tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post1111613239624526983..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: Ted Cruz: Neither a Natural Born Citizen Nor “TrusTed”Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger268125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-35785004840004430812020-09-20T14:30:52.432-04:002020-09-20T14:30:52.432-04:00Kamala Harris Owes Homage and Allegiance to Queen ...Kamala Harris Owes Homage and Allegiance to Queen of Jamaica: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2020/09/19/kamala-harris-owes-homage-and-allegiance-to-queen-of-jamaica/CDR Kerchner (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08723450250376537457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-46079528202975624632020-09-20T14:30:01.865-04:002020-09-20T14:30:01.865-04:00U.S. Senator Kamala Harris is NOT a ‘natural born ...U.S. Senator Kamala Harris is NOT a ‘natural born Citizen” of USA – NOT Eligible to be VP, or President and CinC: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2020/07/23/u-s-senator-kamala-harris-is-not-a-natural-born-citizen-of-usa-not-eligible-to-be-president-and-cinc-or-vp/CDR Kerchner (Ret)https://www.blogger.com/profile/08723450250376537457noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-46839292338499816232020-08-11T19:22:49.091-04:002020-08-11T19:22:49.091-04:00Phil,
The definition of an Article II "natu...Phil, <br /><br />The definition of an Article II "natural born citizen" of the United States is a child born in the United States to parents who were both either natural born citizens or citizens of the United States at the time of the child's birth. Being born in California to a Jamaican father and Indian mother who were not U.S. citizens at the time of her birth, Kamala Harris is a “citizen” of the United States under the Fourteenth Amendment. But she is neither a “natural born Citizen,” [n]or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution.” She is therefore not eligible to be Vice President or eventually President.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-9675970418851573202020-08-11T19:01:49.024-04:002020-08-11T19:01:49.024-04:00Is sen Harris a nbc and eligible to be pres or vp ...Is sen Harris a nbc and eligible to be pres or vp ? I don’t think so.phil stonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08798840335706659721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-14716909587761628962017-01-16T23:37:45.334-05:002017-01-16T23:37:45.334-05:00This a great piece of work, Mr. Auppzo.
I have ...This a great piece of work, Mr. Auppzo. <br /><br /><br />I have been re-reading Garrett Epps' 2010 work, entitled: "The Citizenship Clause: A 'Legislative History'". Among the many errors Mr. Epps makes, I find his statement, "In particular, the authors [Schuck and Smith of "Citizenship by Consent"] suggest that children of illegal immigrants did not at the time of Framing, do not now, and should not fall within the meaning of subject to the jurisdiction. This is because the children carry<br />at birth the taint of their parents‘ criminality: ―The parents of such children<br />are, by definition, individuals whose presence within the jurisdiction of the United States is prohibited by law. They [the parents] are manifestly individuals, therefore, to whom the society has explicitly and self-consciously decided to deny membership," to be most egregious. As you and I know, it is because such children are not born exclusively under U.S. sovereignty. The 14th Amendment also limits itself to natural born citizens.<br /><br /><br />All U.S. Citizens share two prescriptions: One, they all must be free individuals, either by renunciation of any foreign allegiances or by birth. Secondly, all must pledge to support and abide by the U.S. Constitution. An Art. II, Sec. I, Cl. 5 natural born citizen is a person born exclusively under U.S. sovereignty at birth.batazoidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16396015090204043724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-37950014570596718482017-01-16T12:43:32.643-05:002017-01-16T12:43:32.643-05:00in four days `bamo gonna need a birth certificate ...in four days `bamo gonna need a birth certificate for everythingroderickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16820962609186126127noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-47598782035268480502016-08-12T23:09:07.518-04:002016-08-12T23:09:07.518-04:00Mario,
I've used your essay for years, to poin...Mario,<br />I've used your essay for years, to point out the "little" problem with "NBC" requirements for President.<br />I've read many rebuttals to your essay, none hold up.<br />The one argument that arises, is concerning Vattel's "Law of Nation" and it's description of a natural born citizen.<br />That argument is that the "Law of Nations" is not in the Constitution. This seems to give the "anybody goes" group some sort of boost.<br />I would like to have everyone take a glance at the line, in Article 1, Section 8, Paragraph 10 that states: Congress shall have the power....<br /><br />To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations....<br /><br />Now, the wording of that, would "indicate" to me, that the founders HAD referred to the "Law of Nations".<br />Why else would it be punctuated the way it is? Like, kinda sorta, the name of a book or something.<br />Looks to me as though, the founders incorporated the "Law of Nations" into our Constitution, and most folks, desire to ignore it.<br /><br />Just Sayin<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05429127797401141547noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-52089389831306883692016-07-13T02:43:41.239-04:002016-07-13T02:43:41.239-04:00Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:
