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
       

135 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

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

An article by Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute on the Fourteenth Amendment citizenship clause states:

“Citizenship

Also known as the Naturalization Clause, the Citizenship Clause is contained in Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment. The clause conferred U.S. and state citizenship at birth to all individuals born in the United States.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourteenth_amendment_0 .


But then the same source, commenting on the meaning of a natural born citizen in another article, states:

“Under the 14th Amendment's Naturalization Clause and the Supreme Court case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 US. 649, anyone born on U.S. soil and subject to its jurisdiction is a natural born citizen, regardless of parental citizenship. This type of citizenship is referred to as birthright citizenship.”

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/natural_born_citizen .

In both statements, the writer identified the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause as being a “Naturalization Clause.” But in the second statement, the writer adds that under the Fourteenth Amendment or Wong Kim Ark anyone born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction is a “natural born” citizen of the United States.

There is a contradiction between finding that the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause is a naturalization clause and then at the same time concluding that by virtue of that same clause and Wong Kim Ark which interpreted that clause anyone born in the U.S. and subject to its jurisdiction is a “natural born” citizen. The writer of these statements got it right in concluding that the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause is a naturalization clause. But the writer got it wrong in then concluding that under the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark any person born in the U.S. while subject to its jurisdiction is a “natural born” citizen of the United States.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

The natural born citizen clause exists in the original Constitution. Hence, there were natural born citizens prior to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. Both Minor (1875) and Wong Kim Ark (1898) explained that the clause was defined at common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. If children born in the U.S. to alien parents were under the common law not only “born” citizens of the United States but also “natural born” citizens of the United States before Congress passed the Fourteenth Amendment, why would those children need to be naturalized by the Fourteenth Amendment? The answer is that under that national common law (not to be confused and confounded with state common law) they were neither “born” citizens nor “natural born” citizens of the United States. The writer of these quotes must have recognized that at common law those children were not and that they needed to be naturalized by the Fourteenth Amendment. The historical record demonstrates that the writer is correct on that score. Emer de Vattel in Section 214 of The Law of Nations explained: “Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” From this statement on the law of nations we can conclude and I have so done for over 10 years that the Fourteenth Amendment, which according to Wong Kim Ark incorporated the English common law jus soli (right from birth on the soil) rule into the Constitution, naturalizes a child born in the U.S. to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of their child’s birth to be a “born” citizen of the United States. I have also maintained that such a child, while generally a “born” citizen of the United States, is not an Article II “natural born” citizen of the United States. Such a child is not and cannot be a “natural born” citizen if he or she needs to be naturalized at birth by the Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, we can see the contradiction between the statements by Cornell Law School.

Indeed, a “born” (although naturalized) citizen of the United States only under the Fourteenth Amendment (and only under a naturalization Act of Congress that applies to persons born out of the U.S. to one or two U.S. citizen parents) is not nor can he or she be a “natural born” citizen of the United States. Only a person born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the person’s birth is an Article II “natural born” citizen of the United States. A person born under such birth circumstances needs no law to be made a “born” citizen of the United States. Needing no law for such birth status, that person is a “natural born” citizen of the United States by virtue of his or her birth circumstances alone and not just a “born” citizen of the United States only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment or some naturalization Act of Congress.

Carlyle said...

Why is everybody so confused about this? The concepts of Citizen, Naturalized Citizen, Jus Soli, Jus Sanguinis are pretty simple and easy to understand. And with a little help from Vattel (whom I believe is the only definitive source of the phrase) Natural Born Citizen also becomes clear. And as an engineer, I claim any residual confusion is cleared up with a Venn Diagram.

Now, I fully understand why The Obama Situation generated chaos and confusion. Nobody wanted to face the truth (among other things: there is no evidence he is an American Citizen of any kind) so there was a lot of trying to pound square pegs into round holes.

But before that and after that. Why the confusion?

mtngoat61 said...

Euler Diagrams are used to prove the logical truth or fallacy of an argument. Below is a link to the one I created for the various kinds of Citizens to show the truth of what a "natural born Citizen" is, a large subset of "born Citizens" which in turn is a subset of all Citizens. Natural born Citizens are in general the largest subset of all Citizens of a country. Natural born Citizens are those Citizens born with sole allegiance to the USA, i.e. only allegiance to the USA, due to the natural law circumstances of their birth -- born in the country to parents who were both Citizens (born or naturalized) when their child was born. The word/adjective natural in law refers to Natural Law and the Laws of Nature, that is, things not created by man-made laws, not created by Positive Law such as acts, treaties, amendments, etc. People who are born dual-Citizens at birth (Obama) or tri-Citizens at birth (Ted Cruz and Kamala Harris) are not a "natural born Citizen" since they are born with multiple attendant allegiance requirements to other nations as a result of their multiple Citizenship status gained at birth. We do not want a Commander in Chief born with allegiance to a foreign country and attendant foreign influence on them. That is what John Jay and George Washington intended when the got the "natural born Citizen" term added to the presidential eligibility requirements of Article II of our U.S. Constitution. Attorney Apuzzo's articles and legal writings on "natural born Citizen" explain it well." Adjectives mean something. Especially in the term "natural born Citizen". Euler Diagram for "natural born Citizen" - Click Link for More Details

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

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

Jay demanded that there be a "strong check" on foreign influence infiltrating the national government in general and the Office of Commander in Chief of the Military specifically. We can safely presume that since Jay wanted the Commander in Chief to be a natural born citizen, being a natural born citizen carried with it that strong check on foreign influence that he was seeking. We can also safely presume that he wanted that check to be as strong as could reasonably be had. A natural born subject, whether under English common law (which naturalized at birth children born to alien parents in the king’s dominion and under his protection as his natural born subjects) or naturalization Acts of Parliament (which naturalized at birth children born out of the king’s dominion to English natural born subject parents), both of which permitted dual and conflicting allegiance at birth, did not provide that strong check on foreign influence for which Jay was looking. On the other hand, a natural born citizen under the law of nations did provide that strong check, for a child born in a county to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth was born with sole allegiance not only to the county where born but also to the county of his or her parents. Indeed, such birth circumstances would produce in the child at the time of birth unity of citizenship and allegiance solely to the United States, a quality that Jay would have sought in the Commander in Chief.

ajtelles said...

1/2

Dittos Dittos Dittos and Thanks to John Jay

Hi Mario,

Dittos to Carlyle's Vattelcomment:

>> "And with a little help from Vattel (whom I believe is the only definitive source of the phrase) Natural Born Citizen also becomes clear."

Dittos to mtngoat61 and his John Jay "commander" comment:

>> "We do not want a Commander in Chief born with allegiance to a foreign country and attendant foreign influence on them. That is what John Jay and George Washington intended when the got the 'natural born Citizen' term added to the presidential eligibility requirements of Article II of our U.S. Constitution."

Dittos to your John Jay comment:

>> "On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote a letter*1 to then-General Washington, who was acting as president of the Constitutional Convention, stating: "Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise & seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen" (“born” underlined in the original)."

*1 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/04-05-02-0251

[...snip...]

>> "On the other hand, a natural born citizen under the law of nations did provide that strong check, for a child born in a county to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth was born with sole allegiance not only to the county where born but also to the county of his or her parents."

ajtelles said...

2/2

Mario, as you've written here on your Natural Born Citizen blog many times before, Vattel was quoted by the founders as a source for understanding the "law of nations" and citizenship in a country. Since Vattel's point of view about the "law of nations" and citizenship was understood and accepted by the founders before and after Article II Section 1 clause 5 was adopted by the constitutional convention delegates, it makes sense that there is no record of the 1787 delegates debating the meaning of "natural born Citizen" before adopting the language of A2 S1 c5. Also, there is no record of the 1867-68 U.S. Congress debating the meaning of "nbC" because they were debating the "citizen" language of the 14th Amendment before they adopted it, and then the states ratified the language without debate. I am assuming that there is no record on memory.loc.gov *2 or elsewhere because it looks like (1) nobody has been able to find a record of debates up to now, and, (2) if there were, you would have already posted it here as you did yesterday when you posted the url*3 to Jay's note to Washington.

*2 http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/index.html
*3 http://rs6.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field%28DOCID+@lit%28fr00379%29%29

Mario, when John Jay is brought into the conversation about the original geneses and the original intent of "natural born Citizen", who can refute and rebut Jay and Washington and the founders who adopted and then ratified the language of Article II Section 1 clause 5?

Who?

Who can coherently refute that in his note to Washington in 1787, John Jay ONLY implied that "given" ONLY meant "naturalization" and that "devolve" ONLY meant "by birth alone" to two U.S. citizen parents, ONLY married, ONLY to each other (ONLY one spouse at a time) ONLY before the child is born? In other words, for eligibility to be president, who can rebut the inherent coherency of Jay when he implied with the "given" and "devolve" words that "devolve" meant ONLY singular U.S citizenship "by birth alone", NOT dual U.S./foreign citizenship, and that "given" ONLY meant "naturalization". That includes "naturalization" by judicial fiat as the Supreme Court opined in the incoherent 1898 United States vs. Wong Kim Ark declaration. That 1898 "opinion" is used today in the 2000s to say that Senator Marco Rubio, Governor Bobby Jindal, Governor Nikki Haley, and, possibly soon, Senator Kamala Harris, all born on U.S. soil to parents who were not U.S. citizens when the children were born, are all eligible to be president according to the 1898 Supreme Court incoherent citizen "naturalization" decision of the Court.

So, Mario, dittos dittos dittos and thanks to John Jay and his prescience, coherent and pithy.

Art
stopislamizationofamerica.blogspot.com

Carlyle said...

The confused among us keep forgetting that the requirements for President are RESTRICTIVE and EXCLUSIONARY. If you think of Venn diagrams as cookies, the idea was to take a sample out of the meaty middle of the cookie, not from the crumbs around the edges.

Otherwise why put the restrictions in there at all. Why not just say "anyone can become president"?

Regardless of the arcana and even fine reasoning - some people just need to apply a gross sanity check to what they are advocating. Regardless of the details and logic chopping, somebody needs to simply tell these people, "your argument doesn't even make any sense".

ajtelles said...

