Donate

Sunday, June 2, 2019

The Fallacies of Congressional Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen”

The Fallacies of Congressional Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen”

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 2, 2013
Reposted June 2, 2019




Bob Quasius at Café Con Leche Republicans recently said: 

“The citizenship of Ted Cruz’s father is irrelevant. Ted Cruz was born a citizen of the United States based upon his mother’s citizenship and many years of residency in the U.S., per the federal statutes in effect at the time Ted Cruz was born. A natural born citizen is one who was born a citizen, as compared to someone not born a citizen and naturalized. Ted Cruz was born a citizen, and therefore he’s a natural born citizen.” 


Quasius’ argument is the classic example of Jack Maskell’s formal and informal logical fallacies of what the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is which are contained in his two Congressional Research (CRS) Memos.  Jack Maskell wrote in his CRS memo published in 2009: 

“[T]he weight of scholarly legal and historical opinion appears to support the notion that 'natural born citizen' means one who is entitled under the Constitution or laws of the United States to U.S. citizenship 'at birth' or 'by birth,' including any child born ‘in’ the United States (other than to foreign diplomats serving their country), the children of United States citizens born abroad of one citizen parent who has met U.S. residency requirements."


Then he wrote in his 2011 CRS memo: 

“The weight of legal and historical authority indicates that the term ‘natural born’ citizen would mean a person who is entitled to U.S. citizenship ‘by birth’ or ‘at birth,’ either by being born ‘in’ the United States and under its jurisdiction, even those born to alien parents; by being born abroad to U.S. citizen-parents; or by being born in other situations meeting legal requirements for U.S. citizenship ‘at birth.’”  In this memo, he also added:  “there is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements, although several cases have addressed the term ‘natural born’ citizen. And this clause has been the subject of several legal and historical treatises over the years, as well as more recent litigation.”

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42097.pdf  . 

Maskell made his 2009 statement with little force and certitude.  He said that this “scholarly legal and historical opinion” “appears to support the notion” as to what the “natural born Citizen” clause means.  A “notion” is defined, in relevant part, as:  “1.  A general idea  2.  a belief; opinion  3.  an inclination; whim.”  Webster’s  New World Dictionary of the American Language 410 (1983).  Here is another definition:  “1:  Idea, conception 2:  a belief held:  opinion, view  3:  whim, fancy .”  The Merriam-Webster Dictionary 480 (1974).  And this “opinion” only “appears to support” that notion.  Here, we can see that Maskell did not give us a clear and definite statement as to what the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is.  Rather, he only put forth a theory that this “scholarly legal and historical opinion” supported this general idea, belief, or opinion of what the definition of a “natural born citizen” is.   
 
While his 2011 statement contained more force, Maskell still stated that a “natural born citizen” “would mean” any person who is a “citizen by birth” or “citizen at birth,” regardless of the means by which the person obtained that birth status.  Maskell said “would mean.”  That means that the meaning that he gave to a “natural born citizen” is conditioned upon something else also being true.  But he did not tell us what that something else is, let alone demonstrate that whatever it is, is true.  He also stated that “there is no Supreme Court case which has ruled specifically on the presidential eligibility requirements.”  As we shall see below, this is not true, for there are U.S. Supreme Court cases which have addressed the “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen” and that is a presidential eligibility requirement. 
  
First, as to the formal logical fallacy, let us break down what Maskell and Quasius actually said into its logical form.  I will use the following symbols:  Natural born Citizen=NBC, and Citizen at birth=CAB

All NBCs are CABs.
All persons like Ted Cruz (born in Canada to a U.S “citizen” mother and non-U.S. “citizen” father) are CABs.
Therefore, all persons like Ted Cruz are NBCs.

First, it is a tautology to argue that a “natural born Citizen” is a born citizen.  Second, this argument commits the fallacy of affirming the consequent (affirming that one is a CAB does not prove that one is a NBC).  Third, this argument suffers from fallacy in that it violates the rule of the undistributed middle (the middle term CABs is not distributed in either the major or minor premise meaning the term has not been defined as belonging or not belonging within the class of NBCs).  So, while the major and minor premises are both true, the conclusion, which equates a CAB to a NBC is false.  We should see intuitively that the conclusion does not follow from the two premises.  An easy way to see the invalidity of the argument is the following: 

All poodles are dogs.
Bubbles is a dog.
Therefore, Bubbles is a poodle. 

We know that this argument is not valid because, with dogs being comprised of more than just poodles, Bubbles can be a German Shepherd or some other type of dog.   

Second, now let us examine the informal fallacy of the Maskell/Quasius statement.  Now we will test the truth of the major and minor premises of the argument.  To do that, we need to help Maskell and Quasius a little by converting their invalid argument into a valid one.  Here we go: 

All CABs are NBCs.
All persons like Ted Cruz are CABs.
All persons like Ted Cruz are NBCs. 

This argument is valid because if the major and minor premises are true, the conclusion must be true.  But while the argument is valid as to its logical form, it is not sound, meaning that the major or minor premise or both are false.  This adjusted Maskell argument is not sound because its major premise is false.  With the major premise being false, so is its conclusion.  Let me explain.  First, the major premise, all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens” is false because the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers of the Constitution did not so define a “citizens at birth” and there does not exist any evidence that they did.  Second, regardless of how a “citizen at birth” may be defined, the text of Article II specifically states “natural born Citizen,” not “Citizen at Birth” or some variant thereof.  Additionally, while it is true that all “natural born Citizens” are “citizens at birth,” it does not follow that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.”  If I am wrong, Bob Quasius can cite for us an authoritative source which provides that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.”  So there is the challenge.  Let Bob Quasius or anyone else who might want to come to his aid provide one authoritative source which demonstrates that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.”  By doing this, he will also be proving that Jack Maskell is correct.   

Anticipating that Bob Quasius will not be able to provide any such source, I have therefore demonstrated how Jack Maskell is incorrect in what he stated to be the definition of a “natural born Citizen.”  Using their exact words, they made an invalid argument about who is included and excluded as a “natural born Citizen.”  Even adjusting what they said to make a valid argument, they made an unsound argument, for they provided a non-existent definition of a “natural born Citizen.”  Either way, Jack Maskell and Bob Quasius lose. 
 
Now as to the correct definition of a “natural born Citizen,” here it is:  A “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who are its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.  This is the settled definition of the clause under American national common law.  See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 Citizens and natives (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”); The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring);  Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830; Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 476-77 (1857) (J. Daniels concurring); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168-170 (1875); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879); United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898) (all confirmed Vattel’s Section 212 of The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) definition of the “natural-born citizens” who “are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens”).  This is the only definition of the clause that has ever existed and which has been recognized by our U.S. Supreme Court.  The conditions of being born in the country to “citizen” parents are both necessary and sufficient conditions of being a “natural born Citizen.”  The definition of a “natural born Citizen” therefore excludes anyone who is either not born in the country (or its jurisdictional equivalent) or not born to parents (both parents) who are its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth or both. 

Here is what this definition produces as logical statements:  I will use the following symbols:  Natural born Citizen=NBC; born in the country =BIC; and born to citizen parents=BCPs.
All BIC and BCPs are NBC.
All Xs are BIC and BCPs.
Therefore, all Xs are NBC. 

If NBC, then BIC and BCPs.
X is not BIC and BCP.
Therefore, X is not NBC. 

If and only if BIC and BCP, then NBC.
X is not BIC and BCPs.
Therefore, X is not NBC. 

All NBCs are BIC and BCPs.
No Xs are BIC and BCPs.
Therefore, no Xs are NBC. 

The Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers required that future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military be “natural born Citizens.”  They required this because they wanted to protect these unique and singular and all-powerful civil and military offices from monarchical and foreign influence.  For the sake of the safety of those offices and the national security of the nation, they wanted to make sure that all future Presidents and Commanders be born with sole allegiance, faith, and loyalty to the United States.  Barack Obama (maybe born in Hawaii, but born to a U.S. "citizen" mother and a non-U.S. “citizen” father), Ted Cruz (born in Canada to a U.S. “citizen” mother and a non-U.S. “citizen” father), Marco Rubio (born in Florida to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents), Bobby Jindal (born in Louisiana to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents), and Nikki Haley (born in South Carolina to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents) were not born in the country (BIC) to citizen parents (BCPs).  Because they acquired foreign allegiance from either being born to one or two alien parents (all of them) or from being born in a foreign nation (Cruz and maybe also Obama), none of them were born with sole allegiance, faith, and loyalty to the United States.   Under all of the above logical statements, none of these individuals are “natural born Citizens.” 

The inescapable conclusion is that since Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and Haley are neither “natural born Citizens” nor “Citizens of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,” they are not eligible to be President. 

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 2, 2013
Reposted June 2, 2019
####

Copyright © 2013
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
       

79 comments:

Carlyle said...

Bravo! Some actual logic, rather than wishful thinking. I have often wondered if someone asked the right questions about Obama before he was famous - what they would have concluded. Once he became famous and then was elected, all logic was set aside or inverted to justify the de facto situation.

cfkerchner said...

Bravo Zulu Mario! Keep up the good work. The truth will will out eventually. I posted a link to your great article in my blog and elsewhere. CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret) ProtectOurLiberty.org

cfkerchner said...

Here is a link to a graphic presentation image I made some years ago using a Euler Diagram which are graphically used to prove the truth or fallacy of an argument -- re who is a "natural born Citizen" of the United States within the super-set of all U.S. Citizens of all kinds: http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2018/06/16/natural-born-citizen/

Brianroy said...

Mario, I think you should have slammed the argument FULLY shut as they will pull the 14th Amendment B.S. Counter that anyone born in the US, including illegal aliens, will next be, in their minds, argued as eligible for POTUS because THAT is where they mean to go next.

It can be argued with the passing of the Constitutional Language subject to the jurisdiction of the United States passed in the 14th Amendment section 1, that to be a United States Natural Born Citizen, he (or she) must be one of sole nationality, so that were he (or she) ever stripped of citizenship in the United States, he (or she) would be declared as “Stateless”. The term in the Constitution of "subject to the jurisdiction" in the 14th Amendment Section 1, excludes a relationship of those who are NOT born exclusively as United States Citizens AND to United States Citizen PARENTS. Having just one parent and an alien foreigner is NOT enough. Having both parents as foreigners and born on U.S. soil is NOT enough.

Rep –Ohio, John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)), stated that a 14th Amendment child legally defined be born of parents (plural) and not a parent (singular):

“[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [Bill S-61], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…”

The Congressional Globe, 1st session, May 30, 1866
[The debate on the first section of the 14th Amendment]
Senator Jacob Howard (R-Michigan) stated:
Part 4 (column 2), page 2890

Mr. Howard: The first amendment is to section one, declaring "that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside...This is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.

Senator Trumbull of Illinois, chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee concurred:

Part 4 (columns 1-2), page 2893

Mr. Trumbull: The provision is, "that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof"... What do we mean by "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"? Not owing alliance to anybody else. That is what it means.

...It cannot be said of any...who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

Under the guidelines of what is a United States Natural Born Citizen in the 18th and 19th and first half of the 20th centuries, effectually neither parent may be of foreign citizenship, and the child must be born 100% within United States jurisdiction and 100% a U.S. Citizen with NO FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP (NOR A CLAIM OF SUCH IN ANY WAY) AT BIRTH. Anyone acquiring or possessing ANY FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH IS NOT A UNITED STATES NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Cf. Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. § 1473

Carlyle said...

@brianroy

It just goes to show what kind of problems you get into when you twist the words of the constitution to further some misguided political agenda. The citizenship provisions of the 14th were put in there for ONE very specific and FOCUSED PURPOSE: To give full citizenship to slaves and descendants of slaves. Can you imagine the agony of ALL the framers and organizers of this amendment if confronted with the idea of Anchor Babies? "OMG NO!", "HOLY CRAP, how can you possible misconstrue our clear intent so badly?", etc.

Among other things, it opens a huge can of worms: Exactly what kind of citizen is such an anchor baby? Naturalized? Citizen at birth, citizen by birth? Natural born citizen?

What a total pile of steaming reeking caca. <----- arcane technical/legal term of art!

ajtelles said...

1/5

Hi Mario,

Its been a while, so, with POTUS Donald J. Trump being a natural born citizen and POTUS aspirant Senator Kamala Harris not being a natural born citizen, dittos to posting your 2013 article about Jack Maskell’s 2009/2011 CRS memos where he “made his 2009 statement with little force and certitude”. You point out Maskell’s words such as “opinion”, “notion”, “would mean”, etc., and wrote that “Maskell said ‘would mean’. That means that the meaning that he gave to a ‘natural born citizen’ is conditioned upon something else also being true”.

