidential eligibility”

“Consider next the Constitution’s rule that the president be “a natural born citizen”—a rule that focuses not on where a person becomes a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date. At the Founding, a special constitutional clause provided that even those who had not been citizens at birth could nevertheless become president, if they were citizens circa 1787. Thus, Alexander Hamilton, born in the West Indies, was clearly eligible. All those already in America in 1787 could be trusted; but the framers fretted that an Old World earl or duke might someday sail across the Atlantic with a boatload of gold and bribe his way into the presidency. (Rumor had it that George III’s second son, the Bishop of Osnaburgh, would soon head this way.) Thus, the “natural-born” clause’s main target of concern was not immigrants generally, but wealthy European aristocrats who might wreak havoc in an America lacking strong campaign finance laws.

“The Constitution’s final requirement—fourteen years of U.S. residence—also focused on transoceanic travel and made clear that loyal Americans who had spent years or even decades abroad were nonetheless welcome to pursue the American presidency. (The document pointedly did not require decades of continuous and uninterrupted residence in the U.S.) ….”

[...snip… to page 37]

“Later amendments have further opened the door of eligibility. Nothing at the Founding required that state election laws give equal treatment to black or female voters or office seekers. The Constitution’s Fifteenth and Nineteenth Amendments corrected these Founding lapses, promising blacks and women the rights to vote and to be voted for as full political equals.”

Page 38 footnote
– Slate essay: The Constitution and the Candidates (2008)
– “birthright citizenship” & “Obama and Cruz’s presidential eligibility”

[After a short comment in the text about Sen. John McCain, the footnote that references the “hullabaloo” about natural born citizen – “hullabaloo” ??? – starts with “extra information for readers interested...”. A question for Prof. Amar: Is this long footnote the best that Prof. Amar, being a constitutional scholar and all that implies, like constitutional scholars Levin, Solum, and Natelson, is this footnote the best Prof. Amar can do… after eight years dealing with the “nbC” “hullabaloo”?]

ajtelles said...

4/

[...the brackets [] below in the next paragraph are in the page 38 footnote]

“[Extra information for readers interested in the more recent hullabaloo about Obama’s birth certificate and the questions raised about Ted Cruz’s presidential eligibility: Cruz is eligible even though he was undeniably born in Canada. At the time of his birth, the relevant congressional statute conferred birth-based American citizenship on any foreign-born baby who had at least one parent who was a U.S. citizen, so long as that parent had met certain conditions of extensive prior physical presence in the United States. On the day of his birth, Cruz’s mother was a U.S. citizen, even though his father was not; and his mother also met the relevant rules of extensive prior physical presence. Why then, would Obama have been any different even if he had been born in Kenya, as has been (preposterously but repeatedly) claimed by various critics, led by Donald Trump? Like Cruz, Obama’s mother was a U.S. citizen on the day of his birth, even though, like Cruz, his father was not. And nothing in the relevant congressional statute treats a Kenyan birth as any different from a Canadian birth. The answer to this puzzle is that the congressional law on the books when Obama was born required a foreign-born child to have at least one citizen parent who had been physically present in the United States at least five years after age fourteen. Obama’s mother did not clear this bar because she was only eighteen when she gave birth. So this birth had to happen in the United States to make her son a citizen at birth. Of course this birth did in actual fact happen in the United States—in the state of Hawaii—and except for the children of foreign diplomats, anyone born these days in the United States is a birthright citizen under the Constitution itself, whether or not the baby’s parents are themselves citizens. (This birthright citizenship is the clear command of the first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment, see pp. 230-245.) For this law on the books on Obama’s birthday, see Act of June 27, 1952, 66 Stat. 235-36; Title III, ch. 1, section 301(a)(7). For on the meaning of “natural born” see p. 42 n. 14.]”

Page 207-208
– New Republic essay: Go Directly To Jail
– “enemy combatant”

“Question 5: What difference does it make that Padilla[*] is an American?

[* Jose Padilla, aka Abdullah al-Muhajir is a U.S. citizen, and is simply being “detained” as a “soldier”. The Arabic “abdullah” means “slave of Allah”]

“…. But the government is not (yet) charging Padilla with a crime. For now, they are simply treating him as a soldier. Why should he get more rights than a typical prisoner of war simply because he may also be a criminal? Why should he get more rights than all the detainees in Guantanamo simply because, unlike the rest, if he is indeed a soldier then he has also betrayed his country (whereas the other owed America no loyalty in the first place)?”

Page 264
– Slate essay: Two and a Quarter
– “presidential qualifications”

ajtelles said...

5/

“Consider also the way that the states elect governors—directly by the voters, one person, one vote. If the federal electoral college is so good, why does no state closely follow it? Let’s scrap it. And if naturalized Americans like Californi9a’s Arnold Schwarzenegger and Michigan’s Jennifer Granholm can be trusted to serve as governors, why not amend the federal Constitution to allow them to run for president? In fact, in 2004, the Senate held hearings on just such a proposed amendment, sponsored by Republican Senator Orrin Hatch and strongly endorsed by several congressional Democrats.”

[Soft-socialist Schwarzenegger lost California to hard-socialists and Granholm did nothing to stop the socialists from “transforming” Michigan, so they are definitely not liberty vs. tyranny role models for amendment propositions for the same commonsense reason the BREXIT initiator 26 years ago and 2016 BREXIT hero Nigel Farage is not a role model to “transform” America with absurd amendment propositions—they are not U.S. natural born citizens by “birth” alone.]

Page 406
– Conclusion (not an essay)
– “citizenship rights”

“Simply put, the written Constitution is often wise—typically, wiser than judges acting on their own steam—because the document distills the democratic input of many minds over many generations. … Later generations of ordinary Americans mobilized to enshrine in this terse text an end to slavery, a sweeping guarantee of equal birthright citizenship, an emphatic commitment to protecting civil rights against all levels of government, and radical expansions of the rights of political participation—to blacks, to women, to the poor, to the young, and more. These were epic democratic achievements, and they are all worthy of profound respect by today’s Americans. We, the people of the twenty-first century, thus do well to ponder the collected and collective wisdom of this old and intergenerational text.”

[This is not a previous essay, but it is definitely an excellent point about the Fourteenth Amendment and “citizenship rights”.]

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

Carlyle said...

To me, it all boils down to INTENT - and therefore can be expressed much simpler. The original intent was to be EXclusive, not INclusive. Any attempt nowadays to widen the definition is clearly wrong.

Now, at some point, the American people (via the legislative or legal system) may have chosen to clarify this and/or be less xenophobic. Did they ever do that? Prove it!

There you have it.