Hi Mario,

Here's a random thought that came into existence from who knows where, but it might be relevant in a few years: Will never-Trumpers who endorse dual U.S./foreign citizenship for eligibility to be president ever endorse ONLY singular U.S. citizenship as the original intent of "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 clause 5 and eligibility to be president?

Preface -
President Donald John Trump was born on U.S. soil to parents who both had ONLY singular U.S. citizenship before their son was born, and both were married ONLY to each other before their son was born. It is obvious that the singular U.S. citizenship of his parents is why the eligibility of DJT to be U.S. president has NEVER been challenged.

Question 1 -
When will our fellow citizens who have been asserting for years that a person born with dual U.S./foreign ciizenship is eligible to be president finally come to their U.S. Constitution senses and say that they are now "woke" and assert with absolute "woke" certainty that "natural born Citizen" refers to ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, NOT dual U.S./foreign citizenship?

Answer 1 -
When they wrap themselves with the U.S. flag and quote the U.S. Constitution against any of the five children of President Trump who may decide to run for U.S. president.

Question 2 -
Why will the dual U.S./foreign citizenship promoters, uh, "decide" to come to their "natural born Citzen" senses and resist the candidacy of any Trump child?

Answer 2 -
'Cause none of the five children of Pres. Trump is a "natural born Citizen" with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship.

The implication is NOT that any of the children of Pres. Trump is anti-America or against American sovereignty, or against the "Make America Great Again" and the updated "Keep America Great" agenda of their father. The impliation is that the law is the law and "natural born Citizen" still means in the 2000s what it was originally intended to mean since 1787 – ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, NOT dual U.S./foreign citizenship.

_Three children were born on U.S. soil after their mother married their father, which is good, but they were all born before she naturalized as a U.S. citizen.

_One was born on U.S. soil to her U.S. citizen mother and father but before they were married only to each other.

_One was born on U.S. soil after his parents married but four months before his mother naturalized as a U.S. citizen.

First child Don Jr., second child Ivanka, and third child Eric were all born before first wife Ivana naturalized as a U.S. citizen. She naturalized 11 years after Don was born, 7 years after Ivanka was born, and 4 years after Eric was born. See Ivana's naturalization notice in the May 26, 1988 Lewiston-Auburn, Maine Journal – "With her at Wednesday's ceremony was her husband, billionaire developer Donald Trump."

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

Fourth child Tiffany was born October 13, 1993, two months and one week before U.S. citizen Donald and U.S. citizen Marla were married December 20, 1993.

Fifth child Barron was born March 20, 2006, four months and one week before his mother Melania naturalized as a U.S. citizen on July 28, 2006.

Well Mario, that’s the random thought extrapolated, but who knows if the promoters of dual U.S./foreign citizenship will ever abandon their beliefs and defend the U.S. Constitution?

Art
stopislamizationofamerica.blogspot.com

Carlyle said...

@ajtelles

LOL - NAILED IT ! ! !

Best use of "woke" I have seen.
Guaranteed this will happen.

Brianroy said...

James Kent advocated that it was the FATHER who passed on the rights and the training of a national citizenship to the child in Lecture 29 "Of Parent and Child". When addressing US Constitutional or Founder's Intent on the Natural Born Citizen Clause, this knowledge, that it is a Paternal Citizenship to the same soil in which the child is born to as a native creates the natural born citizenship, is essential in the debate. The Commentaries of American Law written by Kent as his Columbia Law lectures over the course of the 1825-1826 Academic year, and then expounded upon, once published, influenced the opinion of the US Supreme Court.
William Rawle gave his OPINION as an attorney, never as a justice, that an alien born on US Soil is a Natural Born Citizen. Kent de facto DESTROYS that foolish or perhaps Jacobin subversive planted notion. NATURAL infers a BLOOD DESCENT from the Citizen Father in the phrase "Natural Born Citizen" according to Kent.

James Kent, Columbia University Lecture 25 on Law, Volume 2, Commentaries of American Law
"We proceed next to consider the disabilities, rights and duties of aliens.
An alien cannot acquire a title to real property by descent, or created by other mere operation of law. The law quae nihil frustra, never casts the freehold upon an alien heir who cannot keep it. This is a well settled rule of the common law. {30 – Calvin’s Case, 7 Co. 25. a. 1 Vent. 417. Jackson v. Lunn, 3 John. Cas. 109. Hunt v. Warnicke, Hardin’s Rep. 61. }
It is understood to be the general rule, that even a natural born subject cannot take by representation from an alien, because the alien has no inheritable blood through which a title can be deduced. If an alien purchases land, or if land be devised to him, the general rule is, that in these cases, he may take and hold, until an inquest of office has been had; but upon his death, the land would instantly, and of necessity, (as the freehold cannot be kept in abeyance,) without any inquest of office, escheat and vest in the state, because he is incompetent to transmit by hereditary descent. {31 – Collingwood v. Pace, 1 Sid. 193. 1 Lev. 59. S.C. Co. Litt. 2 b. Plowd. 229. B. 230. A. Jackson v. Lunn, supra. Fox v. Southhack, 12 Mass. Rep. 143. 8 ib. 445. Fairfax v. Hunter, 7 Cranch, 603, 619, 620. Orr v. Hodgson, 4 Wheaton, 453. Governeur v. Robertson, 11 Wheaton, 332. In North Carolina, an alien may take by purchase, but he cannot take by devise, any more than he can inherit. 2 Haywood. 37.104.108. }
If an alien, according to a case put by Lord Coke, {32 – Co. Litt. 8. a.}
arrives in England, and hath two sons born there, they are of course natural born subjects; and if one of them purchases land, and dies without issue, his brother cannot inherit as his heir, because he must deduce his title by descent, through his father, who had no inheritable blood. But the case, as put by Coke, has been denied to be the law by the majority of the court in Collingwood v. Pace {33 – 1 Sid. 193. 1 Vent. 413. }"
Mario, any comments on that? The born citizen by jus soli appears quite distinct from the Natural Born Citizen who inherits his father's land by blood.
Lord Coke in 1609, the United States adopted the concept of
"Nemo potest exuere Patriam" :
"No one has the power / ability / authority
to leave / reject / disown himself from
the / his / her Father's Land." [Expanded and reiterated translation, mine.]
The Concept of the ancient Greek word autochthon αὐτό-χθων:
"Sprung from the land itself" , also is worthy of use & discussion on this issue.

RodCrosby said...

Even the British House of Lords seemed to know what an NBC was (although contriving to hang a US citizen for treason against the King of England)

"The appellant was born in the United States of America, in 1906, the son of a naturalized American citizen who had previously been a British subject by birth. He thereby became himself a natural born American citizen..." [p2]
https://www.uniset.ca/nold/1946AC347.pdf

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

RodCrosby,

Thank you for your comment. In Joyce v. Director of Public Prosecutions, [1947] A.C. 347, the House of Lords (then not a separate court) had to decide whether William Joyce committed high treason against the King of the United Kingdom, a violation of the Treason Act, 1351. The decision called upon the House of Lords to delineate the scope of treason which the House found to be inextricably tied to whether the accused owed a duty of allegiance to the King at the time he committed the offending acts, no matter where those acts may have been committed.

The evidence at trial was that Joyce, while his British passport was still valid, worked for a German radio station in Germany and that he broadcast in English propaganda injurious to the Crown and for the benefit of the King’s enemies. He was prosecuted in the Central Criminal Court and acquitted on the first and second counts, the jury concluding although erroneously that he was a British subject. He was found guilty of the third count and sentenced to death on September 19, 1945. He appealed to the Criminal Court of Appeals which affirmed the decision and dismissed the appeal on November 7, 1945. The Attorney General certified that the appeal presented a question of exceptional public importance. Joyce then appealed to the House of Lords which accepted the case for review. The House of Lords, with the dissent of Lord Porter, affirmed the decision of the Criminal Court of Appeals and dismissed the appeal.

The House of Lords held that Joyce committed high treason by adhering to and giving aid and comfort the enemies of the King, even though he was an alien (a U.S. “natural born citizen”) who committed the offending acts while physically present outside the King’s dominion, because he continued to owe allegiance to the King at the time he committed the treasonous acts. The House of Lords found that Joyce owed allegiance to the King not because he was his natural born subject, but because he had resided in his dominions, received his protection while so residing, obtained a British passport which was not expired at the time of the alleged treasonous acts that were committed by him outside the King’s dominions and which document provided him with the Crown’s protection while outside the King’s dominions, and had not surrendered his passport but rather had continued to possess that passport (although the passport was not placed into evidence and there was no evidence of that) or otherwise renounced his allegiance by the time he committed those acts. What is important about this ruling is that the House was willing to hold that the alien Joyce continued to owe the Crown allegiance even though he was no longer present within the King’s dominions from the mere fact that the jury could infer that he continued to possess the British passport while outside the King’s realm.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

This decision is interesting for our purposes because the House of Lords found that Joyce was born in the United States in 1906 to a naturalized American citizen and therefore a “natural born American citizen.” This is a significant finding given that the House of Lords said he was a “natural born citizen” and not just a “citizen” of the United States. We can surmise that the House of Lords was willing to use the “natural born citizen” language given that Joyce was born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents (in 1906, under then-current Acts of Congress, an alien wife automatically became a U.S. citizen either upon marrying a U.S. citizen or when her alien husband became a U.S. citizen).

What is also significant about this decision is that the House of Lords found that even though Joyce’s father had been a natural born subject of the King, he lost that status when he naturalized to be a citizen of the United States which he did prior to Joyce’s birth (stating that such casting off of allegiance was not allowed by the common law but then available under recent statutes). Hence, it found that upon his birth, even though born to a former British natural born subject, Joyce was not a British natural born subject. This is an important finding because it shows that Joyce’s father’s naturalization cut off all allegiance that he had to the British Crown and Joyce did not inherit that allegiance through birth to his former British natural born subject father (through jus sanguinis). This cutting off of allegiance is the crucial mechanism of being a U.S. natural born citizen. It shows that a child born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents (whether natural born citizens, citizens “at birth,” or citizens after birth) is born with unity of citizenship and allegiance and hence with sole allegiance to the United States.

RodCrosby said...

