tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post1686948473330298334..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: Congress Should Not Confirm Barack Obama As President, For He Is Not an Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger201125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-86943331731790354842013-02-20T12:59:32.893-05:002013-02-20T12:59:32.893-05:00Amend H.R. 140 to read:
(b) Definition- Acknowledg...Amend H.R. 140 to read:<br />(b) Definition- Acknowledging the right of birthright citizenship established by section 1 of the 14th amendment to the Constitution, a person born in the United States shall be considered ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States for purposes of subsection (a)(1) if the person is born in the United States of <strong>two U.S. Citizen parents</strong>.<br /><br />ex animo<br />davidfarrardavidfarrarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03585331099920425614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-24032532827386029952013-02-20T08:35:46.466-05:002013-02-20T08:35:46.466-05:00"The idea of a “citizen at birth” has changed..."The idea of a “citizen at birth” has changed over time. Before the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868, a person born to immigrant parents—even on U.S. soil—was not considered a citizen at birth. The amendment changed that understanding. It states, “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.”...<a href="http://www.crfimmigrationed.org/index.php/stuff/187-naturalized-citizens-and-the-presidency" rel="nofollow">Naturalized Citizens And The Presidency/Constitutional Rights Foundation</a><br /><br />The bad news is, the power to create this country's 'ruling class'* has been taken from where it was originally placed i.e., in the hands of the we the People, and placed into the hands of Congress by §5 of the 14th Amendment.<br /> <br />The good news is, we don't have to hold a Constitution convention to change things back to where they were, nor go through the amendment process; all we have to do is pass a simple bill through Congress.<br /><br />In fact, H.R. 140 has already been resurrected from the 112th Congress, and with a little amending, can accomplish just such a task -- BEFORE -- any large scale IMMIGRATION bill is passed.<br /><br />The only question we have now is ....who is going to lead us?<br /><br />ex animo<br />davidfarrar<br />*Ruling class: Art. II, §1, cl. 4 creates the qualifications for the presidency and vice-presidency of the United Statesdavidfarrarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03585331099920425614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-4137124888396183292013-01-24T17:13:20.374-05:002013-01-24T17:13:20.374-05:00Further to my prior last post.
The 17th century E...Further to my prior last post.<br /><br />The 17th century English also recognized several types and degrees of allegiance.<br /><br />Lord Coke - Calvin's case....<br /><br /><i>"There is found in the law four kinds of ligeances: the first is, ligeantia naturalis, absoluta, pura, et indefinita,42 and this originally is due by nature and birthright, and is called alta ligeantia42a and he that oweth this is called subditus natus.43 The second is called ligeantia acquisita,44 not by nature but by acquisition or denization, being called a denizen, or rather donaizon, because he is subditus datus.45 The third is ligeantia localis46 wrought by the law, and that is when an alien that is in amity cometh into England, because as long as he is within England, he is within the King’s protection; therefore so long as he is there, he oweth unto the King a local obedience or ligeance, for that the one (as it hath been said) draweth the other. The fourth is a legal obedience, or ligeance which is called legal, because the municipal laws of this realm have prescribed the order and form of it; and this to be done upon oath at the Torn or Leet."</i>MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-35536796005893149172013-01-24T01:09:43.792-05:002013-01-24T01:09:43.792-05:00davidfarrar said...
"A natural born subj...davidfarrar said...<br /><br /> "A natural born subject, by posited law, is a person born under the feudal concept of perpetual allegiance, without choice, due solely to place of birth."<br /><br />A 17th century English natural born subject, wherever born, MUST be born under the allegiance of a subject.<br /><br />Lord Coke - calvin's case...<br /><br /><i>"The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but <b>any place within the king’s dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject.</b><br /><br />And therefore if any of the king’s Ambassadors in forein Nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, <b>by the Common Laws of England they are natural born subjects</b>, and yet they are <b>born out of the king’s dominions</b>."</i><br /><br />To the 17th century English, it was all about the allegiance of the PARENTS.<br /><br />MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-54081667101737039412013-01-23T17:21:14.662-05:002013-01-23T17:21:14.662-05:00A natural born subject, by posited law, is a perso...A natural born subject, by posited law, is a person born under the feudal concept of perpetual allegiance, without choice, due solely to place of birth.<br /><br />A natural born Citizen is a person born a citizen, by natural law, using the ancient Roman concept of citizenship by descent and the Lockean concept of consent-based allegiance.<br /><br />The question before the reader is: which one best represents l'Esprit de la Révolution, as articulated by the Declaration of Independence, and codified by the U.S. Constitution?<br /><br />Am I right or am I right?<br /><br />ex animo<br />davidfarrardavidfarrarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03585331099920425614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-35803437734067118592013-01-23T16:52:22.700-05:002013-01-23T16:52:22.700-05:00davidfarrar said...
