tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post3673616658823644518..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: All That Is Wrong with Georgia State Judge Michael M. Malihi’s Decision that Putative President Obama Is a “Natural Born Citizen”Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger217125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-23415369504864696702012-02-16T09:19:04.350-05:002012-02-16T09:19:04.350-05:00you poor obots...so much work...so many errors in ...you poor obots...so much work...so many errors in logic and law...such a mess you have made!!<br /><br />why is it that not a single one of you defend the obots god having acknowledged his british citizenship at birth...i would dare say...the founding fathers would have rolled over in thier graves if one suggested that a loyal subject of the evil king was eligible to be POTUS...let alone...that one actually became POTUS...<br /><br />the citizenship by descent...the father naturally passes the citizenship, the loyalty to that fathers nation...to the child...this was the law at the time the constitution was written...nobody wants to talk about that part...it didnt matter that the mother held US Citizenship...she automatically obtained the foreign citizenship by marraige anyhow...so in the least the mother was a dual citizen...the fact that later british statute compelled women to apply for that citizenship is an afterthought...but the key...the fathers citizenship...was passed to the son...while he was present in a foreign nation...precludes that child from being a "natural" born citizen...of any nation...<br /><br />he was naturalized by the crown...and the US Constitution...born with dual allegiance to 2 nations...and a natural born citizen of none...jshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03556528525557443583noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-8300023634400644082012-02-15T22:48:30.956-05:002012-02-15T22:48:30.956-05:00MojoHand,
Pure natural law only exists in a stat...MojoHand, <br /><br />Pure natural law only exists in a state of nature. We do not live in a state of nature, but rather in civil society guided and bound by positive laws. These positive laws must be followed. <br /><br />A "natural born Citizen" is not as many mistakenly maintain only the product of natural law, but also positive law. Hence, a "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the country to citizen parents.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-22785133026179377392012-02-15T17:26:12.217-05:002012-02-15T17:26:12.217-05:00jus naturae is attacked by Liberals. Why? They can...jus naturae is attacked by Liberals. Why? They cannot mess with it. And those who lived through World War II thought this way -- <br /><br />In the 20th cent., such thinkers as Jacques Maritain saw in natural law a necessary intellectual opposition to totalitarian theories.Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12433349430390224035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-40214500951673655692012-02-15T13:47:10.457-05:002012-02-15T13:47:10.457-05:00Geography has absolutely nothing to do with the na...Geography has absolutely nothing to do with the nature of the being at birth. Naturally born (anything) infers that environment plays no role. Natural born citizen means that one naturally gets citizenship at birth. How would one naturally get citizenship? That would be through parents, the same place from which everything natural comes. Am I a natural-born doctor because I was born in a hospital? Am I a natural-born football player because I was born in Alabama? It does not matter where Obama was born.MojoHandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12580913005483789871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-57824878126182883292012-02-15T13:25:49.945-05:002012-02-15T13:25:49.945-05:00Mario,
The Georgia case has been officially appea...Mario,<br /><br />The Georgia case has been officially appealed. Rather than accepting a dare from Obots to take the Tisdale case, I encourage you to contact the Georgia Legal Teams handling the appeal. Your legal and scholarly knowledge could be very helpful in winning the appeal. Perhaps you can manifest this in an Amicis Brief like Leo.<br />http://www.scribd.com/doc/81719405/2012-02-14-WELDEN-Petition-for-Appeal-of-SOS-Decision-TfbJameshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01793622722554168489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-20880944133058514012012-02-15T12:18:04.088-05:002012-02-15T12:18:04.088-05:00It is impossible to leave out of any discussion th...It is impossible to leave out of any discussion the seminal book the age -- THE SOCIAL CONTRACT, OR PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL RIGHT by Jean Jacques Rousseau (1762).<br /><br />Rousseau was banished from Paris after publishing it, and escaped to Switzerland.<br /><br />There his book was read only after closing the shutters and locking the doors (even in Switzerland), because it was so revolutionary.<br /><br />In fact, two revolutions resulted from it -- one in America, and one in France.<br /><br />As John Jay pointed out in his writings, the United States is a 'social compact' nation.Bobhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12433349430390224035noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-74530057496935719392012-02-15T05:24:15.131-05:002012-02-15T05:24:15.131-05:00@ Justin.