"Your last comment w...Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:<br />"Your last comment was accidentally deleted. You may repost it."<br /><br />Accidentally deleted by me too. I try to keep a copies of my writing, but the version in my archive file is too long. Your web-site rejects it for being over 4K. I must have edited it down and forgotten to save it as posted. I'll repost it as close as I can.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17053257586381012475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-83754244670320227672016-07-08T09:03:45.627-04:002016-07-08T09:03:45.627-04:00Glen Smith,
Persons born in the territory and und...Glen Smith,<br /><br />Persons born in the territory and under the jurisdiction of the United States become citizens of the United States by force of the Constitution. If born to U.S. citizen parents (father and mother), they are under the common law and original Constitution natural born citizens. Minor v. Happersett (1875). If born to one or two qualifying alien parents, they are under the Fourteenth Amendment citizens of the United States "at birth," but not natural born citizens. United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). <br /><br />Persons born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States need either a Congressional naturalization statute or treaty in order to be adopted as citizens of the United States. Rogers v. Bellei (1971) and other authorities. If born to one or two U.S. citizen parents and if they can benefit from an applicable statute, they are citizens of the United States "at birth." If born to two alien parents, upon satisfying the requirements of an applicable law, they become citizens of the United States after birth. In both cases, the persons are naturalized by the force of the applicable positive law and are not natural born citizens. <br /><br />Tuaua v. United States, No. 13-5272 (D.C. Cir. 2015), petition for certiorari denied on June 13, 2016, confirms that for those born out of the territory and jurisdiction of the United States, it is Congress and only Congress that decides whether they become upon their birth or thereafter citizens of the United States. Under that decision, those who are born in American Samoa, an unincorporated territory, to alien parents are "non-citizen nationals" by virtue of 8 U.S.C. sec. 1408(1), meaning they are not "citizens of the United States" "at birth" under the Fourteenth Amendment (are not guaranteed U.S. citizenship by virtue of their birth circumstances) or any Act of Congress (granted U.S. citizenship "at birth" only by virtue of the naturalization power of Congress). Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-19456599022331741852016-07-07T22:00:26.160-04:002016-07-07T22:00:26.160-04:00United States Court of Appeals, District of Columb...United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.<br />TUAUA v. UNITED STATES<br />No. 13–5272. <br /><br />(No. 15-981 Supreme Court of the U.S.: Jun 13 2016 Petition DENIED. http://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docketfiles/15-981.htm)<br /><br />http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-dc-circuit/1703195.html<br /><br />"Unlike those born in the United States' other current territorial possessions—who are statutorily deemed American citizens at birth..."<br /><br />Am I reading this correct, persons born in U.S. Territories, are not considered "....born...in the United States...."; as such, merely acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by U.S. Statute (Congress expressing its “Power To…establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”); Therefore, are U.S. citizens by naturalization?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12337387722844713604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-86273144075776427832016-07-07T19:38:16.470-04:002016-07-07T19:38:16.470-04:00THE BLAZE: Cruz Accepts Trump’s Invitation to Spea...THE BLAZE: Cruz Accepts Trump’s Invitation to Speak at GOP Convention...<br /><br />http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/07/07/cruz-accepts-trumps-invitation-to-speak-at-gop-convention-but-still-no-endorsement/#comment-11684917<br /><br />This is very troubling, Ted Cruz attempted to Usurp the United States Constitutional “natural born Citizen” requirement for who can be President, not one member of Congress stood up to honor their Oath, and now he’s invited to speak at the Convention.<br /><br />Canadian born Ted Cruz did not inherit U.S. citizenship from his mother, he acquired U.S. citizenship at birth by fulfilling Section 301(a)(7) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which Congress enacted by expressing its Constitutional “Power To…establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization”. If starting in 1934, Congress had not established these rules, then Cruz would not have acquired U.S. citizenship at birth.