Yes, Mario, you're welcome.
I think there may be a typo though.
"the jury concluding although erroneously that he was a British subject."
In fact the jury was directed by the trial judge, Mr. Justice Tucker, to acquit Joyce on the first two counts of the indictment,
1) that as a British subject he had assisted the King's enemies, and
2) as a British subject he had taken enemy nationality in wartime

when evidence was produced in court of his American birth and his father's prior naturalization, meaning that, despite his claims and perhaps even his genuine belief, Joyce had never in law been a British subject, and was at all material times a natural born American citizen!

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

RobCrosby,

I do not have the language of the first and second counts, so I am limited in being able to understand what fully happened with respect to those counts. From the information that I have which I got from the decision itself, it is not clear from the decision why the jury would acquit Joyce on counts one and two if it believed although erroneously that he was a British natural born subject.

It is also not clear how “[t]his assumption was proved to be incorrect.” Who proved it? If it was proved to be incorrect, then why did the jury conclude that he was a natural born British subject?

Additionally, it is not clear why Joyce, as the House of Lords suggested, should be acquitted of those two counts if he was not a British natural born subject. After all, he was convicted in count three even though the House of Lords found him not to be a British natural born subject.

RodCrosby said...

SUMMING-UP


Mr. Justice Tucker: Members of the jury, this prisoner, William Joyce, stands indicted on three counts in this indictment, and they all three charge him with the offence of high treason, but in somewhat different circumstances.

The first count charges him that “on the 18th September, 1939, and on divers days thereafter, and between that day and the 29th May, 1945, being then, to wit on the said several days, a British subject owing allegiance to our Lord the King,” omitting some formal words, “and during which time an open and public war was being prosecuted and carried on by the German Realm and its subjects against our Lord the King, then and on the said several days traitorously contriving and intending to aid and assist the enemies, did traitorously adhere to and aid and comfort the said
enemies in parts beyond the seas without the Realm, to wit in the Realm of Germany, by broadcasting to the subjects of our Lord the King propaganda on behalf of the said enemies.”

RodCrosby said...

The second count charges him that “on the 26th September, 1940, then being a British subject owing allegiance to the King, during the progress of the war he traitorously contriving and intending to aid and assist the enemies did traitorously adhere to and aid and comfort the said enemies in parts beyond the seas without the Realm, to wit in the Realm of Germany, by purporting to become naturalised as a subject of the Realm of Germany.”

Now, members of the jury, just a word or two about those two counts, because you have got to give your verdict on those two counts as well as on the third count. The essence of those two counts is that at the time in question the prisoner was a British subject owing allegiance to the King and owing allegiance as a British subject. Now, that was a matter for the Crown to prove and to prove beyond all reasonable doubt in some way or another. I ruled at the close of the case for the Prosecution that there was some prima facie evidence that he was a British subject because he had so stated in his application for passports, and accordingly the case proceeded on those two counts. Yesterday a volume of evidence was adduced before you, which you will remember, called by the Defence, all with a view to establishing that from the material date and in fact at all times William Joyce, the prisoner, had never been a British subject at all ; by reason of the fact that he was born in America, born of parents one of whom, the father, was at that time a naturalised American subject. As soon as that became proved, there was an end of the case on the first two counts, because the essence of those counts is that the man was alleged to have been a British subject. The evidence was clear that this man at all material times, at those times, was not a British subject at all but an American subject.

Now, members of the jury, that would have been a question of fact for you to decide on the evidence if the matter had been left to you ; that would have been a matter of fact and not of law to ascertain the facts, and it would then have been for me to say and direct you whether or not on those facts he was or was not a British subject. But when that overwhelming mass of evidence had been put into the witness-box I invited the learned Attorney-General, representing the Crown in this case, to say whether or not, after he had heard that evidence and after he had refrained from cross-examining a single one of those witnesses (as you will remember was the fact), he was going to invite you as a jury to say that this man was a British subject ; and he said — what of course you would naturally expect him to say — that on that evidence he would not invite you so to hold.

Unless he had said that, I should have expressed no view on the matter whatever, but left it to you ; it was only when he intimated that, having heard that evidence, he on behalf of the Prosecution was not going to invite you to come to the conclusion that this man was a British subject that I expressed the opinion that the evidence in that direction was overwhelming. You heard it, and no doubt you will be able to form your own opinion on that matter. Now, members of the jury, that being the case and as on that evidence the Crown do not ask for a verdict of guilty on those two first counts, the essence of which is the proof that the prisoner was a British subject, coupled with the further proof, of course, that being a British subject he had adhered to the King’s enemies — as the Prosecution
recognise that they have failed to prove one of the essential elements necessary to a conviction under those counts, your duty is naturally to return a verdict of Not guilty on those two counts, because the Prosecution agree that there is no real, proper evidence on which you could possibly come to any such conclusion. You are sworn to decide this case on the evidence and on the evidence alone...

https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.216340/page/n7

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

RodCrosby,

Thank you for that additional information. Now I understand that the first and second count was premised on William Joyce being a British subject. The Attorney General conceded that he was not and so Judge Tucker instructed the jury that they had to find him not guilty on those two charges and it id acquit him on those two counts. So, I agree with you that the jury never concluded that he was a British subject.

It is worth noting that Justice Tucker instructed the jury that Joyce was an “American subject” by the fact that he “was born in America, born of parents one of whom, the father, was at that time a naturalized American subject.” Again, under the then Acts of Congress, Joyce’s alien mother would have become a U.S. citizen as soon as her husband naturalized as a citizen of the United States. Hence, Joyce was born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents which the House of Lords said made him a natural born citizen.

ajtelles said...

Churchill said...

Hi Mario,

This is the last paragraph from your post here on January 25, 2016

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/01/if-winston-churchill-was-not-even.html

If Winston Churchill Was Not Even a Citizen of the United States, How Can Ted Cruz Be Its Natural Born Citizen?

"I will leave you with these quotes from Churchill himself.

'I am, as you know, half American by blood, and the story of my association with that mighty and benevolent nation goes back nearly ninety years to the day of my father's marriage.' (1963). http://www.winstonchurchill.org/publications/finest-hour/62-finest-hour-151/1838--wit-and-wisdom-reflections-on-america .

"Some in the press wondered if Churchill, who was born to a U.S. citizen mother, would ever consider running for U.S. president. When asked by a reporter in 1932 on running for President of the United States, he correctly and honestly responded: 'There are various little difficulties in the way. However, I have been treated so splendidly in the United States that I should be disposed, if you can amend the Constitution, seriously to consider the matter.' The Definitive Wit of Winston Churchill 18 (ed. Richard M. Langworth 2009).

"But then that's Winston Churchill, not Ted Cruz."

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
January 25, 2016

Art

Charles Hughes said...

Mario - "It is worth noting that Justice Tucker instructed the jury that Joyce was an “American subject” by the fact that he “was born in America, born of parents one of whom, the father, was at that time a naturalized American subject.”

So Justice Tucker said that Joyce was a natural born citizen because he was born in America, born of parents one of whom, the father, was at that time a naturalized American subject.”

Justice Tucker appears not to be aware that under US law Joyce's mother became a citizen when she married a US citizen or if her alien husband gains US citizenship. So while not knowing the status of one parent, he declares Joyce to be natural born citizen because he was born in the US with at least one citizen parent. Just like Obama.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Charles Hughes said: "Justice Tucker appears not to be aware that under US law Joyce's mother became a citizen when she married a US citizen or if her alien husband gains US citizenship. So while not knowing the status of one parent, he declares Joyce to be natural born citizen because he was born in the US with at least one citizen parent. Just like Obama."

First, we do not know what Justice Tucker's knowledge was regarding U.S. law. We do not know what he meant by "naturalized American subject." Did he consider the husband to be "naturalized" but not the wife, even though she automatically became a U.S. citizen upon her marriage to the U.S. citizen husband or upon his obtaining that status?

Second, if the English common law defined a natural born citizen in the U.S. as you have always maintained, why did Justice Tucker, when commenting on Joyce's citizenship status, say that Joyce was born in the U.S. to a citizen father which made him a natural born citizen? As you know, the English common law did not concern itself with the citizenship status of parents of children born in the King's dominion. Rather, under that law simply being born in the King's dominion and under his protection, regardless of the citizenship status of the child's parents, made one a natural born subject. You state that based on Justice Tucker's comment, a natural born citizen is defined as a child born in the U.S. to at least one U.S. citizen parent. Hence, you have conceded that Justice Tucker did not apply the English common law to determine the meaning in the U.S. of a natural born citizen.

Third, while the comments of the House of Lords on who may be included as a natural born citizen of the United States is academically interesting, it is not binding in the United States.

RodCrosby said...

Evidence was produced by the British Police that Mrs Joyce (the prisoner's mother) had been treated as an alien upon her return to England during the First World War.

She had been born in England, and married Michael Joyce (a naturalized American citizen) in Manhattan in 1905.

The prisoner was born in Brooklyn the following year.

["The Trial of William Joyce", by C.E. Bechhofer Roberts, pp91-94]
https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.216340/page/n97

mtngoat61 said...

Also, if I am correct in remembering the effect of marriage in regards to Citizenship acquisition, back then a woman gained the Citizenship status of her husband upon marriage, but not vice versa. If a woman married to an alien she lost her U.S. Citizenship. Thus in the alluded to situation by Mr. Hughes re Obama, if the event of Obama's mother marrying a Kenyan national and British Subject as was Obama's father she would have lost her U.S. Citizenship and thus could not have passed along any claim to U.S. Citizenship based on the mother's Citizenship before the marriage. Hopefully Mario can expand on this and Mr. Hughes attempt to equate what occurred with the case under discussion and then throwing in that line at/near the end of his comment that implied a similar thing applied to Obama. Different time frames and different positives laws, treaties, acts and other man-made laws were in effect at those different times. That is the beauty of the correct definition of "natural born Citizen" under Natural Law. It does not change with time as the laws of nature don't change. Man-made positive law changes but natural law does not. I think Mr. Hughes knows all this ... the differences between positive law and natural law but imo wishes to use faulty logic and deception like Atty Maskell did to confuse the general public and in this case the readers of this blog. Hopefully Mario can expand on this.

Charles Hughes said...

If Justice Tucker understood the mother to be a US citizen, he would only have to say Joyce was "born in America, of American citizen parents."