Also dittos to your conclusion in the last paragraph: “The inescapable conclusion is that since Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and Haley are neither ‘natural born Citizens’ nor ‘Citizens of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution,’ they are not eligible to be President”.

Your comments about Emer de Vattel Section 112, the SCOTUS cases that you adduced, and the “common law” are “over the target”, which is why you get incoherent flack from neobirthers who promote the idea that a person with dual U.S./foreign citizenship is eligible to be president at the same time that they do not deny, either implicitly or explicitly, that a person with singular U.S. citizenship is also qualified to be eligible to be president. However, what 21st century “neobirthers” like Jack Maskell and Bob Quasius deny is that 18th century “original birthers” like John Jay promoted ONLY singular U.S. citizenship as the foundational qualification for eligibility to be president. Also, your “formal logical fallacy” examples are clear and easy to understand.

For new visitors to your blog who may not be familiar with founder John Jay I would like to add a few comments in agreement with your four introductory paragraphs with the focus on the implications of “natural born Citizen” in connection with your words “at the time of the adoption of this Constitution”.

The Article II Section 1 clause 5 (A2 S1 c5) “adoption” occurred September 17, 1787 at the conclusion of the constitutional convention. The 1898 United States v Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court “judicial fiat” occurred one hundred and eleven years later.

The 1898 SCOTUS decision said that a child is a U.S. citizen if born on U.S. soil to foreign born parents who were not naturalized as U.S. citizens before the birth of the child.

This means that for 111 years people born with only one or zero U.S. citizen parents like Obama, Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, Haley, and now Kamala Harris would not have been recognized as “natural born Citizens” (nbC) by John Jay, founder, New York ratifier and the first Supreme Court Chief Justice (1789-1795) who understood what “nbC” meant when he wrote his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington, his good friend and president of the convention.

ajtelles said...

2/5

I bring John Jay’s 1787 note into the conversation of Jack Maskell’s 2009/2011 CRS memos for continuity because, if any founder and ratifier knew what nbC meant in 1787 it was Jay, with the common sense implicit intention that nbC was to be perpetual for ALL future POTUS aspirants.

“Perpetual” from 1787 means beyond the SCOTUS declaration of 1898 and up to and beyond 2019, at least until natural born citizen is successfully amended by dual U.S./foreign citizenship neobirthers in the future to mean more than what Jay intended for eligibility to be president:

1) ONLY singular U.S. citizenship
2) ONLY birth on U.S. soil
3) ONLY two U.S. citizen parents
4) ONLY married
5) ONLY to each other
6) ONLY before the child is born

It is common sense that to John Jay “perpetual” probably did NOT mean ONLY as itemized above until sometime in the future when a Supreme Court would decide that ONLY is not fair, just or equitable because it is not inclusive, and also that someday in the future ONLY would exclude somebody like Wong Kim Ark from being a “citizen” and would also exclude POTUS aspirants who are not “natural born citizens” but only “citizens” and so are not eligible to be president. Rejection of original birther John Jay’s implicit promotion of the exclusivity of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship as the definition of a natural born citizen who is eligible to be president is why Jack Maskell and Bob Quasius at Café Con Leche Republicans and other dual citizenship neobirthers promote the idea that dual U.S./foreign citizenship is constitutional and is sufficient qualification (“dual” is more and better than “singular”, right?) for eligibility to be president. People with dual U.S./foreign citizenship include Obama, Rubio, Jindal, and Haley, and now in 2019, Senator Kamala Harris.

The “neobirthers” say that a child is eligible to be president because of the 1898 SCOTUS judical fiat that a child born on U.S. soil to foreign born parents who were NOT naturalized U.S. citizens before the child was born is a U.S. citizen. Dual citizenship neobirthers insist and must necessarily imply that the 1898 SCOTUS judicial fiat means that the U.S. “citizen” children with dual U.S./foreign citizenship are ALSO eligible to be president. What the dual citizenship neobirthers cannot accept is that the child may be, since 1795 a “citizen”, and since 1898 a SCOTUS “citizen” by judicial fiat, and after 1898 by various congressional statutes a “citizen”, but the “fiat” and “statute” citizens definitely are NOT constitutional A2 S1 c5 natural born citizens by birth alone and thus are NOT eligible to be president. The by birth alone natural born Citizen does not need a SCOTUS decision or a congressional statute to be a natural born citizen and thus eligible to be president.

ajtelles said...

3/5

In writing to Washington in his July 1787 note that the first commander in chief, and by common sense implication, ALL future commanders in chiefs MUST be natural born citizens, Jay was implying ONLY one thing, NOT more than one. The dual citizenship neobirthers who do not agree that Jay meant ONLY one thing by natural born citizen need to bring forward for consideration their 1700s and 1800s references who say that for eligibility to be president Jay implied NOT just ONLY singular U.S. citizenship but ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship. I have not found anybody, not even one “constitutional scholar” who should know if Jay meant BOTH, singular and dual, singular U.S. citizenship and ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship. See how incoherent “BOTH” and “ALSO” look regarding eligibility to be president? “BOTH” and “ALSO” are as incoherent as ONLY “BOTH” or ONLY “ALSO”.If there were any scholars refuting that Jay implied that nbC meant ONLY one thing (ONLY singular citizenship), Mario, you probably would have adduced that one person here on your Natural Born Citizen blog years ago.

Very few people have used John Jay as their reference source as to the definition of natural born citizen as ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, and that may be the reason that dual citizenship neobirthers are so absolutely positive that Senator/President Obama, born on U.S. soil (maybe) to only one U.S. citizen parent was eligible to be president, and absolutely positive that Senator Cruz, born on foreign soil (Canada) to only one U.S. citizen parent is eligible to be president, and absolutely positive that Senator Rubio, Governor Jindal, and Governor Haley, and now Sen. Harris, all born on U.S. soil to two foreign born parents married only to each other and who had not naturalized as U.S. citizens before the births of their children, well, they also are all eligible to be president. Promoting zero OR one U.S. citizen parent is not coherent.

Well, Mario, It would be interesting to know how Jack Maskell, Bob Quasius and other dual citizen neobirthers would instruct John Jay about the “common law” of the 1700s and instruct him about what the inherent, implicit, original genesis, original intent meaning of “natural born Citizen” was in 1787, and also if they think that “nbC” was to be perpetual as Jay intended. An amendment to Article II Section 1 clause 5 that would alter the definition of natural born citizen as ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth alone ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents is a constitutional issue. The common law, the judiciary, and congressional statutes cannot alter the original meaning of natural born Citizen as John Jay understood the implicit meaning.

ajtelles said...

4/5

Can Maskell and Quasius coherently instruct 1787 original birther John Jay (and 2019 “birthers”) that it was not in 1787 and so it is not today in 2019 fair and just that to be eligible to be president a “natural born Citizen” cam be ONLY one thing:

1) ONLY singular U.S. citizenship
2) ONLY birth on U.S. soil
3) ONLY two U.S. citizen parents
4) ONLY married
5) ONLY to each other
6) ONLY before the child is born

“ONLY married” is to be understood as it was in the 1700s (specifically from 1787 to the 1920s) when the U.S. citizen husband determined by marriage the U.S. citizenship of a foreign born wife (the effect was naturalization by marriage), and the singular U.S. citizenship status of both U.S. citizen parents was automatically transferred by birth alone to the children.

“ONLY married” is also to be understood as modified in the 1920s when a congressional statute gave foreign born wives freedom to retain their original foreign citizenship after marriage to a U.S. citizen husband. That means, after the 1920s, if the foreign born wife did not naturalize as a U.S. citizen BEFORE children were born the children were NOTnatural born citizens with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship because the had, by birth alone, dual U.S./foreign citizenship status and so would not be eligible to be president. For those two natural law and positive law reasons (birth and citizenship) dual U.S./foreign citizenship “citizens” are NOT by birth alone eligible to be president.

In other words, their birth “alone” disqualifies them and their birth “alone” denies them eligibility to be president. THAT is why ONLY a natural born citizen by birth alone is qualified and eligible to be president. THAT is why ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone is exclusive. THAT is why ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship by birth alone is not inclusive. Regarding eligibility to be president, dual citizenship is not coherent. What is coherent is John Jay’s original genesis original intent reason for telling George Washington that the commander in chief must be “ONLY” a “natural born Citizen”.

Well Mario, that’s it. I’m not a “constitutional scholar” with letters after my name with the erudition history of a scholar, but I sure have fun writing about “original birther” John Jay and his “nbC” note to “original birther” George Washington. I’ve written essays similar to this one here on your blog since 2012 with similar questions and I’m still waiting...waiting...waiting… for at lease one armchair or academic “constitutional scholar” who can coherently rebut question #6 below as irrelevant in 2019 America because it is too exclusive even though it may have been relevant in 1787 America when “original birther” John Jay sent his July 25, 1787 “natural born Citizen” note to his “original birther” good friend George Washington. It is obvious that “original birther” Washington also knew that “nbC” had ONLY one meaning, and it is also obvious that “nbC” with ONLY ONE meaning was accepted by the constitutional convention “original birther” delegates who “adopted” the language of Article II Section I clause 5 with zero debate as to the ONLY ONE inherent meaning of “natural born Citizen”: ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth alone.

ajtelles said...

5/5

Mario, in conclusion, here are six simple questions that I have asked before here on your blog about what John Jay may have understood about the original genesis original intent meaning of “natural born Citizen” in his July 1787 note to George Washington. For eligibility to be president, did Jay mean to imply ONLY singular U.S. citizenship or ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship? In the questions assume that Jay was implying birth on U.S. soil and birth on foreign soil under U.S. jurisdiction.

Q 1) When Jay wrote “nbC” was he implying that a person could be born anywhere in the world with zero U.S. citizen parents and be A2 S1 c5 eligible to be president?

[ ] Yes
[X] No

Q 2) When Jay wrote “nbC” was he implying that a person could be born anywhere in the world with ONLY one U.S. citizen parent and be A2 S1 c5 eligible to be president?

[ ] Yes
[X] No

Q 3) When Jay wrote “nbC” was he implying that a person could be born anywhere in the world with ONLY two U.S. citizen parents and be A2 S1 c5 eligible to be president?

[ ] Yes
[X] No

Mario, you wrote in paragraph #13 about the “settled definition of the [nbC] clause under American national common law”.

It was the “settled definition of the … common law” of the 1700s that informed the congress which wrote the 1795 Naturalization Act which corrected the constitutional error of the congress which wrote the 1790 Naturalization Act which said that a child born on foreign soil NOT under U.S. jurisdiction and born with two U.S. citizen married parents WAS a “natural born citizen”. The implication of the “common law” was missed in 1790 but was caught in 1795 with a change in the language: “natural born citizen” was changed to “citizen” in the 1795 Naturalization Act. The serendipity of the 1790 “nbC” error and the 1795 correction of the error is that today in 2019 we have internal textual proof from the 1795 public record that the “common law” definition of “nbC” was known, missed and accurately corrected with the 1795 Naturalization Act.

Q 4) When Jay wrote “nbC” was he implying that a person could be born anywhere on U.S. soil with zero U.S. citizen parents and be A2 S1 c5 eligible to be president?

[ ] Yes
[X] No

Q 5) When Jay wrote “nbC” was he implying that a person could be born anywhere on U.S. soil with AT LEAST one U.S. citizen parent and be A2 S1 c5 eligible to be president?

[ ] Yes
[X] No

Q 6) When Jay wrote “nbC” was he implying that a person could be born anywhere on U.S. soil with ONLY two U.S. citizen parents and be A2 S1 c5 eligible to be president?

[X] Yes – I vote yes, ONLY 2.
[ ] No

PS.
For readers who may not like the “birther” word because they think it is pejorative, the words “original birther” and “neobirther” as I use them in this essay are not pejorative. They provide inherent and implicit info about the original genesis original intent of “natural born Citizen” as meaning ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth alone.

Art
original-genesis-original-intent.blogspot.com

Brianroy said...

@ Carlyle
What is YOUR AGENDA? Hmmn? To get an illegal alien the right to replace the US Citizen, or to be POTUS? THEY already infringe on OUR rights as US Cits. MY rights specifically...I have no proof YOU are even one in this forum setting.
Anchor babies were CREATED by INFERENCE from Court Decisions well over 20+ years AFTER the 14th Amendment. But of course, you didn't know that.

But as for the 14th today, does it still apply to the Communist take from Cits & give to illegals issue? Yes. How many illegals profit on tax paid food stamps, housing placement, etc., for example.