<br /><br />The United States Supreme Court, many times over, has determined, persons like Ted Cruz (a foreign born person who acquires U.S. citizenship at birth by fulfilling an Act of Congress), as far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned, are citizens by Naturalization. [1] The Court, has also already determined, the only difference between a “Naturalized” citizen and a “natural born Citizen” is that only the latter is eligible to be President. [2]<br /><br />1. Montana v. Kennedy 366 U.S. 308 (1961); Miller v. Albright 523 U.S. 420 (1998); … (so on and so on)<br /><br />2. Schneider v. Rusk 377 U.S. 163 (1964)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12337387722844713604noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-57293040102505244252016-07-07T13:46:07.588-04:002016-07-07T13:46:07.588-04:002/
Donald Trump and the "nbC" status of...2/<br /><br /><b>Donald Trump and the "nbC" status of his children...</b><br /><br />If Donald Trump were to simply state that his own children are not natural born citizens because, while they were born on U.S. soil, they were not born to two U.S. citizen parents, so they are not "...eligible to the Office President" according to the original intent of Article II Section 1 clause 5, so he, as a presidential candidate must insist that both Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio not pursue the presidency of the United States because they born are not natural born citizens.<br /><br />See Ivana's naturalization notice in the May 26, 1988 Lewiston-Auburn, Maine Journal. She naturalized 11 years after Don was born, 7 years after Ivanka was born, and 4 years after Eric Trump was born.<br /><br />>> https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1899&dat=19880527&id=LiEgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YmYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5053,3823442&hl=en<br /><br />"With her at <b>Wednesday's ceremony</b> was her husband, billionaire developer Donald Trump."<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />"Mrs. Trump, a 38 year-old, Austrian-born, former Czechoslovakian national, came to this country 10 years ago after working as a model in Montreal."<br /><br />"Donald John "Don" Trump, Jr. (born December 31, 1977)...."<br />>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump,_Jr.<br /><br />"Ivanka Marie Trump (/iˈvɑːnkə/, born October 30, 1981)...."<br />>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanka_Trump<br /><br />"Eric Frederic Trump (born January 6, 1984)...."<br />>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Trump<br /><br />Maybe Mr. Trump's friend, author Ann Coulter, could take the bull by the horns and write at least one entire article about how Mr. Trump's children are not eligible to be president of the U.S. for the same reason that Mr. Cruz and Mr. Rubio are not eligible: all 5 "citizens" do not fulfill the <b>original genesis</b> (birth) <b>original intent</b> (citizenship) of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY by birth to two (2) U.S. citizen parents.<br /><br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~<br /><br />Mario, do you think it would help the eligibility debates of the future if you were to send a certified letter from your office and as an attorney to the RNC and to the Trump candidate headquarters with references to the Fox & Friends appearance of Eric and the Politico article? <br /><br />Do you think it would help if you, an attorney, were to point out in your letter that the mother of Trump's three eldest children did <b>not naturalize</b> until after the children were born, so that means that the children are not natural born citizens? Do you think that would get some traction? <br /><br />Did somebody say don't hold your breath?<br /><br />Maybe if 1,000+++++ postcards that can be read by others were sent to the Trump office he might get the message that he and his advisors are not fully informed about what an Article II Section 1 clause 5 "natural born Citizen" meant to John Jay when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington, a suggestion that was accepted by the delegates when they adopted the Constitution on September 17, 1787.<br /><br />Well, I'm off to mail my postcard. <br />How many thousands more will be mailed to Trump?<br /><br />Mario, Eric Trump's honest statement implying that he thinks his sister Ivanka is eligible to be president reveals that your (and our) eight year effort to educate the American people is not finished.<br /><br />Will Trump learn the original genesis of "natural" and "born" (birth) and original intent of "Citizen" (singular U.S. citizenship) in addition to the easy to understand 35 years of age and 14 year residence in the U.S.?<br /><br />Art<br />Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.comajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-37522051131806006282016-07-07T13:39:15.836-04:002016-07-07T13:39:15.836-04:001/