"I see. Thank you Mi...davidfarrar said...<br /><br /> "I see. Thank you MichaeIN,<br /><br /> A natural born subject is a person born under the ligeance of the subject. It involves no choice. It is proscribed by posited law, relying on the principle of perpetual allegiance as determined by birth on the soil."<br /><br />@ David.<br />In the case of an alien-born parent, then the allegiance 9of the parent) is only temporary and not perpetual.<br /><br />The perpetual allegiance of the native-born, natural born subject(child) of the alien-born parent, is not determined by "birth on the soil".<br /><br />Birth on the soil is one essential quality for a child of an alien-born parent to be a natural born subject, but, TWO essential qualities are required to make a NBS, when the parent is an alien-born.<br /><br />This is not necessarily the case when the parents have perpetual allegiance.<br /><br />Lord Coke - Calvin's case....<br /><br /><i>" There be regulary (unlesse it be in special cases) three incidents to a subject born. <br />1. That the parents be under the actual obedience of the king. <br />2. That the place of his birth be within the king’s dominion. <br />And 3. the time of his birth is chiefly to be considered; for he cannot be a subject born of one kingdom, that was born under the ligeance of a king of another kingdom, albeit afterwards one kingdom descend to the king of the other. <br /><br />For the first, it is termed actual obedience, because though the King of England hath absolute right to other kingdoms or dominions, as France, Aquitain, Normandy, &c. yet seeing the King is not in actual possession thereof, none born there since the Crown of England was out of actual possession thereof, are Subjects to the king of England. <br />2. The place is observable, but so as many times ligeance or obedience without any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions may make a subject born, but any place within the king’s dominions without obedience can never produce a natural subject. <br />And therefore if any of the king’s Ambassadors in forein Nations, have children there of their wives, being English women, by the Common Laws of England they are natural born subjects, and yet they are born out of the king’s dominions."</i><br /> MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-36966402350657254202013-01-22T11:45:41.135-05:002013-01-22T11:45:41.135-05:00I see. Thank you MichaeIN,
A natural born subject...I see. Thank you MichaeIN,<br /><br />A natural born subject is a person born under the ligeance of the subject. It involves no choice. It is proscribed by posited law, relying on the principle of perpetual allegiance as determined by birth on the soil. <br /><br />A natural born Citizen is a person born under the ligeance of its parents, and relies on the ancient Roman principle of citizenship as determined by descent of a privileged choice.<br /><br />The question before the court would be: which one best represents l'Esprit de la Révolution, as articulated by the Declaration of Independence, and codified by the U.S. Constitution?<br /><br />ex animo<br />davidfarrardavidfarrarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03585331099920425614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-6348021281632467152013-01-22T01:17:04.180-05:002013-01-22T01:17:04.180-05:00davidfarrar said...