"Amendment XIV Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction
thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges

[My Comment: that includes ROBBERY in taking Welfare and /or Social Security monies or any US Gov't subsidy for its citizens -- and that includes the right to vote and making the FULL 100% of the Citizen vote count, NOT having it watered down by FOREIGNERS who happen to be here at the time....end of comment]

or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Brianroy said...

@ Carlyle
To be a United States Natural Born Citizen, he (or she) must be one of sole nationality, so that were he (or she) ever stripped of citizenship in the United States, he (or she) would be declared as “Stateless”. Neither parent may be of foreign citizenship, and the child must be born 100% within United States jurisdiction and 100% a U.S. Citizen with NO FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP (NOR A CLAIM OF SUCH IN ANY WAY) AT BIRTH. Anyone acquiring or possessing ANY FOREIGN CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH IS NOT A UNITED STATES NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
Anchor babies are NOT US "Natural Born Cits" because they have multi-nationality at birth & are NOT exclusively US Citizens alone. They are Genetically Modified Organism equivalents or legal hybrids that must by a declaration of law or statutes be declared as citzens or be declared by an un-natural means that is not inherent in nature.
Indigenous, according to the definition & according to the ancient Greeks on this matter of law is what? You wouldn't know, because you never bothered to do the research at source materials. Go back to your video games, kid. Leave the debate to us grown ups.

Carlyle said...

@brianroy
I don't know what you are talking about or what you read. But it is certainly not what I wrote. Before attacking me, please read what I wrote carefully. This blog does not generally allow personal attacks. Thank you.

ajtelles said...

1/4
Hi Mario,

Maybe it’s time We the People of the United States encourage the POTUS, the COTUS, and the SCOTUS to look at the anchor baby phenomenon brought on by the incoherent 1898 United States v Wong Kim Ark “judicial fiat”.

I’ve been thinking for some time about commenting and amplifying on the 1866-68 quotes(*) by Bingham, Howard, and Trumbull so dittos to three of their quotes being posted here a few days ago by Brianroy about the Fourteenth Amendment which was ratified July 9, 1868, eighty-one years after the U.S. Constitution was adopted September 17, 1787, and thirty years before the incoherent 1898 SCOTUS opined that a child born on U.S. soil WAS a U.S. “citizen” even if born to parents who were NOT U.S. citizens BEFORE a child’s birth.

The 1866-68 quotes(*) below by the three congressmen refute the incoherent 1898 SCOTUS “citizen” judicial fiat which should be revisited and overturned by a coherent Supreme Court with a coherent correction based on “citizen” and “natural born citizen” as expressed by Rep. Bingham, Senator Howard, and Senator Trumbull. Rep. Bingham mentions “natural born citizen, and Sen. Howard tacitly implies “natural born citizen” when he says that citizenship is “...by virtue of natural law and national law [“natural” = birth; “national” = positive]”.

*See the 1866-68 Congressional Record quotes below by the three congressmen that Brianroy posted here on Mario’s Natural Born Citizen blog June 5, 2019 at 9:40 AM.


Why are the dates and times important?

Well, because the 1866-68 congressmen who debated “who” would be a “citizen” of the 14th Amendment tacitly and implicitly agreed with “original birther’ John Jay without referencing his 1787 contribution to the language of Article II Section 1 clause 5 and the requirement that the office of commander in chief must ONLY devolve on a “natural born Citizen” – an “original birther”.

Whereas the 1787 constitutional convention “original birther” delegates did not debate “who” is “natural born” in connection with “citizen” before adopting the language in Article II Section 1 clause 5, the 1868 “original birther” congressmen DID debate “who” is a “citizen” according to statute because the last 1787 Article II Section 1 clause 5 or a Citizen” probably died sometime before 1868.

The 1866-68 “original birther” congressmen knew that some “citizens” are citizens by statute alone and some “citizens” are citizens by birth alone (see the 1866-68 quotes below, the tacit implication is dual U.S./foreign citizenship), just as the1787 convention “original birther” delegates knew that a “natural born Citizen” was BOTH a “citizen” AND a “natural born citizen” ONLY by birth alone with ONLY singular U.S. citizenshp.

ajtelles said...

2/4
The 1866-68 congressmen did not debate the difference between “citizen” and “natural born citizen” and eligibility to be president, obviously, because “nbC” eligibility to be president was not the purpose of the 14th Amendment. They were adding a “citizen” amendment, not amending “nbC” in Article II Section 1 clause 5. These white guys (with the approval of their white gals) were amending “who” was a citizen after the 13th Amendment freed the imported and born slaves to include pre-1868 black guys and black gals as U.S. “citizens” by statute alone.

Mario, after I posted here a few days ago about the perpetual relevance of “original birther” John Jay and his July 25, 1787 note to his “original birther” friend George Washington about the importance of the office of commander in chief “devolving” ONLY upon a “natural born Citizen” of the future United States, it is clear to me after amplifying the quotes of the three congressmen below, that, 81 years after 1878, the 1866-68 congressmen also understood the importance of the original genesis and original intent meaning of the words “citizen” and “natural born citizen”.

Next I’ll amplify the points from the three 1866-68 quotes that Brianroy posted here on June 5.

As I was analyzing the words I had to remember that the point in 1866-68 was “who” is an 1868 “citizen”, NOT a 1787 “or a citizen” or a 1787 “natural born citizen”.


Rep. John Bingham said on March 9, 1866:

‘ “[I] find no fault with the introductory clause [Bill S-61], which is simply declaratory of what is written in the Constitution, that every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen…” ’

Notice the words:

>>> “born”
– natural law

>>> “parents”
plural (implies devolution = passed on = inherited ONLY by birth alone)

>>> “allegiance”
– implies ONLY singular U.S. citizenship

>>> “Constitution”
positive law constructed on the inalienable bedrock foundation of natural law

>>> “natural born citizen”
– “natural born” = natural law: by birth alone
– “citizen” = positive law: by statute and by birth

ajtelles said...

3/4
Senator Jacob Howard (R-Michigan) May 30, 1866:

“Mr. Howard:
“The first amendment is to section one, declaring "that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the States wherein they reside…This is simply declaratory of what I regard as the law of the land already, that every person born within the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.”


>>> "...that all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof...”
– “born” = natural law
– “subject...jurisdiction” implies some “born” persons are NOT subject to jurisdiction

>>> “...the law of the land already [1866-68]...”
– “law...already” = 1700s common law codified in the 1787 constitution law (specifically Article II Section 1 clause 5 “nbC”) reinforced by Article I statute law (e.g., 1795 Naturalization Act) and Article III judicial law (SCOTUS decisions).

>>> “...by virtue of natural law and national law...”
– “natural law” = the foundation of positive law in an ordered society
(e.g., male XY sex chromosome = ONLY male, NOT transgender “female”)
– “national law” = positive law = common “law”, statute “law”, and judicial “law”
(e.g., male transgender to “female” positive laws (statute or judical fiat) can NOT negate natural law female XX sex chromosome and natural law male XY sex chromosome)

>>> “...a citizen of the United States...will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, families of ambassadors, etc., ...”
– “citizen...include...born...foreigners, etc.” = in 1866-68 some persons “born” in the US were NOT included as “subject” to jurisdiction and were NOT considered “citizens” of the US

(THIS “citizen...include...born...who...foreigners” comment by Sen. Howard debate about who is a citizen is internal textual proof from the 1866-68 public record that the 1898 US v Wong Kim Ark SCOTUS “judicial fiat” is incoherent and NOT in accord with the original genesis and original intent of the “citizen” language of the 14th Amendment.]

>>> “but will include every other class of persons.
– “other” = based on 1700s and 1800s common law, statute law, judicial law in 1866-68, NOT 1898 or 2019

ajtelles said...

4/4
Senator Trumbull – Chairman Senate Judiciary Committee

”Mr. Trumbull: The provision is, "that all persons born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens." That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof"... What do we mean by "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States"? Not owing alliance to anybody else. That is what it means.”

”...It cannot be said of any...who owes allegiance, partial allegiance if you please, to some other Government that he is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States."

>>> "that all persons born in the United States”
– “born” = natural law activity
– “United States” = positive law location

>>> “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof”
– “subject” and “jurisdiction” = positive law

>>> “are citizens”
– “citizens” = positive law

>>> “That means "subject to the complete jurisdiction thereof"
– “complete” = without competing attraction

>>> “What do we mean by "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”
– “what do we mean” = original intent in 1866-68 was based on 1787 original intent

>>> “Not owing alliance to anybody else”
– “not owing” = ONLY singular U.S. citizenship
– “alliance” = America First NOT America Also

>>> “...It cannot be said of any…”
– “cannot be said” = common law understanding

>>> “who owes allegiance”
– “allegiance” = America is NOT first by birth alone of a child’s if both parents are NOT U.S. citizens

>>> “partial allegiance if you please”
– “partial” = America is NOT first by birth alone if one parent is NOT a U.S. citizen at birth of a new “citizen” child

>>> “to some other Government”
– “other” = America is NOT first

>>> “that he is "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States”
– “that” = America is NOT first

Since they did not discuss Article II Section I clause 5, it seems that the 1866-68 “original birther” congressmen also inherently knew, and it informed their 14th Amendment “citizen” debates, what the 1787 convention “original birther” delegates inherently knew about “who” a “natural born citizen” was, is, and always will be – a U.S. “citizen” with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship inherited (Jay wrote “devolve”, which means “passed on”, “inherited”, in his 1787 note to Washington) from U.S. citizen parents (plural) ONLY by birth alone.

Mario, if the amplification of the quotes of the three congressmen does not get a coherent response from neobirthers who continue to promote the incoherent proposition that dual U.S./foreign citizenship is ALSO qualification for eligibility to be US president, and dual citizenship was ALSO “original birther” John Jay’s original genesis original intent reason for writing that the office of commander in chief devolve ONLY on a “natural born Citizen”, well, uh, to put it kindly, they’re not thinking straight.

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

ajtelles said...

1/2
Hi Mario,

Yesterday I read for the first time the Sharon Rondeau interview with you posted at The Post & Email on August 27, 2018.

>> https://www.thepostemail.com/2018/08/27/the-post-email-interviews-atty-mario-apuzzo-on-the-14th-amendment-part-1/

CAN “BIRTHRIGHT CITIZENSHIP” BE ABOLISHED BY ANY BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT?
by Sharon Rondeau

My first thought is yes, of course, birthright citizenship CAN be abolished by any “two” branches of government, the COTUS by the amendment process (and ratification by the states), and the SCOTUS by revisiting and overturning the incoherent 1898 United States v Wong Kim Ark “judicial fiat”. The POTUS has no say in preventing an amendment to the constitution followed by ratification, or the current Supreme Court overturning a previous court’s decision.

Sharon lays out the issue very well and has many helpful text and video links, beginning with the Salon article and ending with Tucker Carlon’s discussion with Victor David Hanson.

Hanson’s response was accurate, but, in my opinion, something was lacking. I suggest that what is lacking is continuity. Continuity from John Jay, who knew in 1787 “who” (not “what” but “who”) a foreigner was and “who” a “natural born Citizen”(*) was, to the 1866-68 14th Amendment coherent debates about “who” was/is an 1866-68 “citizen”, and to the incoherent 1898 US v Wong Kim Ark opinion (“judicial fiat”) by the Supreme Court that a “citizen” is anybody born on U.S. soil to parents who are BOTH NOT U.S. citizens.

* Here is the “natural born Citizen” note by John Jay to George Washington at the National Archives (notice his “born” emphasis and capital “C”):
>> https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-05-02-0251

Now, why is the continuity from founder John Jay important?

Well, it seems that dual US./foreign citizenship is still being discussed as a viable possibility for eligibility to be President of the United States.

Sharon posted an article(*) on June 8, 2019 about the recent discussion on FOX & Friends and the possibility that the child born a few days ago to Prince Harry and his wife Megan Markle may be eligible to be King of England and President of the United States.

WHY eligible???

Well, it’s so simple simple, because the child has DUAL U.S./foreign citizenship.

* https://www.thepostemail.com/2019/05/08/for-second-time-fox-friends-declares-baby-sussex-eligible-for-the-presidency/

Sharon’s article has many hot links. Especially relevant is the National Archive link to the John Jay quote about the office of the commander in chief NOT be “given to” a foreigner and NOT be devolved on anybody except a “natural born Citizen”.

“Given to” tacitly implies being transferred “by statute alone”.
“Devolved on” tacitly implies being inherited “by birth alone”.

ajtelles said...

1/2
Eligibility to be U.S. President with ALSO dual U.S./foreign citizenship by birth alone is NOT coherent.

Eligibility to be U.S. President with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone IS coherent.