Donald Trump and the "nbC" status of...1/<br /><br /><b>Donald Trump and the "nbC" status of his children...</b><br /><br />Mario,<br /><br />Politico has Eric Trump's response to a friendly hypothetical question about his sister Ivanka being the Vice President in her father's administration.<br /><br />>> http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/ivanka-trump-vice-president-225200<br /><br /><b>Eric Trump: Ivanka would make a great VP</b><br /><br />"Eric Trump says he agrees with Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) that his sister Ivanka would be a great pick for his father's for vice president."<br /><br />[...snip...]<br /><br />"Appearing on "Fox & Friends" Thursday morning, Eric Trump remarked of the clip, 'I agree, right? ... She's certainly got my vote."<br /><br />" 'Is she 35?' co-host Steve Doocy asked, in reference to the constitutional requirement that the president be at least 35 years old."<br /><br />" 'She'll just be 35,' Eric Trump said, noting that her birthday is at Oct. 30, 'so she'd just make that by about by, you know, seven, eight days.' "<br /><br />" 'And she definitely has the business sense,' co-host Ainsley Earhardt remarked."<br /><br />"Trump added, She's amazing.' "<br /><br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~<br /><br />This is my point.<br /><br /><b>All three of Donald Trumps children are not eligible to be president or vice president.</b><br /><br />It seems that 35 years of age is easy to understand, but what "natural born Citizen" means is still not clear after about 8 years to the Fox & Friends hosts and to Eric Trump, and by implication, also not clear to Donald Trump and his advisors.<br /><br />On February 22, 2016 at 6:59 PM I posted here on your Natural Born Citizen blog the text below. <br /><br /><b>"...birth alone..."</b><br /><br />Mario,<br /><br />In your third paragraph you accurately state "...birth alone. ... birth does not exist in a vacuum."<br /><br />>> "A natural born citizen is a citizen by virtue of birth and birth alone. <br />>> "But birth does not exist in a vacuum. <br />>> "There are circumstances that exist at the time of birth. <br />>> "Those circumstances are, among many, the parents to whom one is born <br />>> "and the place where one is born. ..."<br /><br />One of the circumstances as you mention in this article, and in the previous two articles, is the citizenship of both parents and where the child is born.<br /><br />I have a suggestion for Mr. Trump about how to clarify who a "natural born Citizen" is that will get the respect of the Cruz birthers, the Rubio birthers, etc., and that is to bring into the eligibility conversation the naturalization date of his first wife, Ivana and the birth dates of his own children with Ivana.ajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-90210396136530930682016-07-06T11:41:10.156-04:002016-07-06T11:41:10.156-04:00Yes, I understand. There may be many, but they ar...Yes, I understand. There may be many, but they are still the group (subset) with the strongest ties of allegiance. I meant "exclusionary" in that sense, not in the sense of narrowing to few in number. I used "smallest" in my comment. Removing that word better represents my intent. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, while still greenlighting my comment anyway.<br />Carlylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371651852897376905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-43789948506426450172016-07-06T10:09:08.097-04:002016-07-06T10:09:08.097-04:00Carlyle,
Please note that while the natural born ...Carlyle,<br /><br />Please note that while the natural born citizen clause, representing one of the three requirements for being eligible to be President, is necessarily exclusionary, the natural born citizens represent the greatest number of U.S. citizens. In other words, most U.S. citizens are born in the United States to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-86942367825029897382016-07-05T10:01:28.342-04:002016-07-05T10:01:28.342-04:00@TeoBear
Only a demented liberal would think that...@TeoBear<br /><br />Only a demented liberal would think that the NBC clause was meant to be other than as exclusionary as possible. It HAD to have been the smallest most pronounced subset of Citizens. Multi-culti, social justice, and political correctness, are inventions of the last few decades. I am sure such self-destructive thoughts were far from the minds of the Framers.<br /><br />I have always maintained the square peg / round hole theory on this. The ONLY reason we get this continuous onslaught of twisted logic is for the sole purpose of justifying The Obamessiah. Without such an urgent need, even these hardcore "fiction writers" would not be so energetic in their fantasies.<br />Carlylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371651852897376905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-36492595716895623372016-07-04T12:10:56.024-04:002016-07-04T12:10:56.024-04:00A natural born citizen of the United States of Ame...A natural born citizen of the United States of America is a person who at birth owes allegiance solely to the United States of America and because of the circumstances of such a birth only the United States of America can demand allegiance from a natural born citizen of the United States of America.<br /><br />This definition leaves no room for error. It takes into account jus sanguines and jus soli, to unify parentage and place of birth. This way the allegiance of the natural born citizen is unified to both blood and soil at the moment of birth.