"A natural born subject ...davidfarrar said...<br /><br /><i>"A natural born subject is a person born under the allegiance of the state. A natural born Citizen is a person born under the cloak of allegiance of one's father, seems to me to be pretty straightforward choice."</i><br /><br />A natural born subject of England in 17th century was a person "born under the ligeance of a subject".<br /><br />Nothing to do with "under the allegiance of the state".<br /><br />In 17th century England, if the father was not a "subject" then the child, even if native born in the realm, was an alien-born.<br /><br />A US "natural born Citizen" was/is one born both native to US and "under the ligeance of" US citizen parents.<br /><br />The Framers didn't change what the 17th century English common law held with regard to what qualified an English natural born subject; the Founders and Framers, with other influences and guidances per Vattel, etc, simply made it more stringent as an eligibility status for the office of POTUS for fear of foreign influence, persuasion, loyalty and claim; bearing in mind the English had no such concerns, because a natural born subject to them was not eligibility qualification for monarch or any high office.MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-49820038144072337502013-01-21T22:34:47.994-05:002013-01-21T22:34:47.994-05:00A natural born subject is a person born under the ...A natural born subject is a person born under the allegiance of the state. A natural born Citizen is a person born under the cloak of allegiance of one's father, seems to me to be pretty straightforward choice. The first involves no choice, while the other requires one. The first is posited law, the second is natural law.<br /><br />The question before the court would be: which one best represents l'Esprit de la Révolution, as articulated by the Declaration of Independence, and codified by the U.S. Constitution?<br /><br />ex animo<br />davidfarrar<br />davidfarrarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03585331099920425614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-24253221379541740272013-01-21T18:39:37.589-05:002013-01-21T18:39:37.589-05:00Let us assume for the moment that Barack Obama has...Let us assume for the moment that Barack Obama has a case before the Supreme Court that is not an eligibility case. Chief Justice Waite is presiding.<br /><br />The first question before the Court was whether the Court has jurisdiction to hear Obama’s case. Chief Justice Wait said this:<br /><br />“[B]y the Constitution, the judicial power of the United States is made to extend to controversies between citizens of different States. Under this it has been uniformly held that the citizenship necessary to give the courts of the United States jurisdiction of a cause must be affirmatively shown on the record. Its existence as a fact may be put in issue and tried. If found not to exist the case must be dismissed.”<br /><br />We all know what the Court said. Permit me to paraphrase what the Court said so that the text conforms to my hypothetical case.<br /><br /><i>To determine whether Mr. Obama is a citizen and therefore eligible to have his case heard, let us begin with the definition of natural born citizen. 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.<br />“Documents presented to this Court show that Mr. Obama’s father was a citizen of Kenya when he was born and that his mother was a citizen of the United States. He, therefore, does not satisfy the definition natural born citizen, but it is not necessary that he be a natural born citizen for this court to hear his case.<br />“The question becomes whether he is a citizen. Some authorities include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. This is the case that we must consider. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it then becomes necessary to solve these doubts.</i><br /><br />It would be interesting to know how the Chief Justice Waite would have ruled if Mrs. Minor had a foreign born parent.Doubleehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09894977171356099262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-51806080468290525982013-01-21T17:50:16.865-05:002013-01-21T17:50:16.865-05:00
MichaelN,
The problem with using phrases such a...<br />MichaelN, <br /><br />The problem with using phrases such as “citizenship model” alone without explanation as to what are the elements of that model is that it blends together “citizen,” “born citizen,” and “natural born Citizen,” without alerting us that there is a critical constitutional distinction between a “natural born Citizen” and these other variants and presenting what that distinction is. I call those who commit this error the citizen/born citizen/natural born Citizen conflationists. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-64450704706595068522013-01-21T07:59:09.435-05:002013-01-21T07:59:09.435-05:00That should be, the CRS is certainly not "un-...That should be, the CRS is certainly not "un-biased"Mickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02864660386925998491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-42991085846348780702013-01-21T01:18:25.961-05:002013-01-21T01:18:25.961-05:00Judge Bent (the name seems appropriate)said....
&q...Judge Bent (the name seems appropriate)said....<br /><i>"Mr. Apuzzo argues that originalist thinking as to the meaning of the phrase "natural born citizen" was consistent with an intent on the part of the authors of the constitution to adopt a jus sanguinis citizenship model rather than the jus soli model of the English common law...."</i><br /><br />Bent appears to not understand, or ignores the fact that the meaning of the phrase "natural born Citizen" was NOT a "citizenship model".<br /><br />It was the eligibility model for one who was already expected to be a US citizen.<br /><br />i.e. we already know that the POTUS had to be a US citizen and it is obvious that a born citizen was preferred over a naturalized citizen.<br /><br />With the imperative to ensure the least amount of foreign persuasion, influence, loyalty and claim, the only thing left was to be "born under the ligeance" of US citizen parents.<br /><br />So it was NOT "an intent on the part of the authors of the constitution to adopt a jus sanguinis citizenship model rather than the jus soli model of the English common law"..... it was BOTH jus sanguinis AND jus soli COMBINED.<br /><br />Judge Bent is bent! MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-50308387695849716242013-01-20T23:36:12.225-05:002013-01-20T23:36:12.225-05:00Mick,