It is apparent that the folks on FOX & Friends are not informed about the 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” language that was repealed by the 1795 Naturalization Act “citizen” language, and the fact that the new statute language about birth on foreign soil to either two or one U.S. citizen parent disqualifies a child from being recognized as a “natural born citizen” by birth alone and so NOT eligible to be president.

In 2019 it is obvious that the American education system needs to teach American history. We should not need to debate “who” is a “citizen” and “who” is a “natural born citizen”, and to be eligible to be president, why a “natural born citizen” must have ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone and NOT dual U.S./foreign citizenship by birth alone.

People in 2019 America, even friends, are confused in the same what that the 1898 Supreme Court was confused and so it could only opine incoherently that a person born on U.S. soil is a “citizen” by birth alone when BOTH parents were NOT U.S. citizens. What is incoherent is that the Court could not articulate with “natural law” or “national law” (by statute) how a child can inherit what the parents do not have.


Sen. Howard:*

”...every person born within the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States.

Notice that Howard says “born…subject to...jurisdiction” = some persons are “born” who are NOT “subject to...jurisdiction”. That is not “murky”.

Also notice on what basis jurisdiction is applicable: “...by virtue of “natural law” and “national law”. The “natural” law = birth, and the “national” law = statute law, positive law.

* See more of the partial Sen. Howard posted here on June 8, 2019 at 8:50 PM.

Mario, it seems that your work (ours and Sharon Rondeau) is not done yet if the good folks at FOX and Friends are STILL(???) uninformed about “who” is a “natural born citizen” and what it means to be eligible to be U.S. President ONLY by birth alone.

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

Unknown said...


Sometimes but not that often one can deduce from the words alone what they mean, but often that is not the case. For example, hot dog, ice cream, fountain pen. Obviously we know what they mean from either context or experience. And on reflection these phrases seem a bit absurd. Anyway it is a bad intellectual practice to take a phrase like natural born citizen and conclude what these gentleman have done . . . in fact it is a dishonest operation. I wonder if Lazy Susan wears shorts and flip flops?

Is Kamal Harris a natural born citizen; were both her parents citizens at the time of her birth?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Unknown,

Senator Kamala Harris is not an Article II "natural born Citizen" of the United States and is therefore not constitutionally eligible to be President.

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides:

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

So, what is a natural born citizen? Under the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they adopted the Constitution, a natural born citizen was a child born in a country to parents who were both citizens at the time of the child’s birth. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (in defining a “natural-born citizen” of the United States at common law and declining to define a “citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, explained: “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”). See also United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898) (citing Minor, quoting its definition of a natural born citizen, and then defining a “citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment). This dichotomy between a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen” and the common law definition of a natural born citizen came from the law of nations. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (“The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers [parents], and succeed to all their rights.”)

When Senator Harris was born in California, neither of her parents was a U.S. citizen, either at birth or thereafter. Being born in the United States to alien parents who were subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, under Wong Kim Ark she was born a “citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. Since her birth in the United States was not to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of her birth, she is not a natural born citizen. Minor. Being neither a "natural born Citizen" of the United States nor a "Citizen" of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, she is not eligible to be President. See Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution (provides for one or the other means for being eligible to be President).

Carlyle said...

Yep. It's silly season again. A couple of high-ranking non-NBCs that keep popping up as Pres or Vice Pres potential: Kamala Harris and Nicki Haley.

But I am beginning to think this is all a hopeless cause. NOBODY seems to care about the law. Social Justice seems to trump any and all other considerations. Even if we could mount a bully pulpit campaign and try to educate and influence, the results of our careful analysis and following the letter of the law will be seen as disenfranchising some protected class.

SIGH

STepper said...

The contemporary Chief Justice of the United States when Wong was decided would disagree with you. But, then, you are much smarter than Melville Fuller.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

STepper,

I cannot tell from your comment to whom it is directed. In any event, if you know that Chief Justice Fuller per Wong Kim Ark would disagree with what someone said here, please make Chief Justice Fuller's argument so that we can learn how we have gone wrong here.

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

[Reposted to correct a typographical error]

My comment is directed to anyone who believes Kamala Harris is ineligible because both of her parents were not citizens when she was born in Oakland, California.

Chief Justice Fuller in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, bitterly dissented from the majority's holding. His dissent may be found here: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_v._Wong_Kim_Ark/Dissent_Fuller

In his dissent, the Chief Justice explained that the decision meant that even Mr. Wong (his last name) could become President of the United States under the majority's holding, something that was anathema to Fuller (apparently as much because of Mr. Wong's race as the fact that Mr. Wong's parents could not become citizens under the Chinese exclusions acts). Here is the money quote from the dissent:

"Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that 'natural-born citizen' applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."

In other words, Fuller might have found Senator Harris (and former President Obama) ineligible because he believed in a "parent-citizen" theory. (Neither of Mr. Wong's parents was a citizen nor eligible to be a citizen. Query whether Senator Harris and President Obama, having a citizen-parent, would be found by the Chief Justice not to be natural born citizens.) So Fuller was extremely upset that the implications of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark meant that even Mr. Wong was considered, as a result of the opinion, to be a natural born citizen.

Despite the lengthy exegesis I've read to the contrary, it's pretty clear from reading U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that a natural born citizen is such by virtue of being born within the United States. And neither of Mr. Wong's parents was a citizen. In other words, I agree with the Chief Justice as to the meaning and effect of the majority opinion in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.

Scott J. Tepper
Attorney for President Obama (and others) in Taitz v. Democrat Party, etc., et al., U.S.D.C. S.D. MS, Case No. 3:12-cv-00280-HTW-LRA.

ajtelles said...

Hi Mario,

It's so simple to articulate what an article II section I clause 5 "natural born Citizen" means.

It obviously does not mean citizen of another country, so it means U.S.A.

It obviously does not mean born on foreign soil, so it means U.S.A. soil.

It obviously does not mean naturalized, so it means natural birth to U.S.A. citizens.

It obviously does not mean natural birth to foreign citizens who are not married to each other, so it means U.S.A. citizens who are married only to each other.

Mario, the "so it means" is deliberately vague.

It is vague so that the naysayers can articulate on what legal basis a person is a "natural born Citizen" and eligible to be president if born on U.S. soil to two persons who are U.S. citizens but are not married to each other.

What is the legal basis for saying that persons who are U.S. citizen but are not married to each other when the child is born on U.S. soil convey their U.S. citizenship to their child and the child is for that reason eligible to be president?

If a female U.S. citizen has a child by a male U.S. citizen and does NOT want the male U.S. citizen to have legal rights to the child so she does not tell the male U.S. citizen that she birthed a child in another state, on what legal basis can the male U.S. citizen assert a legal right to have the court remove the child from the guardianship of the female U.S. citizen?

If the U.S. male citizen who fathered a child with a female U.S. citizen does not have a legal basis for demanding guardianship of the child, on what legal basis does a child have legal status as a "natural born Citizen" and be eligible to be president?

Mario, this is designed to stimulate articulate comments about the legal basis for defining a “natural born Citizen” is any child born ONLY with singular U.S.A. citizenship ONLY on U.S.A. soil ONLY to two U.S.A. citizens who are NOT married to each other, to counter the common sense position that a “natural born Citizen” is any child born ONLY with singular U.S.A. citizenship ONLY on U.S.A. soil ONLY to two U.S.A. citizens who are ONLY married to each other ONLY before the child is born.

My position is that, to be eligible to be president, a “natural born Citizen” MUST be defined having ONLY singualr U.S.A. citizenship ONLY to two U.S.A. citizen parents ONLY married ONLY to each other ONLY before the child is born ONLY on U.S.A. soil.

When the constitution was adopted and finally ratified in the 1780s, the “legal basis” for a foreign female becoming a U.S.A. citizen was legal marriage with a male U.S.A. citizen.

Mario, I wonder if there is anybody who visits your Natural Born Citizen blog who wants to define the legal basis and defend the proposition that the two U.S.A. citizen parents do NOT need to be married ONLY to each other for the child to be a “natural born Citizen” and thus eligible to be president?

Just askin’ for 325 million U.S.A. citizens, most of whom are married ONLY to each other.

Art
StopIslamizationOfAmerica.blogspot.com

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Scott J. Tepper,

Nice to have you here commenting on the meaning of a natural born citizen.

Justice Fuller in Wong Kim Ark, angry about a rule allowing a child born in the U.S. to alien parents who were in the U.S. temporarily to be eligible to be President while a child born out of the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents was not so eligible, had to be directing his criticism to Lynch v. Clarke, 1844 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1, 1 Sand. Ch. 583, 3 N.Y. Leg. Obs. 236, and not the majority in Wong Kim Ark. The Wong majority required domicile and permanent residency in the alien parents of a child born in the U.S. for that child to be born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States and therefore a "citizen" of the United States from the moment of birth and made no comment about Wong Kim Ark being a natural born citizen or being eligible to be President. On the contrary, Lynch was the offender on that score.

Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark held that Wong, born in the United States to alien parents, who were domiciled and permanently residing in the United States and who were neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders, was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore was a “citizen” of the United States from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. He did not hold that he was an Article II “natural born citizen” of the United States. As such, Justice Gray, recognizing and acknowledging the constitutional distinction between a natural born citizen and a citizen of the United States, explained that such a native-born citizen was as much a citizen of the United States as was a natural born citizen, who he said was born in the country to parents who were its citizens (approvingly citing and quoting Minor’s common law definition of the clause). Any conclusion that anyone is a natural born citizen based on anything that the majority or dissent in Wong Kim Ark said that is contrary to how Minor defined a natural born citizen is not supported by anything that Wong Kim Ark held and is simply wrong.

Mick said...

Mario. The thing that totally blows up the argument that a 8 USC 1401 "Citizen at birth" is a natural born Citizen is the fact that "at birth" is "AFTER BIRTH". At the moment that the baby leaves the body of the mother is AFTER BIRTH. The definition of "Naturalization" in INA 1952 is "Conferring citizenship upon a person AFTER BIRTH by any means." ALSO some of the "citizens at birth" are clearly YEARS AFTER BIRTH-- for instance 8 USC 1401(h)-- prescriptively giving "at birth"citizenship to the children of US Citizen mothers' children w/ alien fathers born abroad prior to 1934. "AT BIRTH" is "AFTER BIRTH".

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Mick,

You pointed out:

"Naturalization" in INA 1952 is "Conferring citizenship upon a person AFTER BIRTH by any means."

Please note that this statutory definition of "naturalization" is only for purposes of the immigration statute itself. It is not the definition of naturalization under the Constitution. Under the original Constitution, naturalization is achieved when a person is made a "citizen" of the United States at birth or after birth by means of an Act of Congress or treaty. With the Fourteenth Amendment, naturalization includes making a person a "citizen" of the United States "at birth" who is not such a citizen under the common law definition of a natural born citizen.

mtngoat61 said...

A Euler Diagram logically depicting a natural born Citizen: http://www.kerchner.com/images/protectourliberty/eulerlogicdiagram-citizenshipsets.jpg

MickV said...

Right Mario. 8 USC 1401 (Citizens at Birth) applies to that statute because "AT BIRTH" IS "AFTER BIRTH". The moment the baby leaves the body of the mother IS AFTER BIRTH. The effort to change A2S1C5 goes all the way back to 1952. "Citizen at Birth" IS NATURALIZATION w/in the statute, even though they deceptively try to make it seem otherwise by sleight of words. The child is not naturalized in the birth canal or in the womb. It is a revelation. Take the words back from them. If you look at 8 USC 1401(h) and 8 USC 1401(b), those are definitely "AFTER BIRTH". So to say that 8 USC 1401 "Citizens at birth" are nbC is wrong even within that statute, and an illegal amendment of the Constitution if that were so. How much time "after birth" is "after birth"? Think outside their box.

Charles Hughes said...

Mario, “Justice Fuller in Wong Kim Ark, ... had to be directing his criticism to Lynch v. Clarke, [citation omitted] and not the majority in Wong Kim Ark.”

Chief Justice Fuller does not cite the Lynch v Clarke decision anywhere in his dissent.

He does however cite from the majority opinion written by Justice Gray.

“The argument is, that, although the Constitution prior to that amendment nowhere attempted to define the words "citizens of the United States" and "natural-born citizen" as used therein, yet that it must be interpreted in the light of the English common law rule which made the place of birth the criterion of nationality; that that rule”

“was in force in all the English colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established;”

and

“that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, all white persons, at least, born within the sovereignty of the United States, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign Government, were native-born citizens of the United States.”