Perhaps Justice Tucker thought that American citizenship statutory laws had changed the Common Law much as they had in England.

I agree comments made by the English House of Lords are not binding on the US. Which makes me wonder why you are commenting on them in the first place.

Brianroy said...

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.”

CHANCELLOR JAMES KENT Commentaries on American Law (1826-30)
LECTURE 25
"Of Aliens and Natives
...(1.) Natives are all persons born within the jurisdiction of the United States. If they were resident citizens... distinctions between the antenati and the postnati, in reference to our revolution, have been frequently the subject of judicial discussion since the establishment of our independence.

It was declared, in Calvin’s case, that, “albeit the kingdoms of England and Scotland should, by descent, be divided and governed by several kings; yet all those who were born under one natural obedience, while the realms were united, would remain natural born subjects, and not become aliens by such a matter ex post facto. The postnatus in such a case would be ad fidem utriusque regis.” It was accordingly held, in that case, that the postnati of Scotland, born after the union of the two crowns, could inherit lands in England. The community of allegiance, at the time of birth, and at the time of descent, both existed."

LECTURE 13
"Of the President
...(2.) The constitution requires, that the president should be a natural born citizen.. these restrictions will not appear altogether useless or unimportant.
As the president is required to be a native citizen of the United States,
ambitious foreigners cannot intrigue for the office,
and the qualification of birth cuts off all those inducements from abroad to corruption, negotiation, and war, which have frequently and fatally harassed the elective monarchies of Germany and Poland...."

In 1833, in U.S. Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story's Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. § 1473
“ It is indispensible too, that the president should be a natural born citizen of the United States... to exclude foreign influence from their executive councils and duties."

[In debating Bill S-61, the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause of what would become the 14th Amendment to the Constitution],
Rep –Ohio, John Bingham in the United States House on March 9, 1866 (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866)), also should be noted as stating:
“ (I) find no fault with the introductory clause
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 …”

There is more that needs to be discussed here.

Brianroy said...

William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States 84--101 1829 (2d ed.)
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/a1_8_4_citizenships23.html
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."

In context of what Rawle states, I would argue that if his various comments are taken as a whole, in that framework of reference, he could appear to mean & self-define that for Natural Born Citizenship is especially that the Father be a PERMANENT CITIZEN of the State of the United States in order to pass along Natural Born Citizen status to the child. And if that is so, is it possible that where he claims aliens born in the US who go on to be citizens under the Naturalization Act,
-- the one in effect at the time Rawle wrote was to be from 1802 until 1855 A.D.--
whereby the father is naturalized by the alien child born in the US by Age 21, that THOSE were the aliens he thought would make eligible as natural born citizens of the US in full context of how he REALLY defines it, a US Naturalized citizen father having permanent residency in a state & gave citizenship to his children by his naturalization, is THAT the real context of Rawle rather than just a one quote taken out of context that implies jus soli alone, to those who don't pay attention to the above jus sanguinis requirement, is not fully what he implied?
The very Naturalization Act that was argued to make Chester Arthur eligible for the Presidency as the reason given to A.P.Hinman by the US Senate,

Senate of the United States.
City of Washington, January 10th, 1881.
A. P. HINMAN, Esq., New York.
DEAR SIR
:-In response to your letter of the 7th instant-
the term" natural-born citizen," as used in the Constitution
and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of the U. S.
The naturalization by law of a father before his child
attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of
such minor.Yours respectfully,
T. F. BAYARD

that appears to be the backstory to Rawle's comment of an alien child as jus soli could be called a Natural Born Citizen, perhaps?

ajtelles said...

William Rawle

Hi Mario,

I've been wanting to to do this for some time for my own satisfaction, so below are links for those who may like to read up on the previous William Rawle comments here on your Natural Born Citizen blog.

In the quote below by Brianroy on August 31, 2019 at 11:51 PM, T.F. Bayard writes to Mr. A. P. Hinman, Esq. about "natural bborn Citizen", "... as used in the Conatitution and Statutes of the U.S. ..."

My question is, do you know which "statutes of the U.S." identify who/what a "natural born Citizen" is?

It would be great for there to be at least one U.S. "statute" which would identify an "nbC" as having 1) ONLY singular U.S. citizenship "by birth alone" 2) ONLY birth on U.S. soil (jurisdiction) 3) ONLY birth to two U.S. citizen parents 4) ONLY birth after the parents are married 5) ONLY married to each other (i.e., not multiple-wives, or married to a U.S. citizen wife who is not the mother of the child (– or substitute "husband" for "wife'))?

Brianroy concludes with a pertainent (quazi-pertainent?) comment about Pres. Chester A. Arthur, and then the excellent quote by T. F. Bayard about the naturalization of children way back when: "The naturalization by law of a father before his child attains the age of twenty-one":

"The very Naturalization Act that was argued to make Chester Arthur eligible for the Presidency as the reason given to A.P.Hinman by the US Senate,

'Senate of the United States.
'City of Washington, January 10th, 1881.
'A. P. HINMAN, Esq., New York.

'DEAR SIR
':-In response to your letter of the 7th instant-
'the term "natural-born citizen," as used in the Constitution
'and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of the U. S.
'The naturalization by law of a father before his child
'attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of
'such minor.Yours respectfully,
'T. F. BAYARD ' "

<<>>

Sunday, December 11, 2011
Emer de Vattel, Adolf Hitler, America’s Youth, and the Natural Born Citizen Clause
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
December 11, 2011

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/12/emer-de-vattel-adolf-hitler-americas.html

January 3, 2012 at 12:34 PM
January 4, 2012 at 11:40 AM
January 4, 2012 at 2:13 PM
January 5, 2012 at 2:43 PM
January 6, 2012 at 1:00 PM
January 6, 2012 at 1:14 PM
January 9, 2012 at 1:37 PM


Thursday, February 16, 2012
Tisdale v. Obama and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/02/tisdale-v-obama-and-natural-born.html

February 16, 2012 at 6:06 PM
February 23, 2012 at 6:40 PM


Monday, March 5, 2012
A Catalog of Evidence - Concerned Americans Have Good Reason to Doubt that Putative President Barack Obama Was Born in Hawaii
by: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Originally Posted: April 25, 2010
Last Update: March 4, 2012
[New Poll Added. Dead Links Fixed]
Get a copy of this Catalog of Evidence at SCRIBD

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/03/catalog-of-evidence-concerned-americans.html

June 17, 2012 at 6:29 PM
June 16, 2012 at 6:04 PM
June 17, 2012 at 6:29 PM
July 4, 2012 at 1:15 AM
July 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM
September 6, 2012 at 3:33 AM
September 7, 2012 at 6:30 PM
September 7, 2012 at 10:03 PM
September 7, 2012 at 11:17 PM
September 19, 2012 at 5:25 PM
September 20, 2012 at 3:18 AM

ajtelles said...

William Rawle

Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Barack Obama: The De Facto President of the United States-Maybe a Born Citizen But Not A "Natural Born Citizen"
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/01/barack-obama-de-facto-president-of.html

January 23, 2013 at 1:22 PM
January 23, 2013 at 3:29 PM
January 23, 2013 at 3:37 PM
January 23, 2013 at 3:38 PM
January 23, 2013 at 7:27 PM
January 23, 2013 at 11:57 PM
January 25, 2013 at 12:11 PM
January 25, 2013 at 1:52 PM
January 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM
January 25, 2013 at 5:54 PM
January 29, 2013 at 4:06 PM


Monday, March 25, 2013
Senator Ted Cruz Is Not a “Natural Born Citizen” and Therefore Not Eligible to Be President
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/03/senator-ted-cruz-is-not-natural-born.html

March 23, 2013 at 1:40 PM (Francis Rawle, editor 1914)
BOUVIER'S LAW DICTIONARY AND CONCISE ENCYCLOPEDIA 2297 (3rd revision, 8th ed.,
>>
by Francis Rawle, Kansas City, Mo., Vernon Law Book Co., St. Paul, Minn., West Pub., 1914. 3 vols).


Sunday, June 2, 2013
The Fallacies of Congressional Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen”
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 2, 2013

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-fallacies-of-congressional.html

June 21, 2013 at 5:40 PM (Francis Rawle, editor 1914)
July 1, 2013 at 7:38 PM (Francis Rawle, editor 1914)
July 2, 2013 at 1:01 AM (Francis Rawle, editor 1914)
July 2, 2013 at 1:30 AM (Francis Rawle, editor 1914)
July 2, 2013 at 1:59 AM (Francis Rawle, editor 1914)
July 2, 2013 at 6:58 PM (Francis Rawle, editor 1914)
July 2, 2013 at 8:25 PM (Francis Rawle, editor 1914)


Friday, July 19, 2013
The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause: A Response to Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 19, 2013

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html

August 11, 2013 at 11:47 PM
August 13, 2013 at 7:06 PM
September 14, 2013 at 8:15 PM
September 14, 2013 at 8:17 PM
September 14, 2013 at 11:59 PM
February 24, 2014 at 4:24 AM
February 24, 2014 at 9:44 AM
February 24, 2014 at 2:04 PM
February 25, 2014 at 12:40 AM
February 28, 2014 at 12:56 AM
February 28, 2014 at 11:39 PM
March 1, 2014 at 11:37 AM
March 1, 2014 at 5:07 PM
March 1, 2014 at 5:11 PM
March 1, 2014 at 10:19 PM
March 1, 2014 at 11:29 PM
March 3, 2014 at 3:58 AM
March 8, 2014 at 2:24 PM
March 8, 2014 at 5:50 PM
October 24, 2014 at 10:36 AM


Friday, February 20, 2015
What Do President Obama and Senator Cruz Have In Common? They Are Both Not Natural Born Citizens
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
February 20, 2015

>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-president-obama-and-senator.html

February 22, 2015 at 2:55 PM
February 22, 2015 at 2:57 PM
February 22, 2015 at 2:58 PM
August 10, 2015 at 11:21 AM
October 16, 2015 at 9:06 AM

…..… none in 2016 ………...
…..… none in 2017 ………...