I am trying to follow your point here but I...Mick,<br /><br />I am trying to follow your point here but I can't seem to find where in the CRS (http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7466841558189356289&postID=1686948473330298334) specifically states:"The Civil Rights Act 1866, by saying that the 14th Amendment 'contained no such provision'". <br /><br />ex animo<br />davidfarrardavidfarrarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03585331099920425614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-41798048703006811892013-01-20T22:37:41.943-05:002013-01-20T22:37:41.943-05:00Dr. Conspiracy just wrote an article on his blog w...Dr. Conspiracy just wrote an article on his blog which includes the following passage: <br /><br />“Judge Bent in Vermont, commenting in his decision of Paige v. Obama about such arguments from attorney Mario Apuzzo said: <br /><br />‘Mr. Apuzzo argues that originalist thinking as to the meaning of the phrase "natural born citizen" was consistent with an intent on the part of the authors of the constitution to adopt a jus sanguinis citizenship model rather than the jus soli model of the English common law…. While Mr. Apuzzo mightily attempts to distinguish the conclusion of the United States Supreme Court in Wing Kim Ark, that English common law was adopted as to which model of citizenship was intended by the original framers, this court concludes that his arguments are, in the face of such a decision, academic only.’<br /><br />The Court in essence rejected an argument from primary sources in favor of precedent. The Court deferred to the expertise of the Supreme Court, rather than reading newspaper articles from 1787, historical cases about shipping disputes, or legal essays from Switzerland.” <br /><br />Judge Bent and Dr. Conspiracy find that my “natural born Citizen” “‘arguments are, in the face of such a decision, academic only.’” As always, the devil is in the details. In addressing those details, we have to inquire just what does “such a decision” say? Is that not the question if we are to correctly apply the Wong Kim Ark holding to any given case? We also have to know what these “precedents” really say. <br /><br />Both Judge Bent and Dr. Conspiracy beg the question on what Wong Kim Ark really held, if anything, regarding what law and rule the Founders and Framers relied upon to define a “natural-born citizen,” rather than just a “citizen,” and what definition they gave to that specific clause. Dr. Conspiracy further begs the question by assuming that these “precedents” support a definition of a “natural born Citizen” that is contrary to mine. <br /><br />The issue is whether Wong Kim Ark held anything regarding that clause versus whether its holding is limited to a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. But without addressing my arguments, both Judge Bent and Dr. Conspiracy just state a conclusion which assumes that Wong Kim Ark relied on English common law and held Wong to be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” But on close analysis, we learn that Wong did no such thing. On the contrary, Wong Kim Ark confirmed Minor’s American common law definition of a “natural-born citizen” and held that Wong, the son of domiciled and resident aliens born in the country, was just as much a “citizen” as the “natural-born citizen” child born in the country to citizen parents, and therefore, by virtue of being born in the country, a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, but not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” A close reading of Wong Kim Ark shows that the Court did not confound and conflate a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth with an Article II “natural born Citizen,” which is what Judge Bent did when reading and applying the decision and when using the phrase “model of citizenship,” which fails to distinguish between a “citizen” and a “natural-born citizen.” <br /><br />The issue is also what did these “precedents” really say? Neither Judge Bent nor Dr. Conspiracy tells us. Rather, they just assume without demonstration that these precedents support their position and not mine. But we should all know by now that just saying something is so does not make it so.<br /><br />Hence, my arguments are not “academic only” “in the face of such a decision,” for Judge Bent does not demonstrate what Wong Kim Ark held (not just stating what it held) nor did the decision hold what Judge Bent says it held. My argument is also not “academic” for allegedly being foreclosed by any “precedents,” for neither Judge Bent nor Dr. Conspiracy shows what those precedents said and how they support their position rather than mine. <br /><br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-45978696407844818522013-01-20T19:03:47.485-05:002013-01-20T19:03:47.485-05:00The CRS is certainly not biased. I have caught the...The CRS is certainly not biased. I have caught them in a direct lie, in Analysis of the 14A, published by the GPO.<br /><br />http://www.scribd.com/doc/98909804/Proof-That-the-Congressional-Research-Service-is-NotMickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02864660386925998491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-78963114340818591572013-01-20T18:42:43.370-05:002013-01-20T18:42:43.370-05:00Hope you got over the flu Linda.
It will be inter...Hope you got over the flu Linda.<br /><br />It will be interesting to see what you come up with next.<br /><br />Linda said...<br /><br /> @Commenters<br /><br /> I appreciate your responses, posts, etc. I intend to address them when I am able. I have the flu.<br /><br /> January 14, 2013 at 9:47 AMMichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-12610234585394832892013-01-20T18:02:30.531-05:002013-01-20T18:02:30.531-05:00Mario said ....