“Thus, the Fourteenth Amendment is held to be merely declaratory except that it brings all persons, irrespective of color, within the scope of the alleged rule, and puts that rule beyond he control of the legislative power.”

Chief Justice Fuller then continues saying that under the majority opinion children born outside the United States to US citizens

”If the conclusion of the majority opinion is correct, then the children of citizens of the United States, who have been born abroad since July 8, 1868, when the amendment was declared ratified, were, and are, aliens, unless they have, or shall on attaining majority, become citizens by naturalization in the United States, and no statutory provision to the contrary is of any force or effect. And children who are aliens by descent, but born on our soil, are exempted from the exercise of the power to exclude or to expel aliens, or any class of aliens, so often maintained by this court, an exemption apparently disregarded by the acts in respect of the exclusion of persons of Chinese descent.”

CJ Fuller then cites the English Common law rule.

”The English common law rule, which it is insisted was in force after the Declaration of Independence, was that

every person born within the dominions of the Crown, no matter whether of English or of foreign parents, and, in the latter case, whether the parents were settled or merely temporarily sojourning in the country, was an English subject,”


Note he calls it the “rule”. He goes on to say that it is this “rule” that the majority asserts is what defines the terms “citizen of the United States” and “natural born citizen”.

”And it is this rule, pure and simple, which it is asserted determined citizenship of the United States during the entire period prior to the passage of the act of April 9, 1866, and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and governed the meaning of the words "citizen of the United States" and "natural-born citizen" used in the Constitution as originally framed and adopted.”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Charles,

I of II

You did not address my point about what Lynch said regarding who qualified as a natural born citizen and that Justice Gray did not adopt Lynch’s formulation of who qualified to be a citizen of the United States by birth in its jurisdiction. Rather, you avoided addressing my point by merely saying that Chief Justice Fuller did not cite to Lynch in his dissent. You then added:

Note he [Chief Justice Fuller] calls it the “rule”. He goes on to say that it is this “rule” that the majority asserts is what defines the terms “citizen of the United States” and “natural born citizen”.