Sunday, June 2, 2019
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

>> https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-fallacies-of-congressional.html

July 18, 2019 at 9:31 AM
August 19, 2019 at 10:57 AM
August 31, 2019 at 11:51 PM

Art
https://stopislamizationofamerica.blogspot.com

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Art (ajtelles),

Regarding Senator T.F. Bayard's 1881 comment to A.P. Hinman, Esq., there were then no "Statutes of the U. S." that defined a natural born citizen as a "native of the U. S." Today, there still do not exist any such statutes. Rather, what the naturalization Acts of Congress have done and continue to do is confirm by a process of elimination that a natural born citizen is a child born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Art (ajtelles),

Senator Bayard also stated: “The naturalization by law of a father before his child attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of such minor.” The Senator does not tell us if he meant his comment to apply to children born only out of the United States or also to children born in the United States. Remember that Attorney Hinman contended that Chester Arthur was born in Canada to an alien father. Was the Senator telling Hinman that even if Chester Arthur was born in the United States, given that he would have been born to an alien father, Arthur still would not have been a natural born citizen?

There is nothing in the language of the Naturalization Act of 1855 quoted by Senator Bayard, which repeated the language of the Naturalization Act of 1790 (passed by the First Congress), 1795 (passed by the Third Congress), and 1802, which indicates that Congress meant to apply that part of the statute only to children born out of the United States. If that was its intent, it could have easily said so. Given the plain language of the statute, Congress meant that it be applied to children born anywhere in the world, including the United States. Hence, under the statute, a child born in the United States to alien parents became a naturalized U.S. citizen upon the naturalization of the father (which under then-existing statutes, also made his wife a naturalized U.S. citizen) if done by the father prior to the child turning 21 years of age and when the child shall be dwelling in the United States or by the child naturalizing on his or her own thereafter. If according to the First and Third Congress (which included many Founders and Framers) a child born in the United States to alien parents was born an alien and in need of naturalization, then that child was not a natural born citizen.

ajtelles said...

Mario,

The way you spell it out, one thing is true: a U.S. Senator responding to a lawyer is not definitive, and is many time confusing when pertainent "if-then" points are not extrapolated and clarified.

Your concluding sentence is not confusing: "If...a child born in the United States to alien parents was born an alien and in need of naturalization, then that child was not a natural born citizen."

Maybe clarifying statements similar to your concluding sentence should be written into future statutes?

Also, since Article I Section 1 clause 1 explicit "legislative Powers" language gives the U.S. Congress statute authority to define who/what is a U.S. "citizen", and the language does not implicitly or explicitly forbid Congress from defining who/what is a "natural born citizen" in Article II Section 1 clause 5, maybe a "natural born citizen" eligibility to be president clarifying statement like this should also be written into future U.S. Statutes:

"To be eligible to be president of the United States, a natural born citizen of the United States shall have ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone, ONLY on U.S. soil or jurisdiction, ONLY birth with two U.S. citizen parents, ONLY married to each other, ONLY before the child is born."

_ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone
_ONLY on U.S. soil or jurisdiction
_ONLY birth with two U.S. citizen parents (but not a child born to a U.S. citizen mistress)
_ONLY married to each other (not multiple-wives)
_ONLY before the child is born

Mario, since the U.S. Senate attempted to clarify "on the RECORD" with Senate Resolution 511 that Senator John McCain(*) was eligible to be president, do you know of anything stopping a U.S. Representative or Senator from proposing a statute to clarify, without naming a specific male or female U.S. citizen, who/what is a "natural born citizen" with eligibility to be president?

(*)
>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2008/12/regarding-senate-resolution-511.html

"Monday, December 29, 2008
Regarding Senate Resolution 511 Declaring McCain A "Natural Born Citizen"


"Puzo1 said...
"To Anonymous 3:36PM

"There are good legal arguments supporting the proposition that McCain is not Article II "natural born
Citizen." Such a citizen has to be born on U.S. soil. If born on foreign soil to two U.S. parents, then he
would be a statutory citizen, not a 14th Amendment citizen, and surely not an Constitutional Article II
"natural born Citizen." There is plenty of case law and other sources which show that where McCain
was born was not U.S. soil.

"January 26, 2009 at 7:03 PM"

Art
https://stopislamizationofamerica.blogspot.com

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

A natural born citizen is a child "born in the country, of parents who are citizens." See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212.

Children who are "born out of the country in the armies of the state . . . are reputed born in the country." See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 217.

John McCain was born to two U.S. citizen parents.

John McCain was also reputed born in the U.S. His father was in the U.S. Navy and stationed in Panama. His mother was accompanying her husband in Panama while he was serving the U.S. Navy when she gave birth to their son in Panama.

John McCain was a natural born citizen because, for purposes of the natural born citizen clause, he was born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents.

ajtelles said...

William Rawle...

Hi Mario... again,

>> CORRECTION...

I missed 2009 and 2010 entirely and noticed that some of the urls were not correct, so, after double checking the links, here again are the William Rawle comments on your Natural Born Citizen Blog for those who want to review your posts and responses, and for those who may be reading them for the first time. The links are accurate now, but allow for multiple pages to find the date of the comment.

As I wrote in my previous post, I've been wanting to to do this review of the Rawle comments for some time for my own satisfaction. Now that I've done this with the William Rawle comments and caught my own mistakes and know how to do it right the first time, I'm planning on doing the same thing for all of your Vattel posts and your responses to comments. I also pan on collecting urls for the 1795 Naturalization Act posts and comments, and a few other interesting topics such as Blackstone, Coke, Ramsay, and Congressional Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell, and etc.

In the quote below by Brianroy on August 31, 2019 at 11:51 PM, T.F. Bayard writes to Mr. A. P. Hinman, Esq. about "natural born Citizen", "... as used in the Constitution and Statutes of the U.S. ..."

My question is, do you know which "statutes of the U.S." identify who/what a "natural born Citizen" is?

>> (You already responded to that question on September 5, 2019 at 3:40 PM and 10:19 PM.)

It would be great for there to be at least one U.S. "statute" which would identify an "nbC" as having 1) ONLY singular U.S. citizenship "by birth alone" 2) ONLY birth on U.S. soil (jurisdiction) 3) ONLY birth to two U.S. citizen parents 4) ONLY birth after the parents are married 5) ONLY married to each other (i.e., not multiple-wives, or married to a U.S. citizen wife who is not the mother of the child (– or substitute "husband" for "wife'))?

Brianroy concludes with a pertinent (quazi-pertinent?) comment about Pres. Chester A. Arthur, and then the excellent (but limited) quote by T. F. Bayard about the naturalization of children way back when: "The naturalization by law of a father before his child attains the age of twenty-one....":

"The very Naturalization Act that was argued to make Chester Arthur eligible for the Presidency as the reason given to A.P.Hinman by the US Senate,

'Senate of the United States.
'City of Washington, January 10th, 1881.
'A. P. HINMAN, Esq., New York.

'DEAR SIR
':-In response to your letter of the 7th instant-
'the term "natural-born citizen," as used in the Constitution
'and Statutes of the U. S., is held to be a native of the U. S.
'The naturalization by law of a father before his child
'attains the age of twenty-one, would be naturalization of
'such minor.Yours respectfully,
'T. F. BAYARD ' "

ajtelles said...

William Rawle...

2/2

Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Two-Page Spread in Monday, 10 Aug 2009, Washington Times National Weekly Edition - Obama Born a British Subject and is Still a British Citizen

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/two-page-spread-in-monday-10-aug-2009.html

>> August 18, 2009 at 1:10 AM


Saturday, November 21, 2009
Video About Natural Born Citizen - Three Little Words

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/11/new-video-about-natural-born-citizen.html

>> November 24, 2009 at 2:29 AM
>> November 24, 2009 at 9:28 AM
>> November 25, 2009 at 1:50 AM


Tuesday, June 1, 2010
On Obama’s Eligibility to be President, Who Is Protecting the Constitution and the Nation, the “Birthers” or Obama and His Enablers?
First, some of our founding principles:

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/05/on-obamas-eligibility-to-be-president.html

>> June 3, 2010 at 2:07 PM


CORRECTION: Sunday, December 18, 2011, not Sunday, December 11, 2011.

Sunday, December 18, 2011
Did Putative President, Barack Obama, At the Behest of Malcolm X, His Alleged Biological Father, Live with Then-Indonesian President Sukarno When He Was a Young Boy?

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
December 18, 2011

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/12/did-putative-president-barack-obama-at.html

>> January 3, 2012 at 12:34 PM
>> January 4, 2012 at 11:40 AM
>> January 4, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Mario, this is your comment at 2:13 PM -

"Attorney General Bates is correct that a "natural born Citizen" is defined by "universal principle, common to all nations." The Founders and Framers knew that that univeral principle is found, among other sources, in natural law which they also knew when applied to nations became the law of nations.

"William Rawle provides absolutely no authority or support for his statement. He simply states his personal opinion which was rejected starting with Justice Marshall in The Venus, the Inglis majority, Justice Daniels in Dred Scott, Minor v. Happersett, and Wong Kim Ark (just to mention some authorites among the many more that exist). "

>> January 5, 2012 at 2:43 PM
>> January 6, 2012 at 1:00 PM
>> January 6, 2012 at 1:14 PM
>> January 9, 2012 at 1:37 PM


Thursday, February 16, 2012
Tisdale v. Obama and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/02/tisdale-v-obama-and-natural-born.html

>> February 16, 2012 at 6:06 PM
>> February 23, 2012 at 6:40 PM


CORRECTION: Tuesday, May 22, 2012, not Monday, March 5, 2012.

Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Purpura and Moran File Their Brief and Appendix in Barack Obama N.J. Ballot Access Challenge Appeal
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 22, 2012
Updated May 25, 2012
Updated May 29, 2012

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/05/purpura-and-moran-file-their-brief-and.html

>> June 16, 2012 at 6:04 PM
>> June 17, 2012 at 6:29 PM


Monday, July 2, 2012
Purpura and Moran File Petition for Certification With the NJ Supreme Court in Obama NJ Ballot Challenge
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 2, 2012

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/07/purpura-and-moran-file-petition-for.html

>> July 4, 2012 at 1:15 AM
>> July 4, 2012 at 2:18 AM
>> July 12, 2012 at 2:36 PM


CORRECTION: Wednesday, August 8, 2012, not July 2, 2012.