" there still is no way that ...Mario said ....<br />" there still is no way that a law suit can prevail against Maskell and his political propagandist CRS memo based on the content of that memo. In any event, there is no need to sue Maskell and his memo, for what he has expressed is nothing more than his personal opinion which does not change our constitutional law."<br /><br />It's this very "personal opinion" of Maskell's which the representatives in government use as their way out of facing the truth and dealing with the matter properly.<br /><br />Maskell's distortion must be challenged and exposed in such a manner that the Congress and the Senate sit-up and pay attention.<br /><br />Maybe he can be brought to account via a formal complaint that he has mislead the parliament.<br />MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-47010790631644910682013-01-20T17:09:40.632-05:002013-01-20T17:09:40.632-05:00Over at Tea Party Nation
I had this exchange:
Re...Over at <a href="http://www.teapartynation.com/forum/topics/a-time-for-change?xg_source=msg_com_forum&id=3355873%3ATopic%3A2405988&page=4#comments" rel="nofollow">Tea Party Nation</a><br />I had this exchange: <br /><br />Reply by Delilah Bankhead on Friday<br /><br />"The use of the word "subject" was referring to English common law, which is where much of American law derived. Perhaps you should read it more carefully.<br /><br />▶ Reply by David Farrar on Friday<br /><br />"No doubt it is English common law. But which common law: on the Cokean concept of perpetual allegiance and place of birth, or on the Lockean concept of volitional allegiance and inherited citizenship?<br />ex animo<br />davidfarrar<br /><br />▶ Reply by Frank L. Worth on Friday<br /><br />"You make an excellent point about the "perpetual allegiance" aspect of common law. US law has overridden that, though, most explicitly as far as I have found in its various Expatriation Acts. There may be other places too. <br />Interestingly, to further my point about common law being in place unless explicitly rejected by American law, the Expatriation Act of 1868 "was an explicit rejection of the feudal common law principle of perpetual allegiance." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expatriation_Act_of_1868)<br /><br />▶ Reply by David Farrar 22 hours ago:<br /><br />"@Frank<br />If, as you say, the Expatriation Act of 1868 specifically overrode the feudal concept of "perpetual allegiance" as an aspect of common law in this country, a fortiori, there was a consent-based citizenship in place at that time.<br /><br />ex animo<br />davidfarrar<br />davidfarrarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03585331099920425614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-51996264368510961922013-01-20T16:43:51.384-05:002013-01-20T16:43:51.384-05:00Mario,
As to my hypothetical question above, woul...Mario,<br /><br />As to my hypothetical question above, would the explanation not be sufficient to prove standing?thalightguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17647707946535617759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-12716220891395805932013-01-20T15:58:22.685-05:002013-01-20T15:58:22.685-05:00MichaelN,
At the time the Founders and Framers a...MichaelN, <br /><br />At the time the Founders and Framers adopted the Constitution, they accepted that there are three constituent elements to being a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., place of birth (the United State), birth parents (both U.S. citizens), and time (at the moment of birth). See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court confirmed that “[a]t 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”) and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898) (the majority and dissent agreed on the Minor definition of a “natural-born citizen,” but they disagreed as to the definition of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth). <br /><br />Jack Maskell’s CRS memo is full of misstatements, manipulations, distortions, and avoidances in connection with defining a “natural born Citizen” and these three elements of the definition. In the end, Maskell states the obvious that a “natural born Citizen” is a “born Citizen,” telling us that the latter is a definition of the clause. First, Maskell’s definition is no definition at all, for it is nothing but fallacious reasoning suffering from both tautology (true only because of the form of the argument, but not because of its substance; his statement only repeats one necessary consequent of the definition, and not including all the constituent elements of the definition, only masquerades as a definition) and the fallacy of Affirming the Consequent (a “natural born citizen” is a “born citizen.” Obama is a “born citizen.” Therefore Obama is a “natural born citizen”). Second, Maskell’s “definition” only addresses the third element of being a “natural born Citizen,” time,” and leaves out place of birth and birth parents. To think that the Founders and Framers, who were so devoted to natural law and the law of nations, and demanding from the new citizens absolute loyalty to the new nation with no titles of nobility, would have given us a definition of a “natural born Citizen,” which was to be used to qualify the all-powerful president and commander of the military, that was so vague, ambiguous, expansive in scope and producing of conflicting allegiances, and prone to Congressional manipulation, is absurd. <br /><br />Having said that, there still is no way that a law suit can prevail against Maskell and his political propagandist CRS memo based on the content of that memo. In any event, there is no need to sue Maskell and his memo, for what he has expressed is nothing more than his personal opinion which does not change our constitutional law. Yes, what I have written on the subject is also just my personal opinion. But let historical sources, U.S. Supreme Court case law, reason, logic, and a devotion to finding the truth decide who is right and who is wrong. <br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-44051641488086978782013-01-20T06:21:48.221-05:002013-01-20T06:21:48.221-05:00Mario said....