”And it is this rule, pure and simple, which it is asserted determined citizenship of the United States during the entire period prior to the passage of the act of April 9, 1866, and the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, and governed the meaning of the words "citizen of the United States" and "natural-born citizen" used in the Constitution as originally framed and adopted.”

~~~~~

Justice Gray said: “The Constitution of the United States, as originally adopted, uses the words "citizen of the United States," and "natural-born citizen of the United States." Id. at 654. We also know that Justice Gray was tasked with interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment which refers to a “citizen of the United States” and not to “natural born citizen of the United States.” We also know that the “rule” to which Chief Justice Fuller refers is the English common law rule of jus soli which Justice Gray used to interpret the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction” clause. Please cite language from Justice Gray, not from Chief Justice Fuller and not your interpretation, showing that he said that the English common law "rule" defined both a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States” and an Article II "natural born citizen of the United States.” If you cannot cite any such language, then we can conclude that Chief Justice Fuller misstated the holding of the majority, for that holding did not embrace the meaning of a natural born citizen or define it any differently from how Minor had defined the clause.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Now, getting back to my point about Lynch, both Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark and the New Jersey Supreme Court in Benny v. O'Brien (1895), 29 Vroom (58 N.J.Law), 36, 39, 40 (cited favorably by Justice Gray) required that the alien parents be domiciled and permanently residing in the U.S. in order for their child born to them in the U.S. to be accepted as a “citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. Justice Gray explained that an alien, even if only temporarily present in the U.S., was obligated to obey its laws. But then when it came to allegiance he stated:

“The [Fourteenth] Amendment, in clear words and in manifest intent, includes the children born, within the territory of the United States, of all other persons, of whatever race or color, domiciled within the United States. Every citizen or subject of another country, while domiciled here, is within the allegiance and the protection, and consequently subject to the jurisdiction, of the United States.”

Wong Kim Ark, at 693.

There you have it, Justice Gray making a distinction between obeying the laws of a nation in which an alien was physically present and that same alien owing allegiance to that nation. You will recall that it was Lynch that went as far as to not require that alien parents be domiciled in the U.S. given that under the English common law, children born in the King’s dominion and under his protection to alien parents who were merely temporarily present in the King’s dominion (not domiciled) were included as natural-born subjects. So why did Chief Justice Fuller in his dissent complain about a child born in the U.S. to transient aliens becoming a citizen of the United States at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment when Justice Gray was careful enough to explain that domiciliation was necessary to create allegiance to the United States and therefore needed for that child to be born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States? Fuller was correct to criticize the English common law for not requiring domicile and residence, but Justice Gray did not adopt that part of the English common law. Hence, a careful reading of Justice Gray’s opinion shows that Chief Justice Fuller misstated the majority’s holding as to who qualified as a “citizen” of the United States at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment.

So, Chief Justice Fuller misinterpreted the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark in two respects. First, Justice Gray’s holding did not change the meaning of a natural born citizen from how Minor had defined it, i.e., a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens. Second, his holding only added to the class of “citizens” of the United States at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment children born in the U.S. to alien parents who were domiciled and residing permanently in the U.S. (thus rejected the more liberal rule of the English common law regarding temporary presence of the alien parents) and not in the diplomatic service of a foreign nation or occupying the U.S. as part of an alien military force.

Your response will be appreciated.

STepper said...

"So, Chief Justice Fuller misinterpreted the majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark . . ."

No he didn't. There's really nothing else to say. A Chief Justice of the United States was right, and you are wrong.

I'm done here.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

STepper,

Regarding your position on what a natural born citizen is, I see that you were not able to support your position from anything that Justice Gray said in Wong Kim Ark. Rather, you want to rely on the Fuller dissent which you also were not able to show is grounded in anything Justice Gray said.

ajtelles said...

Hi Mario,

Here's a little bit of humor to go along with your "touche" and "good fight" comments.

I read with fascination the comments of Charles Hughes and Stepper (today and previously) and your responses, and it dawned on me that "what" who said and "what" who did NOT say, while it is very interesting history relative to a person being a "citizen" who is a natural born citizen and eligible to president, something is missing. In your responses your articulate a position about what jurists have said in court cases that is not accepted by others, e.g.:

"No he didn't.

There's really nothing else to say.
A Chief Justice of the United States was right, and you are wrong.

I'm done here.


I have a suggestion for one of many final questions that you can ask after making your responses when someone asserts that you are wrong, implying that they are right – so, there – you lose.

The final question would follow this type of incessant point / counterpoint:

"Chief Justice Fuller said "this" and not "that", and Justice Gray said "this" and not "that", and the majority said "this" and not "that", and the minority said "this" and not "that, and the Lynch v Clark decision means "this" and not "that", and, well, etc., etc., etc."

The final question is very simple and not confusing.

Simply ask your interlocutors what they think of John Jay's suggestion to George Washington that the command in Chief of the the armed forces should NOT "devolve" (be passed on, be inherited by birth alone) on anybody except a "natural born Citizen" (Jay's capitalization).

Did Jay intend to imply 1) ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, or 2) ONLY dual U.S./foreign citizenship, or, for fun to really confuse them, 3) EITHER / OR singular/dual citizenship? The answer is simple – ONLY 1 of the 3 is correct, and the answer will help to smoke out what your visitors really mean when they say that they disagree with you and person 1 who said "this" and not "that", and that they agree with person 2 who said "this" and not "that", and court cases 1, 2, and 3 support their own "this" and "that" position. Jay was not confused, and he knew what he meant when he made the suggestion to Washington before the adoption of article 2 section 1 clause 5.

Mario, I suggest starting with John Jay's September 17, 1787 suggestion to Washington since it is relative to ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, but I'm sure that there are many other "final questions" that you can come up with to give your interlocutors something to think about and, hopefully, coherently articulate a response.

Art

StopIslamizationOfAmerica.blogspot.com

Carlyle said...

I really appreciate the detail and research that is represented here. But on the other hand, I'm an engineer and like to also look at the Big Picture and think in terms of sanity checks.

In our current overly-PC, morally relativistic, multi-culti, "anybody can grow up to be president", world we would be well to remember that the Founders clearly were trying to be EXclusive not INclusive -- otherwise why waste words with "Natural Born", just stick with citizenship, age, and residency.

The presidency is not an honorary position open to all. It has specific and incredibly important duties including commander in chief. We need somebody of the highest character and loyalty. We need an exemplary American not just a regular American.

I also get very sick of backwards reasoning -- The people clearly want Obama (or Harris, or Haley, or Cruz, etc.) and so therefore they MUST be NBC. Aristotle would be shocked.

mtngoat61 said...

Euler Diagrams are used to proved the truth or fallacy of an argument. Here is one for "natural born Citizen"

Reality Check said...

Apuzzo's and his cohort's arguments are based on two major fallacies and that is why Apuzzo has failed multiple times in the courts.

THe first fallacy is that the Supreme Court in Minor v Happersett ruled in obiter dicta that the natural born citizens are only those born to US citizen parent(s). First, it is dicta, second it had nothing to do with the question in the case (it's dicta stupid), and finally that isn't what the court said in dicta. A judge told Apuzzo that when he tried to bring up Minor in oral argument.

The second huge fallacy is that the Fourteenth Amendment created a new class of "born citizens". This is nonsense thinking rooted in racism. As the court explained in the Wong Kim Ark ruling the 14th Amendment was added to the Constitution to codify what had been in common law for hundreds of years and any one born on US soil under the jurisdiction of the United States (or on British soil prior to the formation of the USA) was a natural born citizen (natural born subject prior to the formation of the United States).

It became necessary to add the explicit language to the Constitution to neuter the racist Dred Scott v Sandford precedent and ensure that freed slaves became citizens. There aren't "Fourteenth Amendment Citizens" and "natural born citizens". They are one and the same. Any legal scholar worth his salt agrees with that conclusion.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

By now we should understand that the set of natural born citizens is not only a subset but also a proper subset of the set of born citizens. Again, the born citizens are defined by (1) the common law which defines a natural born citizen (by birth in the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents), (2) the Fourteenth Amendment (by birth in the U.S. to one or no U.S. citizen parents), and (3) a naturalization Act of Congress (by birth out of the U.S. to one or two U.S. citizen parents). Indeed, there are natural born citizens (under Article II) and born citizens (under the Fourteenth Amendment and naturalization Acts of Congress), and while all natural born citizens are born citizens, not all born citizens are natural born citizens. These different sets of born citizens are not to be conflated and confounded but rather are to be kept separate and apart and given their own distinct constitutional sphere. It is by recognizing the distinction between these types of born citizens that we give meaning to the word “natural” from the natural born citizen clause. Congress has always recognized this constitutional distinction. In all its naturalization Acts, it has called all born citizens who are not natural born citizens “citizens” of the United States and not “natural born citizens” of the United States. Additionally, the Fourteenth Amendment, as drafted by Congress, even though a native-born citizen thereunder is a born citizen, uses the nomenclature “citizens of the United States” and not “natural born citizens” of the United States.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Reality Check,

You said: "There aren't "Fourteenth Amendment Citizens" and "natural born citizens"."
Let me help you a bit. If you are going to make that argument, then you have to say: There aren't "citizens" of the United States and "natural born citizen" of the United States. But then that would not work out too good for you, would it?

Reality Check said...

Let's see where Apuzzo's twisted logic takes us. Since the adoption of the 14th Amendment all persons born in the United States under the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States and the state in which they reside. Guess who that includes? It includes persons born to one or two parents who are citizens. All modern citizenship statutes are based upon the 14th Amendment.

Therefore, following Apuzzo's twisted logic there are no natural born citizens still alive since all non-naturalized citizens are citizens via the Fourteenth Amendment. There are no other definitions of citizenship in the Constitution. Please show us where the Constitution defines who is a natural born citizen elsewhere? There are not two classes of citizens defined in Amendment 14. There are only the natural born citizens and the citizens as designated by Congress under Article I powers.

The only remaining question is whether someone who is a citizen under the naturalization powers of Congress is also "natural born" if born to a US parent abroad. Ted Cruz was in this category. The few court rulings that were handed down in 2016 seem to suggest that the courts would rule that the answer is yes.

The question of whether someone born on US soil and a citizen via statute and the 14th Amendment is natural born well settled. To continue to argue that it isn't in 2019 is absurd.

ajtelles said...

Hi Mario,

Without saying so, Reality Check is proposing that John Jay was wrong for proposing ONLY singular citizenship.

Jay was proposing ONLY singular U.S. A. citizenship and Check is proposing dual U.S.A./foreign citizenship.

Mario, Check, as well as all proponents of dual U.S.A./foreign citizenship, was checkmated by Jay and his simple to understand concept of singular citizenship. Every time it is brought up relative to being a natural born citizen and eligible to be president, singular citizenship wins every time with voluble sentences (fluent with a coherent conclusion) while dual citizenship requires garrulous sentences (many words trying to get to a coherent conclusion) to define.

All Reality Check and other proponents of dual U.S.A./foreign citizenship need to do is adduce founders and ratifiers of Article II Section I clause 5 who defined Jay's "natural born Citizen" phrase as intending to mean ALSO dual U.S.A./foreign citizenship.

Simple, right?

Art
StopIslamizationOfAmerica.blogspot.com

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Reality Check,

I see that you are having difficulty sorting things out. Let me help you.

First, in your attempt to make the Fourteenth Amendment the only means by which one is determined to be a natural born citizen, you said: “There are no other definitions of citizenship in the Constitution.” That is correct but not controlling. Minor instructed that the Constitution does not define a natural born citizen and that there were always citizens and natural born citizens before the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. It then set out to show how citizens and natural born citizens existed prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. It defined the “natives, or natural-born citizens” under the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution, stating that they were children born in a country to parents who were its citizens. It then concluded that Virginia Minor, born in the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents, was by virtue of being a natural born citizen, a citizen. Hence, the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court explained that a natural born citizen was defined under the common law and not under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Second, the Fourteenth Amendment grants U.S. citizenship to all those born in the U.S. and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Given that broad language, the amendment generally grants U.S. citizenship from the moment of birth to children born in the U.S. to one or no U.S. citizen parents or to two U.S. citizen parents. See Wong Kim Ark. Of those children, those who are born in the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents are not only “citizens” of the United States under the Amendment, but, satisfying the common law definition of a natural born citizen, also “natives, or natural-born citizens” of the United States. See Minor and Wong Kim Ark.

Third, regarding Senator Cruz, who was born in Canada to a Cuban citizen father and U.S. citizen mother, he is a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress and not by virtue of the common law that defines a natural born citizen. See Minor, Wong Kim Ark, and other U.S. Supreme Court decisions that I have cited on this point. Without such naturalization Act, he would have been born an alien. Hence, needing a naturalization Act for his U.S. citizenship, he is not a natural born citizen.

ajtelles said...

Mario,

I hope that Reality Check and other proponents of dual U.S.A./foreign citizenship, which they tacitly imply is the original intent of "natural born Citizen" and is sufficient qualification for eligibility to be president, will notice that your paragraph #2 (July 12, 2019 at 12:54 PM) is an excellent example of a voluble sentence with a coherent conclusion because it proposes that ONLY singular U.S.A. citizenship is eligible to be president.

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

Reality Check said...

The problem is that Apuzzo is completely wrong on Minor. Remember Apuzzo was told that in court? Guess he didn't listen.

Here is what Atticus Finch wrote about Minor v Happersett in a comment on Robert Laity's joke of a "book" at Amazon:

"The case United States supreme court case Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) cited by the author had nothing to do with the term "Natural Born Citizen" in the Constitution. In fact, the issue in the case was whether a woman who was a citizen of the United States had a right to vote under the privilege clause of the 14th Amendment.

Chief Justice Waite, speaking for the court, held that the "Constitution of the United States does not confer the right of suffrage upon any one, (Id. at 178)" unless specifically mentioned in the 15th Amendment where it provides: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States, or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude."

In his opinion, Chief Justice Waite mentioned in passing the following language that was not germane to the case by noting:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. Id 167-168

The above language is a typical example what is refer to as Obiter Dictum or in other words “words of an opinion entirely unnecessary for the decision of the case.” Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 967 (Fifth Ed. 1979). When there is Obiter Dictum language in an opinion that part of the opinion that contained Obiter Dictum language has no precedent value since it was unnecessary in the court’s decision.

In the Minor case, nowhere in the opinion was the status of Virginia Minor citizenship discussed. Moreover, there was no discussion as to the citizenship status of Minor’s PARENTS. In fact, the court noted “She has always been a citizen from her birth, and entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizenship.” Id. at 170.

Therefore, Chief Justice Waite’s gratuitous comment about “natural born citizenship” had absolutely nothing to do with the decision of the court. In fact, he himself remarked “For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts [citizens children born without reference to citizenship of their parents].” Id at 168.

As such, the holding in the Minor case was that citizenship does not itself confer the right to vote under the Privilege Clause of the 14th Amendment."

Apuzzo has no definition from the Constitution for "natural born citizen". Therefore he had to invent a phony one. Wong Kim Ark destroyed that fallacy. Most of Justice Gray's majority opinion is spent explaining that in English Common Law a natural born subject was one born on British soil with allegiance to the crown regardless of parentage. This definition was incorporated by the colonies and then by the states of the United States that were their successors. It wasn't until after the Dred Scott ruling and the Civil War that the common law definition was encoded into the Constitution via Amendment XIV.

It's quite simple. US Citizenship is no longer conveyed via common law. It is granted either by Amendment XIV, which codified the prior common law rules, or by an act of Congress through naturalization. All of the former are natural born citizens. Some of the latter might be.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

It looks like Reality Check makes a lot of errors and just stays confused. Reality Check tells us that Minor’s definition of a natural born citizen is “Obiter Dictum” because the Court did not have to reach that issue. But then Reality Check also argues that Wong Kim Ark provided a definition of a natural born citizen. Wong Kim Ark only had to find that Wong was a “citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment and not also a natural born citizen. Reality Check wants it both ways but he cannot have it that way. This is a fail for Reality Check.