<br /><br />Neither Ted Cruz or Barack Obama can claim that unification. From their birth they owed allegiance to foreign nations and foreign nations could have demanded allegiance from them. We may never have a clear ruling on whether or not English Common law or Vattel's Law of Nations was used to define the term natural born citizen, because of Justice Matthew's poison pill of injecting common law into the interpretation of the Constitution, even though both Madison and Mason categorically deny English Common law was used in the framing of the Constitution. But there is no mistaking the intent of Jay's letter to Washington, and that was the necessity of absolute allegiance to the United States of America by its Commander in Chief.Teo Bearhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02706954498728762711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-59043112868022828312016-07-03T12:49:34.850-04:002016-07-03T12:49:34.850-04:00Mr. Olson,
Your last comment was accidentally de...Mr. Olson, <br /><br />Your last comment was accidentally deleted. You may repost it.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-69926787297755682622016-07-03T10:14:03.303-04:002016-07-03T10:14:03.303-04:00Ajtelles wrote:
~~~
On Slate.com, Yale law profess...Ajtelles wrote:<br />~~~<br />On Slate.com, Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar has a response to judge Richard Posner about academics taking on judges that Bryan and other 'natural born Citizen' new meaning neobirthers can not refute<br />...<br />http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2016/supreme_court_breakfast_table_for_june_2016/how_to_keep_supreme_court_justices_accountable.html<br />~~~<br /><br />Then we click on Ajtelles' link, read, and and laugh in his face. In that piece for Slate.com, Professor Amar doesn't even mention the NBC clause.<br />But in this one he did: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2008/02/the_constitution_and_the_candidates.html<br /><br />Professor Amar also explains that the Article II term "natural born citizen" means citizen from birth in his previous book, /America's Constitution: A Biography/, Random House, 2005; ISBN-13: 978-1400062621. See page 164. Incidentally, Esq. Apuzzo cited the book as an authority in a couple of his briefs in Kerchner v. Obama.<br /><br /><br />Ajtelles wrote, in other comments:<br />~~~<br />Since 5 days ago, Bryan has choseen to not respond to this simple request for clarification<br />...<br />Bryan had not responded for five days (12 days today).<br />~~~<br /><br />My previous responses stand. If they were unclear to you, well, I tried.<br />I'll try again: When you, Mr. Ajtelles, hold that to be president one's parents had to be married, I will not be arguing against it. I will be pointing and laughing.<br />My responses are unlikely to change. I may or may not occasionally remind you of what I've already answered, as you continue to ask the same thing over and over. See my comment in this thread of 21 May 2016.<br /><br />Ajtelles wrote, in another comment:<br />~~~<br />Mario,<br />You are an attorney with legal authority to put Esquire after your name and I am not a lawyer, but, for some reason, Bryan seems to think that you are an easy target to shoot at with his simplistic rhetoric instead of me.<br />~~~<br /><br />Yup, and I went farther: Mario Apuzzo is a an attorney who has litigated presidential eligibility many times. Who is the single most experience attorney at litigating eligibility to be president of the United States? I think that's nearly a tie between Mario Apuzzo and Orly Taitz, with Phil Berg in the running but eventually edged out.<br /><br />The reason I like to target the actual lawyers -- and whether Orly Taitz qualifies as such is debatable -- is that practicing law connects them to reality. The results are in. Mr. Apuzzo's vast experience in litigating presidential eligibility consists of losing all his cases and all his appeals. He called his lawsuit against R. Ted Cruz, "an open-and-shut case". He brought his open-and-shut case. He lost. That's what happens, every time, when any of you venture out of your blogsphere world of make-believe.<br /><br />You, Ajtelles, never venture out of your fantasy world, not that I can tell. I point out over and over that your theory of who can be president is trashed by the most obvious case in the real world. Means nothing to you. Esq. Apuzzo's actual court results irrefutably connect to reality. You, Ajtelles, have no such connection. Love your "married parents" line.<br /><br />Ajtelles, when you wrote: "Yale law professor Akhil Reed Amar has a response to judge Richard Posner about academics taking on judges that Bryan and other 'natural born Citizen' new meaning neobirthers can not refute", did you have any sense at all that it might not work out for you? Any notion that maybe you should learn from your professor before you went off like that? Do you have even the most tenuous connection with reality to hear a backfire when it blows up in your face?<br /><br />"Natural-Born Citizens: The Constitution's rule that the president be 'a natural born citizen' focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date." -- Akhil Reed Amar<br /><br />--BryanUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17053257586381012475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-90374254336372644122016-07-03T08:50:23.812-04:002016-07-03T08:50:23.812-04:00Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"Mr. Olson, you said it a...Mario Apuzzo wrote:<br />"Mr. Olson, you said it and you are stuck with it."