"Our historical precedents hav...Mario said....<br />"Our historical precedents have spoken as to who is a “natural born Citizen.” The U.S. Supreme Court has confirmed the definition to be a child born in the country to citizen parents. Congress is constitutionally bound to apply this definition to Obama. Congress’s failure to apply this definition to Obama and to again declare him President of the United States would amount to nothing more than treason upon the constitution and the nation by allowing a de facto president to continue in that all powerful office for a second term rather than a constitutionally legitimate one. The fate of the nation is in the hands of Congress on January 4, 2013."<br /><br />The Congress and the Senate have an out, thanks to Jack Maskell and the CRS.<br /><br />Maskell must be publicly exposed and corrected, the CRS memorandum must be withdrawn and replaced, before the representatives in government will do anything.<br /><br />Is there anyway the CRS can be brought to court?MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-52132670750392266762013-01-18T16:11:31.910-05:002013-01-18T16:11:31.910-05:00In Florida no direct harm needs to be proved to ac...In Florida no direct harm needs to be proved to achieve standing, because the election contest statutes themselves give any elector (voter) the ability to challenge the eligibility of "ANY PERSON, elected or nominated to office". "Eligibility for office sought" is a specific cause of action granted by the statutes (102.168 (1)(3)(b). Florida judges have attempted to say that the Fla. election statutes do not apply to Presidential elections, however, in Palm Bch. Co. Canvassing v. Harris (2000), the Fla Supreme Ct. has SPECIFICALLY said that they do. As of now, 2 separate appeals are pending in Fla. that are legally and properly filed within the election contest statutes, and the praetorian guards of the judiciary are sitting on them. Some judges have tried to claim that eligibility is determined by Congress. However, Congress is only Constitutionally in charge of the eligibility of its own members (A1S5). Further, Federalist 68 explains that Electors who actually vote in the electoral college, held in the individual states, are NOT MEMBERS of the government (therefore the question of POTUS eligibility is not a political question and is judicial), and A2 assures that no Elector is a member of government, and are under authority of the states. The Joint Session of Congress, specified in A2 is NOT the Electoral College, and performs the ministerial duty of "counting the electoral votes" as specified by Art. 2. Ministerial duties are judicially reviewable.Mickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02864660386925998491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-76874402041944291462013-01-18T01:40:20.295-05:002013-01-18T01:40:20.295-05:00Maria @ January 17, 2013 at 11:41 PM,
The Person ...Maria @ January 17, 2013 at 11:41 PM,<br /><br />The Person would have been injured over the loss of their health insurance; this would be due to a result of the AHC Act. <br /><br />Obama is the one who signed the AHC Act into law, when in fact he did not have the authority to do so because he is constitutionally ineligible to serve as President because he does not meet the “natural born citizen” requirement.<br /><br />The remedy would be to find the AHC Act invalid because of such, which would result in the Persons employer reinstating their Group Health Insurance Plan.thalightguyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17647707946535617759noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-7684158947334059932013-01-17T23:47:56.400-05:002013-01-17T23:47:56.400-05:00I would hope that Justice Roberts would reflect on...I would hope that Justice Roberts would reflect on the Biblical quote, "What does it benefit a man if he gain the whole world, but lose his soul?"<br /><br />and think likewise upon -<br /><br />"What value is there in gaining a position of great honor and trust if one uses it to betray his children and his country?"<br /><br />Lines will be drawn and legacies will be written into our history books. Justice Roberts and all of the rest of our public servants need to decide if they're going to be included in the George Washington column or the Benedict Arnold column.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07865649369112264344noreply@blogger.com