If Virginia Minor was not a citizen of the United States, she would not have been able to claim that she had a right to vote which she maintained came with being a citizen. Hence, before reaching the voting rights issue, the Court first analyzed whether she was a citizen of the United States. So, in the first part of its decision, Minor set out to determine whether Virginia Minor, a woman, was a citizen of the United States. After first defining a natural born citizen, Minor reached the conclusion that Virginia Minor was a “citizen” because she was a natural born citizen. All that is not Obiter Dictum. This is another fail for Reality Check.

The doubts that Minor left unresolved were doubts about whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was a citizen of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. It left no doubt as to whether such a child was a natural born citizen under the common law that defined the clause, for clearly under the common law which the Court explained defined the clause he was not. This is another fail for Reality Check.

Reality Check tells us that the definition of a natural born citizen is not contained in the Constitution. So, what. Minor and Wong Kim Ark told us that and we all know that. The Constitution does not define most of its terms. Minor told us that we must look outside the Constitution for its meaning. Minor then looked to the common law and said that it meant a child born in a county to parents who were its citizens. Even Wong Kim Ark looked outside the Constitution to define “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which the Constitution also does not define. Justice Gray looked to the English common law as an aid in interpreting its meaning. This is another fail for Reality Check.

Reality Check says that a natural born citizen is no longer defined by the common law because the Fourteenth Amendment was passed. But Minor, which was decided in 1875 (after the Amendment was adopted in 1868) told us that there had been citizens and natural born citizens before the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. It then said that the definition of a natural born citizen may be found in the common law. It did not look to the Fourteenth Amendment when analyzing whether Virginia Minor was a citizen of the United States. It did not have to because she was a natural born citizen which was defined by the common law and not the Fourteenth Amendment. This is another fail for Reality Check.

Finally, Reality Check says that some persons who acquire their citizenship by naturalization Act of Congress may be natural born citizens. That is a good one (a naturalized citizen is a natural born citizen) and another fail for Reality Check.

Reality Check sure fails a lot and just stays confused.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

When Reality Check loses, he gets nasty. So, I decided to publish only that part of his last comment which is acceptable under the rules of this blog.

Reality Check said:

“Apuzzo again distorts the facts. Virginia Minor was born before the ratification of the 14th Amendment so she was a citizen by common law.”

Now Reality Check really outdid himself with this one. Virginia Minor was born in Virginia to Warner Minor (a landowner and university hotelkeeper) and Marie (Timberlake) Minor on March 27, 1824. The Minors came from wealthy southern families. The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868. What Reality Check is saying is that because Virginia Minor was born before the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, she could not benefit from it and had to resort to the common law for her citizenship. Again, we have some more major fails by Reality Check.

Congress first passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 to overrule the Dred Scott decision and to assure that the freed slaves were made citizens of the United States. Congress sought to naturalize the freed slaves who were born in the United States through this Act. There were questions whether that Act was constitutional or whether it would be changed by future Congresses. Congress responded with including in the Fourteenth Amendment the first sentence of Section 1 which provides for U.S. citizenship. That sentence also acted to constitutionally naturalize those same freed slaves. The Amendment was adopted in 1868. Those freed slaves were born before the 1866 Act and the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. If we are to accept Reality Check’s reasoning, neither the 1866 Act nor the Fourteenth Amendment applied to them and they remained persons without any U.S. citizenship. Of course, we can see the ridiculousness of Realty Check’s position that Virginia Minor was a citizen only by the common law, when both the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment applied to her just as they applied to the freed slaves.

And there is more to Reality Check’s absurdity. Virginia Minor argued that Missouri could not deprive her of the right to vote because voting was a privilege or immunity that Missouri could not deprive her of given the Fourteenth Amendment prohibition against such state action. Neither Missouri nor the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor argued that the Amendment did not apply to her because she was born before its adoption.

So, Reality Check is really the gift that keeps on giving.

Carlyle said...

FWIW, RC shoots himself in the foot and and destroys his own potential credibility with this simple statement: He mentions born citizens and naturalized citizens, and then says "All of the former are natural born citizens. Some of the latter might be."

Buh Bye, RC. Game over.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Reality Check has posted another comment. I have deleted the last part of it because he continues to try to make personal attacks against me which he wants me to publish in my own blog. Here is the majority of his comment:

The court in Minor v Happersett used the most obvious criteria to determine that Virginia Minor was a citizen, that was she was a natural born child under common law at the time of her birth. The court made no ruling as to whether citizens born with foreign parents after the adoption of the Amendment XIV were or were not natural born citizens. It said it was demurring on that point. Justice Gray in his opinion in WKA cited Minor to show that the court had left that question open in that case as well as others.

As has been noted before Justice Waite, the author of the opinion in Minor, swore in President Chester Arthur, who had a foreign father. Waite apparently had no qualms about Arthur being eligible.

mtngoat61 said...

Kamala Harris and Tulsi Gabbard not constitutionally qualified to be president - Not "Natural Born Citizens" by Attorney Larry Klayman - published 12 Jul 2019 at RenewAmerica.com

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of III

1. I am happy to see that Reality Check has made progress in his understanding of Minor. Now he finally concedes that “the most obvious criteria to determine that Virginia Minor was a citizen, that was she was a natural born child under common law at the time of her birth.”

2. But then he goes wrong when he says: “The court [Minor] made no ruling as to whether citizens born with foreign parents after the adoption of the Amendment XIV were or were not natural born citizens.”

The Court made no ruling as to whether those children were “citizens” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment, not whether they were natural born citizens under the common law. Here is the quote from Minor which clearly demonstrates that it left open the Fourteenth Amendment question regarding who was to be included as a “citizen” thereunder:

“Some authorities go further and include as “citizens” children born within the “jurisdiction” without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

Minor, at 167-68 (emphasis supplied).

Justice Gray refers to “citizens,” not “natural-born citizens” which he used previously and defined under the common law. He also uses “jurisdiction,” a word that is found in the Fourteenth Amendment and not in the common law definition of a natural born citizen.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of III

3. Reality Check also errs when he said: “Justice Gray in his opinion in WKA cited Minor to show that the court had left that question open in that case as well as others.”

No, Justice Gray said that Minor had left open the Fourteenth Amendment question, not the natural born citizen question.

Commenting on Minor, Justice Gray said:

“The decision in that case was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.

The only adjudication that has been made by this court upon the meaning of the clause, "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof," in the leading provision of the Fourteenth Amendment is Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94.” Id. at 680.

Justice Gray explained that the Fourteenth Amendment “put it beyond doubt that all blacks, as well as whites, born or naturalized within the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States. Id. at 676.

Justice Gray further said: “These considerations confirm the view, already expressed in this opinion, that the opening sentence of the Fourteenth [p688] Amendment is throughout affirmative and declaratory, intended to allay doubts and to settle controversies which had arisen, and not to impose any new restrictions upon citizenship.” Id. at 687-88.

And again:

“By the Civil Rights Act of 1866, "all persons born in the United States, and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed," were declared to be citizens of the United States. In the light of the law as previously established, and of the history of the times, it can hardly be doubted that the words of that act, "not subject to any foreign power," were not intended to exclude any children born in this country from the citizenship which would theretofore have been their birthright, or, for instance, for the first time in our history, to deny the right of citizenship to native-born children of foreign white parents not in the diplomatic service of their own country nor in hostile occupation of part of our territory. But any possible doubt in this regard was removed when the negative words of the Civil Rights Act, "not subject to any foreign power," gave way, in the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, to the affirmative words, "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.’"

All this proves that Minor made a “decision” (not dicta) on both natural born citizenship and voting rights. It also proves that Minor, which came before Elk, made no decision on how to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment which makes no reference to a natural born citizen. Indeed, Justice Grey told us that Minor did not address the Fourteenth Amendment question. A child born in the U.S. to alien parents could not be a citizen under the common law natural born citizen clause. Minor explained that some authorities maintained that such a child could be a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment. It said that there were “doubts” whether that was correct. But since it was not necessary for the Court to reach that decision given that Virginia Minor was a natural born citizen and therefore a citizen, it left it open for another day. That other day came with Wong Kim Ark which explained that the Fourteenth Amendment removed all the “doubts” regarding whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a “citizen” of the United States.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of III

Additionally, Chief Justice Fuller in his dissent in Wong explained that the Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) had stated that children of "’citizens or subjects of foreign States,’" owing permanent allegiance elsewhere and only local obedience here, are not otherwise subject to the jurisdiction of the United States than are their parents” and therefore not “citizens” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. Id. at 724. He then added that he was not insisting that the statement was essential to the Slaughterhouse Cases’ decision, especially given that just two years later “Chief Justice Waite in Minor . . . remarked that there were doubts which, for the purposes of the case then in hand, it was not necessary to solve. But that solution is furnished in Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 101.” Fuller then went on to explain how Elk addressed the Fourteenth Amendment question. Hence, we can see that Chief Justice Fuller saw Minor’s “doubts” as referring to the Fourteenth Amendment and not about defining a natural born citizen and that Minor left open the Fourteenth Amendment question and not any question about how a natural born citizen should be defined.

So, we can see that Minor did not say that there were any doubts about what a natural born citizen was or about whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a natural born citizen. The only doubts that existed in Chief Justice Waite’s mind were about whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was now a “citizen” of the United States given the new Fourteenth Amendment. He did not address those doubts. Wong Kim Ark did. Unlike Virginia Minor who was a “natural born citizen” and therefore not in need of the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong was not a natural born citizen and so the Wong Kim Ark Court had to address the question of whether he was a “citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment.

4. Finally, it is absurd to expect Chief Justice Waite to refuse to swear in President Chester Arthur even if he believed that he was not eligible. The Constitution does not give any single Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court any such authority. The role of the Chief Justice was to administer the oath for the President-elect. That did not include any jurisdiction to singly make a decision on whether he was eligible or not for the office.

Northland A said...

"...it was never doubted that all apples are fruits. Some authorities go further and include others at fruits. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."

Does this statement mean that only apples are fruits? All the Chief Justice did is to illustrate that even the strictest definition did not automatically confer a right/privilege.

As for the oath, the Constitution does not state who must administer the oath and actually a New York state judge had already administered the oath. The second oath was done out of an abundance of caution, to avoid doubters. Waite could have easily passed and let another Justice do it.

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

Northland A,

You have presented a straw man argument, for I have never interpreted Minor in such a way as to produce the conclusion that “only apples are fruits.” Allow me to demonstrate.

First, you maintain that Minor said:

All apples are fruits.

Other things are fruits.

Then you put forth the proposition that the way I interpret Minor produces the following conclusion from those premises:

Therefore, only apples are fruits.

Such a conclusion does not logically follow from the premises, for clearly, the set of fruits is much larger than the set of apples and therefore includes more than just apples. In other words, other things can also be fruits and not just apples.

And this is exactly how I have interpreted Minor. I have not interpreted Minor to say that only natural born citizens (apples) are citizens (fruits), which I have shown is erroneous. Rather, I have interpreted Minor to say that other things can be citizens (fruits).

Second, to prove my point, Minor added that there had been doubts whether a child born in the jurisdiction to alien parents was a citizen (fruit). Minor was correct in saying that such doubt existed given that such a child did not satisfy the common law definition of a natural born citizen (apple) and therefore we could not a fortiori conclude that the child was a citizen (fruit). Not being a natural born citizen (apple), the child had to demonstrate some other way by which he/she was a citizen (fruit). Minor did not say that there was any doubt whether the child was a natural born citizen (apple). Such a question would be erroneous since such a child could not be a natural born citizen (apple) if he/she were not a citizen (fruit). But at the same time, even if the child were a citizen (fruit) that did not mean that the child was necessarily a natural born citizen (apple).

So, what I have maintained is that Chief Justice Waite defined under the common law a natural born citizen (apple) to be a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens (fruits). Under the common law, this was a natural citizen (fruit). Minor said that all the rest of the people who did not satisfy this definition of a natural born citizen (apple) were “aliens or foreigners” (not fruits) and could become citizens (fruits) by operation of some positive law. I have further maintained that he said that there had been doubts whether children born in the U.S. to alien parents were citizens (fruits) under the new Fourteenth Amendment. He did not say that there were doubts whether they were natural born citizens (apples), for clearly under the common law definition that it confirmed they were not.

Chief Justice Waite did not answer the question of whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a citizen (fruit) under the Fourteenth Amendment. That question was answered by Wong Kim Ark which for policy reasons ruled that he was (if blacks born in the U.S. to non-citizen parents were citizens then so were Asians and whites born under the same circumstances). But then concluding that such a child is a citizen (fruit) of the United States does not equate to concluding that such a child is a natural born citizen (apple). In fact, not meeting the definition of a natural born citizen (apple), while such a child can be a citizen (fruit), such a child is not and cannot be a natural born citizen (apple).

My argument, therefore, does not equate as you maintain to saying that only natural born citizens (apples) are citizens (fruits).

Reality Check said...

Part I:

The main problem Apuzzo has is that the terms of the Constitution are defined by English common law.

We know this from the Wong Kim Ark decision:

In Minor v. Happersett, Chief Justice Waite, when construing, in behalf of the court, the very provision of the Fourteenth Amendment now in question, said: "The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that." And he proceeded to resort to the common law as an aid in the construction of this provision. 21 Wall. 167.

In Smith v. Alabama, Mr. Justice Matthews, delivering the judgment of the court, said:

There is no common law of the United States, in the sense of a national customary law, distinct from the common law of England as adopted by the several States each for itself, applied as its local law, and subject to such alteration as may be provided by its own statutes. . . . There is, however, one clear exception to the statement that there is no national common law. The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history.

124 U.S. 478.

II. The fundamental principle of the common law with regard to English nationality was birth within the allegiance, also called "ligealty," "obedience," "faith," or "power" of the King. The principle embraced all persons born within the King's allegiance and subject to his protection. Such allegiance and protection were mutual -- as expressed in the maxim protectio trahit subjectionem, et subjectio protectionem -- and were not restricted to natural-born subjects and naturalized subjects, or to those who had taken an oath of allegiance, but were predicable of aliens in amity so long as they were within the kingdom. Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects. But the children, born within the realm, of foreign ambassadors, or the children of alien enemies, born during and within their hostile occupation of part of the King's dominions, were not natural-born subjects because not born within the allegiance, the obedience, or the power, or, as would be said at this day, within the jurisdiction, of the King


So WKA clearly points us to a definition of "natural born". And that definition in English common law included "Children, born in England, of such aliens were therefore natural-born subjects."

So the authors of the Constitution clearly understood this definition of "natural born". It was so ingrained in the common law that "natural born subject" and "natural born citizen" were equivalent terms that multiple published legal documents on citizenship contained the phrase "natural born subject" even after the adoption of the Constitution.

Reality Check said...

Part II:

Now Apuzzo has ineffectively tried to explain this devastating set of facts by claiming that the common law had changed by the time the Constitution was written and that in Minor the Supreme Court was referring to "American Common Law". Aside from the fact that the court in WKA quoted Smith v Alabama and that would have negated Apuzzo's claim that the definition of "natural born" came from American common law and for there have to have been a change in the common law definition of natural born predicated upon a court ruling in colonial times up to the writing of the Constitution requiring that a child must have two citizen parents to be natural born.

Now way back in 2012 blogger John Woodman asked Apuzzo to cite just such a list of cases. He asked Apuzzo for a list of all court decisions prior to 1787, that established the American Common Law definition of “Natural Born Citizen". So how many of those cases did Apuzzo name? If you guessed exactly zero give that man a cigar.

So let's see how Apuzzo can do now that he has had 7 years to do the research. How many can he name?