<br /><br />So that's no, Mr. Apuzzo will not quote me taking the position that he claimed I took:<br />"He [Bryan] argues over at http://newbostonpost.com/2016/06/02/rep-pushes-resolution-to-keep-nieces-white-house-dreams-alive/ that a child born in a foreign nation presumably to parents of that nation and who becomes a citizen of the United States under a naturalization Act of Congress by virtue of being adopted by U.S. citizen parents, even occurring as late as age 15, is an Article II natural born citizen, 15, is an Article II natural born citizen"<br /><br />Mr. Apuzzo cannot cite me taking the position he stated I took, and will not retract his false reporting. Mr. Apuzzo is lying.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17053257586381012475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-58296031521564559542016-07-03T01:06:32.226-04:002016-07-03T01:06:32.226-04:00"hit the road Jack" 2...
Mario,
Simply..."hit the road Jack" 2...<br /><br />Mario,<br /><br />Simply for Saturday night entertainment at the expense of of Bryan and other "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers, here is Jamie Fox as Ray Charles in the movie "Ray" -- "hit the road Jack"<br /><br />>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8DRen60X10<br /><br />Artajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-64209947845780538252016-07-03T00:38:40.887-04:002016-07-03T00:38:40.887-04:00Byran said "...it's pretty clear"......Byran said "...it's pretty clear"...<br /><br />Mario,<br /><br />You are an attorney with legal authority to put Esquire after your name and I am not a lawyer, but, for some reason, Bryan seems to think that you are an easy target to shoot at with his simplistic rhetoric instead of me.<br /><br />Oh well.<br /><br />For some reason Bryan simply can't answer my simple request for clarification from his "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirther perspective how and why "zero" or ONLY "one" U.S. citizen parent makes a child eligible to be president and why ONLY two U.S. citizen "married" parents is NOT John Jay's ONLY implication for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his good friend George Washington that was accepted by the September 17, 1787 constitution delegates.<br /><br />Since Bryan does not have the intellectual depth to answer my previous posts here on your blog or on NewBostonPost.com, <br /><br />>> http://newbostonpost.com/2016/06/02/rep-pushes-resolution-to-keep-nieces-white-house-dreams-alive/<br /><br />maybe it's time to say, as Ray Charles said, <br /><br /><b><i>"Hit the road Jack, <br />and don't you come back back no more, no more, no more, no more, <br />hit the road Jack, <br />and don't you come back no more."</i></b><br /><br />>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rEsVp5tiDQ<br /><br />Of course, Mario, since it is obvious that Bryan has nothing else to do and nowhere else to go, Bryan MUST continue to "come back" here to your Natural Born Citizen blog because he is entertaining with his simplistic snippets without substance.<br /><br />Origianl-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com<br /><br />Artajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-58898170413347324762016-07-02T16:58:23.886-04:002016-07-02T16:58:23.886-04:00Mr. Olson, you said it and you are stuck with it. ...Mr. Olson, you said it and you are stuck with it. You did not advocate for a constitutional amendment. Rather, you support the notion that Congress with a statute can convert a naturalized citizen into a natural born citizen. There will not be any correction from me. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-37550865589497914612016-07-02T13:15:34.857-04:002016-07-02T13:15:34.857-04:00Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"There is nothing for me ...Mario Apuzzo wrote:<br />"There is nothing for me to correct."<br /><br />Here is a claim I ask you to correct:<br />"He [Bryan] argues over at http://newbostonpost.com/2016/06/02/rep-pushes-resolution-to-keep-nieces-white-house-dreams-alive/ that a child born in a foreign nation presumably to parents of that nation and who becomes a citizen of the United States under a naturalization Act of Congress by virtue of being adopted by U.S. citizen parents, even occurring as late as age 15, is an Article II natural born citizen, 15, is an Article II natural born citizen"<br /><br />That is false. I never argued any such thing. If you won't correct it, how about you quote me arguing what you claim I argued?<br /><br />Mario Apuzzo wrote:<br />"He spoke his piece and I spoke mine."<br /><br />And then you, Mr. Apuzzo, spoke for what *I* argued, and what you claimed was false.<br /><br />Mr. Apuzzo, if you neither quote me arguing what you claimed I argued, nor retract your claim of what I argued, then, well, I guess it's pretty clear what you are.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17053257586381012475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-69466159600767589052016-06-30T13:04:33.017-04:002016-06-30T13:04:33.017-04:00A source...at last #3...