Wednesday, August 8, 2012
Barack Obama Ballot Challenge Proceeding Forward in the NJ Supreme Court
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
August 8, 2012

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/08/barack-obama-ballot-challenge.html

>> September 6, 2012 at 3:33 AM
>> September 7, 2012 at 6:30 PM
>> September 7, 2012 at 10:03 PM
>> September 7, 2012 at 11:17 PM
>> September 19, 2012 at 5:25 PM
>> September 20, 2012 at 3:18 AM

ajtelles said...

William Rawle...

2/3

Tuesday, January 22, 2013
Barack Obama: The De Facto President of the United States-Maybe a Born Citizen But Not A "Natural Born Citizen"
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/01/barack-obama-de-facto-president-of.html

>> January 23, 2013 at 1:22 PM
>> January 23, 2013 at 3:29 PM
>> January 23, 2013 at 3:37 PM
>> January 23, 2013 at 3:38 PM
>> January 23, 2013 at 7:27 PM
>> January 23, 2013 at 11:57 PM
>> January 25, 2013 at 12:11 PM
>> January 25, 2013 at 1:52 PM
>> January 25, 2013 at 2:28 PM
>> January 25, 2013 at 5:54 PM
>> January 29, 2013 at 4:06 PM
>> March 23, 2013 at 1:40 PM (Francis Rawle, editor 1914)


Sunday, June 2, 2013
The Fallacies of Congressional Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen”
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
June 2, 2013

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-fallacies-of-congressional.html

>> June 21, 2013 at 5:40 PM (Francis Rawle, editor 1914)
>> July 1, 2013 at 7:38 PM (Francis Rawle, editor 1914)
>> July 2, 2013 at 1:01 AM (Francis Rawle, editor 1914)
>> July 2, 2013 at 1:30 AM (Francis Rawle, editor 1914)
>> July 2, 2013 at 1:59 AM (Francis Rawle, editor 1914)
>> July 2, 2013 at 6:58 PM (Francis Rawle, editor 1914)
>> July 2, 2013 at 8:25 PM (Francis Rawle, editor 1914)


Friday, July 19, 2013
The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause: A Response to Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 19, 2013

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html

>> August 11, 2013 at 11:47 PM
>> August 13, 2013 at 7:06 PM
>> September 14, 2013 at 8:15 PM
>> September 14, 2013 at 8:17 PM
>> September 14, 2013 at 11:59 PM
>> February 24, 2014 at 4:24 AM
>> February 24, 2014 at 9:44 AM
>> February 24, 2014 at 2:04 PM
>> February 25, 2014 at 12:40 AM (Leo DeRosia makes a pertinent 14th Amendment comment)
>> February 28, 2014 at 12:56 AM
>> February 28, 2014 at 11:39 PM
>> March 1, 2014 at 11:37 AM
>> March 1, 2014 at 5:07 PM
>> March 1, 2014 at 5:11 PM
>> March 1, 2014 at 10:19 PM
>> March 1, 2014 at 11:29 PM
>> March 2, 2014 at 4:34 AM
>> March 2, 2014 at 5:50 PM
>> March 3, 2014 at 3:58 AM
>> March 8, 2014 at 2:24 PM
>> March 8, 2014 at 5:50 PM
>> October 24, 2014 at 10:36 AM


Friday, February 20, 2015
What Do President Obama and Senator Cruz Have In Common? They Are Both Not Natural Born Citizens
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
February 20, 2015

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/02/what-do-president-obama-and-senator.html

>> February 22, 2015 at 2:55 PM (by Mario)
>> February 22, 2015 at 2:57 PM
>> February 22, 2015 at 2:58 PM


Saturday, July 4, 2015
July 4, 1776, the Birth Day of the Nation and the Natural Born Citizen
By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 4, 2015

http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2015/07/july-4-1776-birth-day-of-nation-and.html

>> August 10, 2015 at 11:21 AM
>> October 16, 2015 at 9:06 AM


Sunday, June 2, 2019
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

https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2019/06/the-fallacies-of-congressional.html

>> July 18, 2019 at 9:31 AM
>> August 19, 2019 at 10:57 AM
>> August 31, 2019 at 11:51 PM

…..… no Rawle in 2008 ………...
…..… no Rawle in 2016 ………...
…..… no Rawle in 2017 ………...
…..… no Rawle in 2018 ………...

Art
https://stopislamizationofamerica.blogspot.com

Brianroy said...

In reading the testimonial letters of A.P. Hinman’s inquiry
http://www.scribd.com/doc/18450082/Arthur-Hinman-How-a-British-Subject-Became-President-of-the-United-States
into where Chester A. Arthur was born, it appears to me that the best likelihood and short summary of the same might be something along these lines:

1. That Chester A. Arthur was most likely born in Meg’s Corner of Dunham Flats, in Missiqua County, located just inside the nationality and sovereignty of Quebec, Canada; and bordering Vermont. (pp. 38, 41, 52, 58-59).

2. Chester A. Arthur is alleged to himself have given two differing birthplaces of origin in his US Army enlistment and US Army reenlistment papers. (p.87). However, at the time of publication, the charge was as yet unconfirmed, and material evidence (documents) as yet not presented as substantiation.

3. Chester A. Arthur was enrolled in college and testified by himself and his family to be the age of 16 (the very bare minimum allowable age) to College Administration on paperwork they signed on September 05, 1845. Chester A. Arthur graduated as a lawyer in 1848. (pp. 80-81).

This makes Chester A. Arthur’s birth to have been dated to September 06, 1828 to September 05, 1829. The date is extremely significant as it was at the same time that C.A. Arthur’s family resided in Canada, prior to confirmed US residencies from 1831 ff. Oddly enough, on the very day he enrolled, it appears that both Chester's father and Chester himself presented that the college enrollment was occurring on Chester's 16th birthday...and who would disbelieve an alleged preacher of the Gospel in good standing from such a claim?

4. About 9 years after declaring himself to be 16 years old, at about age 25 – then, lawyer Chester A. Arthur (of almost 6 years since graduation) did so commit perjury with intent to defraud. He had an affidavit drawn up and presented to a US Court of Law that he was age 21 in May of 1854. (p. 82).

This would now make his claim that he was born in 1833, when the family was certainly in the US for more than a year and a half, and remained thereafter…but it also laid claim that he was but 12 upon entering a college with a bare minimum age of 16 as its requirements, and that for 3 years he and his parents and his churches and his father’s school administrator’s either kept silent on the matter or actively helped Chester fool everyone, so that Chester graduated at the age of 15. This is highly unrealistic. No, the fraud appears to have been singly done by C.A. Arthur in May of 1854, when he lied to the courts, and manufactured his age in order to claim a short-cutted and illegal acquiring of a US citizenship. And the fact that most historians have accepted his birth as 09/05/1829, demonstrates a great likelihood that he was better than 50% likely born elsewhere than Vermont as is the official claim.

Brianroy said...

Brooklyn Eagle June 2, 1884 p.4
In the Interest of Blaine
The circulation of a Book Concerning Arthur’s Birthplace.
[Special to the Eagle.]
Chicago, June 2.
Many hundred volumes of a book entitled “How a British Subject Became President of the United States,” reached here this morning, for distribution among the delegates to-morrow. The author is Arthur P. Hinman, a Brooklyn lawyer. The book opens with an extract from the Constitution of the United States providing that “no person except a natural born citizen” shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States. The author then states that when Chester A. Arthur was nominated for the vice presidency he was at first unable to name his birth-place and that, when the party managers insisted that he should name a spot before he wrote his letter of acceptance, he went off on an alleged fishing excursion with Robert G. Dun, the real object being to secure time to search the records in the province of Quebec, Canada, to see whether anything existed to show that he was born a British subject.


The main charge in the book is that William Chester Alan Arthur was born at Dunham Flats, Canada, on March, 1828, and that he represented himself to have been born at North Fairfield, Vermont, the birthplace of a younger brother, Chester Abell Arthur, who was born in 1830, and died a year later. It is stated that in 1834 when another son was born he received the name of William Arthur, Jr., and then the name William was dropped by William Chester Alan Arthur, and he was thenceforth known as Chester Alan Arthur. The records, copies of which are given, show that in 1845 Chester Alan Arthur entered Union College, stating his age to be 16.
Several letters and copies of records are included in the book, going to substantiate the statement that President Arthur is a British subject, but there is nothing so far as the general reader can discover, that could establish the allegation in any competent court. Still, there is sufficient to raise a doubt in the minds of those who read the numerous letters from various aged persons who knew the Arthur family as to President Arthur’s being a natural born citizen of the United States.
The principal facts were printed in the newspapers some time ago. It is supposed that the book is circulated in the interest of Blaine. P.D.

[[[In regard to Blaine:
[The reporter refers to former Secretary of State James G. Blaine of Maine, who was successfully making his bid to be the Republican nominee for President in 1884. He was paired up with Senator John A. Logan of Illinois.-- Brianroy]]].

Brianroy said...


Five years after the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress repealed the ACT of 1790, because it failed to specify its intent clear enough. Some claim that the children of Citizens is enough in itself, but the term "citizens" means both parents must be United States citizen parents, as was stated similarly by the Court in Minor v. Happersett decades later.

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874) @167 says:
“At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

The Act of January 29, 1795 sought to "complete" the intent of what lay in the term "natural born citizen" as it was used in what we now call the US Constitution's Article 2.1.5 clause.

That "natural born citizens of the United States" were:
1) Only those children having and being the child of to a US Citizen Father at the time of their birth that had only one nationality and allegiance at the time of the child's birth;
2) that the clear and obvious intent of the language of the statute was that the child also never have a dual nationality or any other allegiance than that of the United States for their entire existence from birth to the grave.

In Section 1, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to "forever [be free of] all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever."

This was so important it was repeated that he be someone who "absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever". He was also to be "a man of a good moral character, attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States, and well-disposed to the good order and happiness of the same."

In Section 2, any citizen that naturalized to the United States and who was to have any natural born son was required to "support the constitution of the United States; and that he does absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty whatever".

Brianroy said...

Further, that the Father be a United States Citizen at the time of the child's birth was viewed then by the Court to be an absolute in The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253 (1814) @ 289-290
- Chief Justice John Marshall stated:
The whole system of decisions applicable to this subject rests on the law of nations as its base. It is therefore of some importance to inquire how far the writers on that law consider the subjects of one power residing within the territory of another, as retaining their original character or partaking of the character of the nation in which they reside.

Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says
"The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.

The natives or indigenes
are those born in the country
of parents who are citizens.

Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights."
So while we see that the term “parents” is used, the “rights” and “condition” of Citizenship is passed on through the Citizen Father (or the presumption of one, in case of bastardization when he is presumed a US Citizen in absentia from the Citizen Mother).

With the Act of February 10, 1855 (10 Stat. 604) , the operation of Law still required the Father alone to confirm a child's citizenship. This in turn was clarified again as Revised Statute 1993 which stated:
"All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose FATHERS were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."

In 1802 and until 1855, while it was still a requirement that a child have a US Citizen Father, and under the specific language of the statute, the employing of the plural "persons" in the natural and literal sense of a child's birth, is inclusive of the necessity of a US citizen Mother as well as that of the Father at the time of birth in order that the child born outside the jurisdiction of the United States also be considered a US citizen as well, and not be stateless. The naturalization of the father automatically naturalized the mother as well at the moment the oath of naturalization was officially taken in a legal proceeding. With the codification of the Revised Statute 1993, the necessity of a US Citizen mother was either removed or left obscure, and the US Citizen Father once again became all that was required for a child born outside the limits of the United States to become a US Citizen for the next 13 years. But that was rectified by an Amendment to the US Constitution.


In Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) Oral Arguments, the acknowledgement that a mother can pass citizenship rights was referred to and reads:

Justice Ginsburg: Mr. Kneedler, if Congress went back to the way it when was everything was determined by the father's citizenship, go back before 1934, suppose Congress accepts your argument or we accept your argument and say plenary power, they can do whatever they damn please, so they say children born abroad of fathers who are U.S. citizens can become U.S. citizens, but not children who are born abroad of U.S. citizen mothers where the father is an alien.
That's the way it used to be in the bad old days.

Brianroy said...

The American Legal Review issue of Sep/Oct 1884 was the same one in which Democratic lawyer George D. Collins (the same who co-prosecuted the Wong Kim Ark landmark citizenship case of 1898) stated that in order to be “natural born” of a particular citizenship, such as the United States, “that his father be at the time of the birth of such a person a citizen thereof”.

George D. Collins asked the question: “are persons born within the United States, whose fathers at the time of birth were aliens, citizens thereof?”

Mr. Collins cited Mr. Vattel in probing for the answer, and while he quoted
"The native or natural citizens are born in the country of PARENTS who are citizens."
He also quoted that "The country of the father is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent."

His answer at the end of the article:
“Birth, therefore, does not ipso facto confer citizenship, and is essential in order that a person be a native or natural born citizen of the United States, that his father be at the time of the birth of such person a citizen thereof, or in the case he be illegitimate, that his mother be a citizen thereof at the time of such birth. – GEORGE D. COLLINS, SAN FRANCISCO, CAL.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19071886/Are-Persons-Born-Within-the-United-States-Ipso-Facto-Citizens-Thereof-George-D-Collins

Breckinridge Long in his 1916 Assessment of Charles Evan Hughes
http://www.scribd.com/doc/68922032/Natural-Born-Citizen-Within-Meaning-of-Constitution-by-Breckenridge-Long-Democrat-1916
own Presidential aspirations would agree:

"The Constitution of the United States puts a particular qualification upon those who shall become President and Vice-President. For all other offices it requires that they be “citizens of the United States,” but for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency it requires that they be “Natural Born citizens.”

The word “natural” means “of the nature of”; “naturally a part of”; “by the laws of nature an integral part of” a system. Following that line of thought a “natural born” citizen would be one who was naturally, at his birth, a member of the political society; naturally, a part of the political system into which he was born; by the laws of nature a citizen of the society into which he was born. It would mean, further, that no other government had any claim upon him; that his sole allegiance was to the government into which he had been born and that that government was solely, at the time, responsible for his protection. “
Native born” does not mean quite the same thing."

Brianroy said...

In Nguyen v. INS 533 US 53 (2001) Oral Arguments, Justice Ginsburg refers us back to the Act of May 24, 1934.

In other words, beginning on May 25, 1934, both fathers and mothers were able to pass on citizenship without prejudice. However, the condition of "Natural Born Citizenship", of being born with a citizen father of the same country you were born in, remained unaffected. Only now, it was absolutely essential that BOTH father and mother be citizens of the same country you were born in, that is in the jurisdiction of the United States, in order to be a United States Natural Born Citizen.

By example to that, we see that in Montana v. Kennedy, 366 US 308 (1961), http://supreme.justia.com/us/366/308/case.html
that United States citizenship was inherited via the father only (or the presumption of the father) until 1934:

Page 365 U.S. 309
…In 1874, Congress reenacted two statutes which seem to defy complete reconciliation. R.S. § 2172, a reenactment
Page 366 U. S. 310
of § 4 of an Act of April 14, 1802 (2 Stat. 155), provided that
"children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens thereof. . . ."
(Emphasis added.) R.S. § 1993, substantially a reenactment of § 1 of an Act of February 10, 1855 (10 Stat. 604), provided that
"All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."
Page 366 U.S. 312
...Whatever may have been the reason for the 1874 reenactment of the Act of 1802 as R.S. § 2172, we find nothing in that action which suggests a purpose to reverse the structure of inherited citizenship that Congress created in 1855 and recognized and reaffirmed until 1934. On this basis and in the light of our precedents, we hold that, at the time of petitioner's birth in 1906, R.S. § 1993 provided the sole source of inherited citizenship status for foreign-born children of American parents. That statute cannot avail this petitioner, who is the foreign-born child of an alien father.
Again, when one views what constitutes a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, regardless of the Act of May 24, 1934, one CANNOT exclude the father from the equation, or the fact of one sole national allegiance at birth.
I argue: 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.

Brianroy said...

South Carolina v. United States, 199 U.S. 437 (1905) @ 448 - 450
http://supreme.justia.com/us/199/437/case.html

"The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when adopted, it means now. "

It must also be remembered that the framers of the Constitution were not mere visionaries, toying with speculations or theories, but practical men, dealing with the facts of political life as they understood them, putting into form the government they were creating and prescribing, in language clear and intelligible...

Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, in @ 22 U. S. 188, well declared:

"As men whose intentions require no concealment generally employ the words which most directly and aptly express the ideas they intend to convey, the enlightened patriots who framed our Constitution, and the people who adopted it, must be understood to have employed words in their natural sense, and to have intended what they have said."

...As said by Mr. Justice Matthews in Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465, 124 U. S. 478:

"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."

And by MR. JUSTICE GRAY in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 169 U. S. 654

"In this, as in other respects, it must be interpreted in the light of the common law, the principles and history of which were familiarly known to the framers of the Constitution. 88 U. S. 422; Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 116 U. S. 624-625; Smith v. Alabama, 124 U. S. 465. The language of the Constitution, as has been well said, could not be understood without reference to the common law. 1 Kent, Com. 336; Bradley, J., in Moore v. United States,@ 91 U. S. 270, 91 U. S. 274."

Common Law relied heavily upon Biblical statutes as its core guidance. John Whitehead, The Second American revolution, covers that connection.
Moving on...
A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN at the time the Constitution was written and being ratified is then defined for us as being that of a Son of his Citizen Father, born to the same soil and legience of his father, and reared up and taught in the land-legience-governance of his father naturally to join that same Government on the soil of his native birth as that of his father's, until he effectually takes his place as an extension of his father as a citizen in the land of his father...so that when the father dies, the citizenship of the nation is naturally extended, and does NOT die off. ( See also John Locke Second Treatise of Government Chapter 6:59).
Without the father being a citizen of the same government and legience to which the child is born into, there is no presumption of a natural transition in both the law of nature AND the positive laws of an established government. In fact, there is a break in that "citizenship" if the child is born into the legience alien to that of the father, so that we cannot declare the child to be thus a "Natural Born Citizen" under Locke, nor under the later United States Constitution. See also the Senate debate over the first section of what would be the 14th Amendment and what they intended as an allegiance that was still yet lesser in strength than the natural born citizen clause:

The Congressional Globe, 1st session, May 30, 1866 The debate on the first section of the 14th Amendment http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwcglink.html#anchor38

"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."

Brianroy said...

The Founders like Gorge Washington & John Jay almost certainly utilized John Locke for understanding Paternal Power as part of the Natural Born Citizen issue:

“This holds in all the laws a man is under, whether natural or civil. Is a man under the law of nature? What made him free of that law? what gave him a free disposing of his property, according to his own will, within the compass of that law? I answer, a state of maturity wherein he might be supposed capable to know that law, that so he might keep his actions within the bounds of it. When he has acquired that state, he is presumed to know how far that law is to be his guide, and how far he may make use of his freedom, and so comes to have it; till then, some body else must guide him, who is presumed to know how far the law allows a liberty. If such a state of reason, such an age of discretion made him free, the same shall make his son free too. Is a man under the law of England? What made him free of that law? that is, to have the liberty to dispose of his actions and possessions according to his own will, within the permission of that law? A capacity of knowing that law; which is supposed by that law, at the age of one and twenty years, and in some cases sooner. If this made the father free, it shall make the son free too. Till then we see the law allows the son to have no will, but he is to be guided by the will of his father or guardian, who is to understand for him. And if the father die, and fail to substitute a deputy in his trust; if he hath not provided a tutor, to govern his son, during his minority, during his want of understanding, the law takes care to do it; some other must govern him, and be a will to him, till he hath attained to a state of freedom, and his understanding be fit to take the government of his will. But after that, the father and son are equally free as much as tutor and pupil after nonage; equally subjects of the same law together, without any dominion left in the father over the life, liberty, or estate of his son, whether they be only in the state and under the law of nature, or under the positive laws of an established government.”
John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 6: ‘Of Paternal Power’ §. 59

Brianroy said...

When we discuss Natural Born instead of Operational by a kicking in of some kind of man-made law Born for Citizenship, are we being inclusive enough in our parameters for research?

Black's law Dictionary defines "Organic Law"
https://thelawdictionary.org/organic-law/ as
The fundamental law, or constitution, of a state or nation, written or unwritten; that law or system of laws or principles which defines and establishes the organization of its government.