Woodman gave Apuzzo an even easier task. He asked him to supply "The Quotes from American Colonial, State and Federal Judges, Prior to 1787, that Make Clear the American Common Law Definition that Being a “Natural Born Citizen” Requires Two Citizen Parents". Again the mighty Apuzzo struck out. Surely after 7 long years he can now supply those quotes.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I am giving Reality Check only a short response knowing that he, like John Woodman, cannot take a long one.

The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happerset (1875) defined a natural born citizen under the common law the nomenclature with which the framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. It said:

"At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

Minor, at 167.

This definition of the “natives, or natural-born citizens” is almost a quote from Emer de Vattel, Section 212 of The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) ("The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"), a text which our U.S. Supreme Court in several past and current decisions has informed was highly regarded and used by the Founders and Framers. In fact, Section 212 defined the “natives, or natural-born citizens,” the exact same nomenclature used by Minor. Since the common law definition of a natural born citizen that Minor provided has its source in the law of nations, that common law was American national common law and not English common law. To give you some examples why this is so and there are many more, Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus (1814) relied on the law of nations to define a natural born citizen. In The Nereide, 13 U.S. 388, 423 (1815), Justice Marshall stated that the “Court is bound by the law of nations, which is part of the law of the land.” Justice Daniel in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1856) also used Emer de Vattel and Section 212 of his The Law of Nations to define a natural born citizen. None of these decisions mentioned Blackstone's name when doing so, let alone anything that he or any other commentator on the English common law said on the subject.

Indeed, under Minor’s definition as provided by that common law, a natural born citizen was a child born in a country to citizen parents and all the rest of the people were “aliens or foreigners” who could be naturalized under positive law such as naturalization Acts of Congress or the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark, which used the English common law as an aid to interpreting the “jurisdiction” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment cited and quoted Minor’s definition of the “natives, or natural-born citizens” and did not disagree with Minor on how it defined those terms under that common law. Your complaint regarding American common law v. English common law is therefore with Chief Justice John Marshall, Justice Daniel, the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor and the majority and dissent in Wong Kim Ark, not with me.

ajtelles said...

Ships passing in the night
or
A rescue ship that helped the Titanic

Hi Mario,

You are a proponent of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship as the prerequisite for a person to be identified as a natural born citizen and eligible to be president, and Reality Check, your current antoganist on your blog (but there are MANY others) is a proponent of either/or dual U.S./foreign citizenship, which he asserts is the prerequisite to be identified as a natural born citizen and eligibility to be president.

Here are three dual citizenship paragraphs from Check's comment here on July 12, 2019 at 11:20 AM:

>> "Let's see where Apuzzo's twisted logic takes us.

>> "Since the adoption of the 14th Amendment all persons born in the United States under the jurisdiction of the United States are citizens of the United States and the state in which they reside.

>> "Guess who that includes?

>> "It includes persons born to one or two parents who are citizens.

>> "All modern citizenship statutes are based upon the 14th Amendment."

[...snip...]

>> "The only remaining question is whether someone who is a citizen under the naturalization powers of Congress is also "natural born" if born to a US parent abroad.

>> "Ted Cruz was in this category.

>> "The few court rulings that were handed down in 2016 seem to suggest that the courts would rule that the answer is yes.

>> "The question of whether someone born on US soil and a citizen via statute and the 14th Amendment is natural born well settled.

>> "To continue to argue that it isn't in 2019 is absurd."

Mario, your logic is not "twisted" as Check wrote, and Check's logic is also not "twisted".

Mario, you are simply the rescue ship that is trying to help the Check's Titanic "logic", similar to the rescue ship that helped the passengers of the Titanic that was brought down by an iceberg in the night.

Mario, the "iceberg" of the logic of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship is the common sense "by birth alone" prekrequisite that identifies a "natural born Citizen" (John Jay's capitalization) who ALONE is eligible to be president.

Reality Check (and other proponents of dual citizenship), I hope that helps you to articulate with more volubility and less garrulousness your either/or dual U.S./foreign citizenship "logic" - EITHER singular US. citizenship OR dual U.S./foreign citizenship qualifies a person to be eligible to be president.

ONLY U.S. citizenship vs. Dual U.S./foreign citizenship are not ships passing in the night.

ONLY U.S. citizenship is the rescue ship of "logic" that will correct the "logic" of "either/or" - EITHER singular citizenship OR dual citizenship.

Art
http://stopislamizationofamerica.blogspot.com

Reality Check said...

Apuzzo quotes Chief Justice John Marshall from The Venus, which like Minor was not a citizenship case. It was a property case. The owners of the ship were naturalized citizens so the case had nothing to do with the definition of natural born citizen. Justice Marshall's mention of de Vattel was in a concurring opinion signed by only one other Justice. It therefore cannot be binding precedent. Apuzzo of course is an attorney and should have known this known this.

There is no historical record for the claim that de Vattel's Law of Nations was adopted as American common law. That claim is absurd beyond belief. It would be laughed out of any court. The majority opinion in Wong Kim Ark clearly states that the definition of words in the Constitution must be gleaned from English common law. Apuzzo and other Birther litigators have been told by judges that Minor did not define natural born citizen. No Birther case or any other case won by citing (or The Venus oncitizenship.

I won't even comment on Apuzzo citing Dred Scott v Sandford other than to say when you have to stoop to citing Dred Scott you have pretty much admitted defeat.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Reality Check needs a reality check. Chief Justice John Marshall (a Founder) defined a natural born citizen in The Venus. Justice Daniel in Dred Scott, The Slaughterhouse Cases by implication, the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor, and both the majority and dissent in Wong Kim Ark defined the clause the same.

There are many sources too numerous to cite here that demonstrate that the law of nations was adopted in the U.S. as part of the law of the land. Those same sources show that Emer de Vattel was the Founders' and Framers' favorite writer on the law of nations. Maybe Reality Check can look to George Washington, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry, James Otis, James Wilson, Benjamin Franklin, Charles Dumas, St. George Tucker, and Joseph Story to discover the authority of Vattel during the Founding of our nation. There are numerous other sources, including many court cases, that show that Vattel's authority continued in the United States after the Founding and well into the 20th century. Indeed, Vattel's influence extended from the Founding, to the diplomatic arena, to our law courts, and to our universities.

Reality Check is not a truth-teller. Rather, he is a brazen teller of fiction put forth for the purpose of a political end.

Reality Check said...

Apuzzo, let's bet $1000 right now that you never win a case against Kamala Harris and have her declared ineligible to run in any state or to serve as president. Can the coward Apuzzo put his money where his mouth is?

Reality Check said...

PS:

These questions are decided in courts and not on obscure blogs like ours or comment streams are they not?

Will Apuzzo be willing to put his money where his mouth is? I think not.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Reality Check has fallen off his rocker.

mtngoat61 said...

RealityCheck should provide his real name for all the world to see if he really wants to make wagers with you Mario. He knows yours. Otherwise it is just more smoke and mirrors and bluster from RC. Challenges to wagers by said anonymous online ID, or others using his ID in Sock Pupper mode, is about a credible as the legal opinion statements made by the same anonymous poster. He knows your name and address. Yet RC has for years hidden behind a curtain spreading disinformation online akin to a manure spreader in a farmer's field in Connecticut.

mtngoat61 said...

Article II Presidential Eligibility Facts Website: http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html Read about all the failed attempts by members of Congress in both major political parties to remove or re-define the "natural born Citizen" term from the Constitution, all of which failed. Also, the various relevant U.S. Supreme Court cases and their holdings.

mtngoat61 said...

The Law of Nations was made a part of the U.S. Constitution and specifically cited therein and the most read legal treatise on the subject was The Law of Nations and Principles of Natural Law by Emer de Vattel, who therein in said treatise clearly defined a "natural born Citizen", as has been pointed out in this blog posting and many other articles in this blog by Attorney Mario Apuzzo. See: Article I Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution: "The Congress shall have Power ... To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations; ... "

mtngoat61 said...

RealityCheck is sounding more and more like that old communist Foggy and Obot using the RealityCheck user ID in Sock Puppet mode. JMHO.

Brianroy said...

Reality Check needs reality, not just a fraction of a second logging in to in & then a disfunction of cognitive abilities & a logging out from it.

"...the term ‘natural born citizen’ is used and excludes all persons owing allegiance by birth to foreign states.”
The New Englander and Yale Law Review, Volume 3 (1845), p. 414

When does a person ACQUIRE Citizenship "naturally" as opposed to acquiring it by an act of law that requires it to be a consequence of a legal statute?

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

More than 4 decades prior to the 14th Amendment, we have the concept of the 14th Amendment already present. A Citizen father who is the citizen of a state of the United States, he is able to pass that citizenship of his STATE & of his country onto his child. The child whom is BORN in such a condition to which the father is a legal citizen of the state in which he resides, naturally acquires a citizenship in the State of his citizen father, residing there. If by coveture a woman has to acquire a citizenship, at what point is the birth of her baby a natural acquisition of citizenship, and at what point was it an act of law to confer it?

In its purest form, I personally say this:
To be a United States Natural Born Citizen, he (or she) must be one of sole nationality, so that were he (or she) ever stripped of citizenship in the United States, he (or she) would be declared as “Stateless”.

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States (in 1829, as stated in his Second edition)
states that:
"…Under our Constitution the question is settled by its express language, and when we are informed that, excepting those who were citizens, (however the capacity was acquired,) at the time the Constitution was adopted, no person is eligible to the office of president unless he is a natural born citizen, the principle that THE PLACE OF BIRTH creates the relative quality is established as to us.

…No one can suppose that the parent intended, that WHILE HE WAS A PERMANENT CITIZEN OF THE STATE, his children should not partake of the same rights, enjoy the same liberty, and be protected by the same government."

The parents of Kamala Harris were NOT citizens of the State of California, nor of the United States at the time of her birth. Kamala depends on conditions set forth by Wong Kim Ark @ 705.
What is missing is a discussion of US v. Shaughnessy 353 US 72 (1957) @ 73 & Plyerv Doe 457 US 202 (1982) @211, note 10.
I defer to Mario to please comment regarding these two cases to help clear some of the matter up regarding alien birth citizenship (anchor babies) versus NATURAL born citizenship.


Reality Check said...

I will also make the wager offer to Charles Kerchner. I think Apuzzo knows he is playing a losing hand in the courts. Kerchner was willing to spend all that money on full page Washington Times ads. He must have it to waste. I will gladly take his money too.

I have made similar offers to Birthers like Mark Gillar over the years. I have yet to find one willing to back up their big claims of fraud, etc. with their wallets.

mtngoat61 said...

The Washington Times National Edition full page ads about the constitutional term "natural born Citizen" and the use of stolen and forged ID documents by Obama: http://www.kerchner.com/protectourliberty/archives.htm

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

In my comment here of July 14, 2019 at 9:08 AM, I referred to the expression, “natural citizen.” Someone at https://brainly.in/question/11333627
asked what is the meaning of a “natural citizen.” I gave a short answer there. Here is a more detailed one.

In the U.S., a "natural citizen" refers to the original U.S. Constitution's Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 "natural born citizen" and not to the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment’s “citizen” of the United States “at birth.”

A natural born citizen and hence a natural citizen is not defined by the Fourteenth Amendment, which defines only a "citizen" of the United States. Rather, it is the law of nations that during the Founding and drafting of the Constitution had already become part of U.S. national common law that defines one. This common law defined the term as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of their child's birth. All the rest of the people were aliens or foreigners who could become "citizens" of the United States through positive law such as a naturalization Act of Congress or treaty. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758); Minor v. Happersett (1875).

In 1790, Congress provided under its constitutional naturalization powers through its first naturalization Act that children born out of the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents could be "considered as natural born citizens." If the First Congress, which included many Founders and Framers, saw the need to pass a naturalization Act to make those children citizens (they did not pass any law making anyone a “natural born citizen”), and only "considered" those children as natural born citizens, then they did not see them as natural born citizens or natural citizens.

To make Congress’s intent clear, the Third Congress in 1795, with the leadership of then-Representative James Madison and with the approval of President George Washington, through the Naturalization Act of 1795, repealed the Act of 1790 and, among other things, replaced it with language that such children were to be "considered as citizens of the United States." Hence, since 1795, Congress has naturalized persons born out of the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents as "citizens" of the United States "at birth" and never again attempted to naturalize anyone to be a “natural born citizen.” Under those Acts and treaties, children born out of the United States to alien parents could also be naturalized as "citizens" of the U.S., but only after birth.

Under the Constitution’s common law which defined a natural born citizen, children born in the U.S. to alien parents could not be U.S. citizens, let alone natural born citizens. This presented a problem for freed slaves who were born in the U.S. to slave parents who Dred Scott in 1857, applying the common law definition of a natural born citizen, ruled that neither of them was a U.S. citizen. In 1866, Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which “declared” children born in the U.S. who were "not subject to any foreign power" “citizens” of the United States.

In 1868, Congress added the Fourteenth Amendment as a source of positive law to naturalize children born in the U.S. and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” also "citizens" of the United States from the moment of birth. Again, these children needing this Amendment to be naturalized as “citizens” of the United States are, as Congress confirms in its naturalization Act at 8 U.S.C. § 1401(a), only “citizens” of the United States “at birth.”

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Despite the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, there still were doubts whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents who were subject to a foreign power (parents of freed slaves were not subject to any foreign power) was a “citizen” of the United States. These would be children born in the U.S. to any foreigner who was not formerly a slave in the U.S. Those doubts existed because there were doubts whether that child was born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. See Minor v. Happersett (1875). United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) resolved those doubts when it held that Wong, born in California to alien Chinese parents, who were neither in any foreign diplomatic service or part of any invading army, and domiciled and permanently residing in the U.S., was a “citizen” of the United States from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark held that he was a “citizen” of the United States. It did not hold that he was a “natural born citizen” of the United States.

So, as we can see, a “natural citizen” is only that citizen who the original Constitution calls a “natural born citizen.” It does not refer to the subsequently enacted Fourteenth Amendment’s “citizen” of the United States “at birth” which could include a natural born citizen if that person satisfies the common law definition of a natural born citizen. A natural born citizen or natural citizen is defined under the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution. Under that common law, a natural born citizen is defined as a child, who at the critical and controlling time of the child’s birth, was born in the U.S. to parents both of whom were U.S. citizens. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758); Minor v. Happersett (1875); United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

ajtelles said...

Hi Mario,

In paragraph 5 of part 1 you wrote:

>> Hence, since 1795, Congress has naturalized persons born out of the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents as "citizens" of the United States "at birth" and never again attempted to naturalize anyone to be a “natural born citizen.”

That is an excellent expression of the Article I naturalization authority of the U.S. Congress. It can naturalize a "citizen" but not a "natural born citizen" as it mistakenly did in the 1790 Naturalization Act.

Also, in the last sentence of paragraph one in part 2 you wrote that Wong Kim Ark:

>> ...was a "citizen" of the United States from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.

That means that the day before the 14th was ratified as law in 1898, Wong was not considered since 1868, thirty years, to be a "citizen" even though the Civil Rights Act of 1866, as you wrote, "declared" that "children born in the U.S. who were 'not subject to any foreign power' were citizens of the United States".

It looks to me like the 1866 Civil Rights Act, the 1868 Fourteenth Amendment, and the 1898 U.S. v Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court "declaration" of citizenship were implicitly identifying a "citizen" as someone who could have dual U.S./foreign citizenship and still be a citizen of the U.S. with good standing.

Not one of the three had anything to do with identifying a natural born citizen with eligibility to be president as someone having ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone to U.S. citizen parents. Minor v. Happersett clarified the original genesis meaning and the original intent of Article II Section 1 clause 5.

Art
http://stopislamizationofamerica.blogspot.com

ajtelles said...

Hi Mario,

The sentence that begins "that means that the day..." could include for clarity this sentence:

That also means that the day before the Supreme Court, by judicial "fiat" (Latin for "let it be [so]", an ipso facto arbitrary order) "declared" Wong Kim Ark to be a "citizen" in 1898 he was not considered to be a "citizen" under the 1868 14th Amendment or under the 1866 Civil Rights Act.

~ ~ ~

From my perch as a non-lawyer, there is something not coherent about the Judicial branch "naturalizing" a person to be a citizen by judicial fiat "declaration" when the Legislative branch never thought it necessary to do so by statute. The Executive branch does not have constitutional legal authority to "naturalize" persons to be "citizens" by Executive Order, i.e., to "make" law, so on what constitutional legal basis does the Judicial branch have authority to do what the Executive branch does not have legal authority to do?

Just wonderin' and askin' along with millions of fellow citizens.

Art