Mario,
Here's one m...A source...at last #3...<br /><br />Mario,<br /><br />Here's one more quote about the "source" that Bryan and other "natural born Citizen" new meaning neobirthers might want to adduce in the future to support their 2000s theory/myth that either "zero" OR "one" U.S. citizen parent is sufficient to make a child eligible to be president.<br /><br />Judge Posner responds to Amar in a way that reveals why the eligibility issue is not being dealt with in the courts, state, federal and SCOTUS.<br /><br />Slate.com June 26, 2016 - the last three paragraphs.<br /><br />>> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/the_breakfast_table/features/2016/supreme_court_breakfast_table_for_june_2016/the_supreme_court_s_immigration_decision_won_t_do_much.html<br /><br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~<br /><br /><i>"As to Akhil’s points and to you, Dawn, ... what I’d like to see is evidence of impact. Amicus briefs? Working for nonprofits? Blogging? “Speaking truth to power?” Absurd: speak all you want, professors, power doesn’t listen to the likes of you. ....<br /><br />"In other words, show me the professoriate’s accomplishments, not the activities or aspirations.<br /><br />"With all due respect Akhil, you are certainly a very smart and successful law professor, but have you succeeded in changing judicial behavior? Judicial appointments?<br /><br />"Dick Posner"</i><br /><br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~<br /><br />Mario, relative to the courts you have been in trying to "educate" the judges about Article II Section 1 clause 5 and the eligibility of Obama and others, it seems that lawyers and professors are nobodies to judges like Posner who think that they are not bound by the original intent of the Constitution, as Posner says in his Slate.com quote that I posted above on June 28, 2016 at 9:30 PM: <b><i>"...the original Constitution...[does] not speak to today"</i></b>.<br /><br />As Posner said to Amar, <b>"Akhil, you are certainly a very smart and successful law professor, but have you succeeded in changing judicial behavior? ...."</b><br /><br />Well, "what now" seems to be simple to articulate but will be very difficult and will take years to accomplish and apply, even with a hopefully President Trump for eight years and future presidential aspirants who are "original genesis original intent" constructionists who would appoint <b>Scalia-Alito-Thomas clones</b> on the high court and lower courts, and also state judges being appointed who aspire to federal judgeships.<br /><br />"What now" requires appointing judges who sincerely agree with John Jay and George Washington and the 1875 Minor v. Happersett court, for one court example, that Jay's original genesis original intent reason for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" was meant to be perpetual, from generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS, and that Jay's and Washington's and the September 17, 1787 delegates' "original genesis original intent" was ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, ONLY "by birth," ONLY on U.S. soil/jurisdiction, ONLY "by birth" to two U.S. citizen married parents who are married, ONLY to each other, NOT multiple wives as in Islam. <br /><br />So, Mario, what now?<br /><br />Simple to articulate but difficult to accomplish and to apply, unless somebody has a better way. <br /><br />Also, with Hillary or Bernie as president, an Article II Section 1 clause 5 originalist would NEVER be appointed to the Supreme Court, and Posner would probably appointed, leaving professor Amar in legal limbo land forever without ability to influence Posner.<br /><br />Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com<br />Artajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.com