For these United States, our own Federal Government recognizes that we must include
https://uscode.house.gov/browse/frontmatter/organiclaws&edition=
The Declaration of Independence - 1776
Articles of Confederation - 1777
Ordinance of 1787: The Northwest Territorial Government
Constitution of the United States
in examining our laws or principles which defines and establishes the organization of our Federal Government & that of our Constitution. In other words, it is more than just the Declaration of Independence that is allowable as part of the debate on the Natural Born Citizen Clause or of anything that is finalized within our Constitution. A whole body of politi-think can be involved in the Transmutation of the United States as a Confederacy into a Republic as part of a basis of discussion, including that Convention which dissolved the Confederacy & why we had the NBC clause inserted in the first place. Hence the famous John Jay & George Washington exchange on the matter.
Article 6 of the US Constitution declares that the Constitution itself is the Supreme law of the Land...the Organic Law is to be first consideration, and hence Statute Law, which follows, is to therefore conform to the Constitution or it can be cast aside by the Court as not being of or in line with Organic intent within the Construct & Supremacy Requirement held by our Supreme Law or Constitution, as it were.

Black's Law defines Statute Law as merely that "Body of written laws that have been adopted by the legislative body." https://thelawdictionary.org/statute-law/
Legislative Powers are, by Organic Law, to be vested in Congress (US Constitution, Art. 1, Section 1) if they are made pursuant to the Constitution as stated in Article 6, Clause 2.
Alexander Hamilton
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed27.htm
in the federalist Paper #27 writes:

"It merits particular attention in this place, that the laws of the Confederacy, as to the ENUMERATED and LEGITIMATE objects of its jurisdiction, will become the SUPREME LAW of the land; to the observance of which all officers, legislative, executive, and judicial, in each State, will be bound by the sanctity of an oath. Thus the legislatures, courts, and magistrates, of the respective members, will be incorporated into the operations of the national government AS FAR AS ITS JUST AND CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY EXTENDS...."
{End Part 1]

Brianroy said...

[Part 2]
Organic, Statute, Common law discussion continues:

After Organic law & Statute Law are looked to, if more guidance on an issue is needed, THEN the Common Law can be looked at, & in that above order. For our countries that speak English, Common Law was founded on the dependency of a Fourth Category, the Holy Bible, & utilized those laws to be a basis of not just Common Law, but the Law of Nature and the Law of Nations. For any US Court to deny the Bible, is to deny the foundation of rationalization within the activity of Reason in Jurisprudence itself. It becomes not just anarchistic, but Nihilist & fully contradictory to the intent of the whole succession of Laws we have, all the way up to the Constitution itself. And that irrationality is why atheists, until the 20th Century primarily, were banned from serving on juries in many of our States of the United States. because the mere denial of GOD proved them to be irrational beings & contradictory to the Foundation & of comprehending the reason that the Common, & Statute & Organic laws were what they were in the first place.

So this too is something worthy of consideration as to the parameters of what we can or may or may not discuss. Chief Roberts loves to insert Puffendorf's observations on a matter at times...
Puffendorf in
OF THE LAW OF NATURE AND NATIONS
On the Duties of Man Towards Himself in the Cultivation of his Mind as well as in the Care of his Body and of his Life
wrote:
"Nor doth it seem at all repugnant either to natural reason, or to the Holy Scriptures, (which command us to lay down our lives for our brethren) that, without any such rigid injunction of a superior, a man should voluntarily expose himself to a probability of losing his life for others; provided he hath good hopes of thus procuring their safety, and that they are worthy of so dear a ransom...."

so he & Locke & others, as well as the Bible (which was not anatheme, but rather looked to for support by men such as these) , are de jure & de facto applicable in discussing the UNITED STATES Natural Born Citizen issue, it seems to me.

ajtelles said...

Hi Mario,

Wow... a whole "lotta" stuff from Brianroy about...what? Common sense about understanding original intent. Well, that's the way it reads to me.

Two "what" that I can definitely identify with in Brianroy's 10 section post is his 7, 2019 at 5:35 AM tangential reference to John Whitehead, and his extended comment on September 7, 2019 at 5:24 AM:

"Common Law relied heavily upon Biblical statutes as its core guidance. John Whitehead, The Second American revolution, covers that connection."


"I argue:

"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."


<<>>

Mario, I don't know if you have written yet (I may have missed it) about what Congress can do to rectify the "nabural born citizen" confusion in Arricle II Section 1 clause 5, but I wrote something similar to what Brianroy wrote above in my own words on September 6, 2019 at 11:43 AM about calrifying by congressional statute the original meaning and original intent of "natural born Citizen":

"... since Article I Section 1 clause 1 explicit "legislative Powers" language gives the U.S. Congress statute authority to define who/what is a U.S. "citizen", and the language does not implicitly or explicitly forbid Congress from defining who/what is a "natural born citizen" in Article II Section 1 clause 5, maybe a "natural born citizen" eligibility to be president clarifying statement like this [written in the next paragraph] should also be written into future U.S. Statutes [if not added as an constitutional amendment to Article II Seceion 1 clause 5]":

"To be eligible to be president of the United States, a natural born citizen of the United States shall have ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone, ONLY on U.S. soil or jurisdiction, ONLY birth with two U.S. citizen parents, ONLY married to each other, ONLY before the child is born."

_ONLY singular U.S. citizenship by birth alone
_ONLY on U.S. soil or jurisdiction
_ONLY birth with two U.S. citizen parents (but not a child born to a U.S. citizen mistress)
_ONLY married to each other (not multiple-wives)
_ONLY before the child is born

Art

Charles Hughes said...

Mario: "John McCain was a natural born citizen because, for purposes of the natural born citizen clause, he was born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents."

Hmmmm

8 FAM 302.7-3 STATUS BEFORE DECEMBER 24, 1952

(CT:CITZ-1; 06-27-2018)

a. Status after extension of U.S. sovereignty to the Canal Zone

(1) The area formerly known as the Canal Zone was leased to the United States by a treaty with the Republic of Panama, effective February 26, 1904;

(2) The treaty did not address the nationality status of the native inhabitants. Pursuant to the principles of international law, they became noncitizen U.S. nationals unless they elected to retain their previous nationality; and

(3) For most nationality purposes, the Canal Zone was considered to be foreign territory.

b. Status acquired by birth in the Canal Zone after extension of U.S.:

From February 26, 1904, until August 4, 1937, acquisition of U.S. citizenship by persons born in the Canal Zone was governed by section 1993, Rev Stat. (see 8 FAM 301.5). Thus from February 26, 1904 to May 23, 1934, citizenship was transmitted only to children whose fathers were, at the time of the child's birth, U.S. citizens who had previously resided in the United States. The original section 1993, R.S., was amended by act of May 24, 1934, and made possible transmission of citizenship by either U.S. citizen parent who had previously resided in the United States.

c. Laws granting U.S. citizenship to certain persons born in the Canal Zone:

(1) The act of August 4, 1937 (50 Stat. 558)("the act") was the first statute to provide for citizenship to certain individuals born in the Canal Zone. Section 1 of the act provided for acquisition of U.S. citizenship by persons born in the Canal Zone on or after February 26, 1904, to a U.S. citizen parent. The wording of section 1 was the same as that of section 303(a) INA, quoted in 8 FAM 302.7-2. The U.S. citizen parent did not need prior U.S. residence to transmit citizenship, and no retention requirement applied to the children. The Department holds that children born in the Canal Zone between May 24, 1934 and August 4, 1937 were not subject to the retention requirements of section 1993 R.S., as amended; and

(2) Under the act of August 4, 1937, persons born in the Canal Zone to a U.S. citizen before passage of the act acquired U.S. citizenship on August 4, 1937, if they had not already acquired U.S. citizenship. Those born there after August 4, 1937, to a U.S. citizen acquired U.S. citizenship at birth.

d. Provisions from January 13, 1941 to December 24, 1952: section 203(a) NA restated the provisions of section 1 of the act of August 4, 1937. Its text was the same as that of section 303(a) INA. As with the act of 1937, no prior residence or physical presence of the parent in the United States was required to transmit U.S. citizenship, and no later residence or physical presence of the child was required to retain U.S. citizenship.

e. Status of persons born in the Canal Zone to aliens: Persons born in the Canal Zone of alien parents did not acquire U.S. nationality at birth.


https://fam.state.gov/FAM/08FAM/08FAM030207.html

Charles Hughes said...

Mario: " Children who are "born out of the country in the armies of the state . . . are reputed born in the country." See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 217."

Hmmmmm

"We have not previously decided whether a military base located abroad qualifies as “in the United States” for Fourteenth Amendment purposes. However, we have addressed whether a person derived United States citizenship from his parents, who he claimed “became United States citizens at birth because they were born in the Philippines when the country was a United States territory.” Nolos v. Holder, 611 F.3d 279, 282 (5th Cir. 2010)(per curiam). In that case, we were required to determine whether the Philippines was “in the United States” for Fourteenth Amendment purposes."

[skip]

"Having already determined that the Philippines, which was “under the complete and absolute sovereignty and dominion of the United States” during its time as a United States territory, The Diamond Rings, 183 U.S. 176, 179 (1901), was not “in the United States” for Fourteenth Amendment purposes, we decline to hold that a military base located in Germany qualifies as such, Nolos, 611 F.3d at 284; see also Friedrichv. Friedrich, 983 F.2d 1396, 1401 (6th Cir. 1983)" in Thomas v. Lynch 796 F. 3d 535 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 2015

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-60297-CV0.pdf

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Charles Hughes,

Do any of the cases and materials that you cite and quote address the question of how would the Founders and Framers have viewed the citizenship status of a child born in a foreign country to parents who at the time of the child's birth were serving "in the armies of the state?"

Hmmmmm

Charles Hughes said...

I'm sure they would have considered them as Citizens of the United States.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Would they have considered them Article II "natural born Citizens?"

Charles Hughes said...

Are they part of an occupying army?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I don't think that our soldiers are in foreign lands on vacation of some sort.

Charles Hughes said...

So is it your contention that McCain's father was part of an occupying military?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Your question assumes something about an "occupying" military. What is your authority for making that element a requirement of some sort?