"American" is not necessarily...@ Justin.<br /><br />"American" is not necessarily a US "citizen".<br /><br />To answer your question in the context of continental ID, a child of an American and a Brit would be most likely called An Anglo-American or maybe a British-American.<br /><br />In the context of citizenship, a child born to one British subject parent and one US citizen parent would have dual citizenship/nationality, but the parent father's citizenship/subject-status might force the child's status toward that of the father.MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-77801215048668881452012-02-14T22:28:59.984-05:002012-02-14T22:28:59.984-05:00"The off-spring of citizens. Eskimos give bir..."The off-spring of citizens. Eskimos give birth to Eskimos, Jews give birth to Jews, Americans give birth to Americans."<br /><br />So you admit it takes two American parents to make an American. After all what citizenship is the off-spring of an American and a Brit to be?Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06072695992597706526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-91341610729903189122012-02-14T02:23:27.356-05:002012-02-14T02:23:27.356-05:00Dr. Conspiracy has an article attacking me at his ...Dr. Conspiracy has an article attacking me at his blog entitled, “Bearding Apuzzo, accessed at http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/02/bearding-the-apuzzo/#comments. Dr. Conspiracy proclaims that he has all these great attorneys on his blog who got the best of me. That sure is news to me. I am not aware of one argument that his attorneys ever won. I sure would like for him to point one out to me. <br /><br />On the contrary, the only thing they keep repeating is that the English common law defines an Article II “natural born Citizen.” I have discredited this falsehood many times over. <br /><br />Then they say that Minor v. Happersett was about voting and not about citizenship. Do they really say that with a straight face? That’s like saying that Dred Scott v. Sandford was about jurisdiction and not about citizenship. <br /><br />They admit that Minor v. Happersett said NBC=soil + citizen parents. But they say that because the Court did not say soil does not =NBC, then soil=NBC. <br /><br />They also say that the Court really said soil+citizen parents=NBC which does not rule out that soil=NBC also. <br /><br />They say that when the Court said it was not going to decide what C is, the Court said it was not going to decide what NBC is. They follow up and say that Wong then came along and decided for Minor what NBC is when Minor only left open the question of what C is and Wong only decided C anyway. <br /><br />Then they cite Wong Kim Ark and magically take the holding which says C, and magically convert it to it saying NBC. They also hide the Court’s statement that Wong was C, not NBC. <br /><br />And let us not forget their reading of the Fourteenth Amendment. Like what they do to Wong, the Amendment says C, and they say it says NBC. <br /><br />Finally, regarding Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, they admit that a NBC=NBC. But they say that it is also true that any BC=NBC<br /><br />They also pray to the altar of a state case that was overruled by the State legislature, i.e., Lynch v. Clarke (1844). There are so many problems with Lynch. I will mention just one. The court just invented things when it came to interpreting the early naturalization Acts. There the court said regarding the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, 1804 that even though Congress did not say that the clause regarding the children born to aliens becoming naturalized when their parents so naturalize applied only to children born abroad, the general language chosen by Congress was over inclusive and not necessary. Hence, the court simply rewrote the statutes to suit its own purpose. <br /><br />I have already said enough about Ankeny, their only other desperate hope, which dismissed plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice, but forgot to rule whether Obama was born in the United States and in fact a “natural born Citizen.” <br /><br />And all this from Dr. C’s lawyers who he says won all the arguments. <br /><br />I would like to make one last point. Dr. Conspiracy says, in referring to my blog, “[t]he picture above is an Italian landmark, La Bocca della Verità (the “Mouth of Truth” in English). Apuzzo uses the image of this landmark on his blog for some reason which I have been unable to figure out.” Dr. Conspiracy questions why I use an Italian landmark on my blog, but he does not question why we have a British/Kenyan citizen by birth acting as our Commander in Chief of the Military.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-88274554900014616582012-02-13T04:01:22.673-05:002012-02-13T04:01:22.673-05:00Mario,
The danger in perusing a forum like Fealty...Mario,<br /><br />The danger in perusing a forum like Fealty Dreck's cesspool is you unconsciously find yourself caring about the opinions of fools. Best to leave the snotty children to chide amongst themselves.bdwilcoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03723935463347132039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-47545028660471596082012-02-13T03:18:01.984-05:002012-02-13T03:18:01.984-05:00@ John Woodman - Part 2 of 2
Sixteen years later ...@ John Woodman - Part 2 of 2<br /><br />Sixteen years later more proof that DESCENT is the PRIMARY essential quality for "natural born".<br /><br />Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 3 Pet. 242 242 (1830)<br />"If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father, for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character as a citizen of that country." <br /><br />Forty-five years later, STILL DESCENT is the PRIMARY essential quality ....<br /><br />Minor v. Happersett , 88 U.S. 162 (1875)<br />"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,"<br /><br />Twenty-three years later, even with a prolonged discussion on Constitutional citizen entities, the court cites agreeably the Minor v Happersett definition of "natural born Citizen" ...... once again DESCENT reign supreme.....<br /><br />United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)<br />"In this case the Justice Gray gave the opinion of the court. On p. 168-9 of the record, He cites approvingly the decision in Minor vs. Happersett:<br /><br />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 /><br />On the basis of the 14th Amendment, however, the majority opinion coined a new definition for “native citizen”, as anyone who was born in the U.S.A., under the jurisdiction of the United States. The Court gave a novel interpretation to jurisdiction, and thus extended citizenship to all born in the country (excepting those born of ambassadors and foreign armies etc.); but it did not extend the meaning of the term “natural born citizen.”<br /><br />CONCLUSION<br />Finally it should be noted, that to define a term is to indicate the category or class of things which it signifies. In this sense, the Supreme Court of the United States has never applied the term “natural born citizen” to any other category than “those born in the country of parents who are citizens thereof”.<br /><br />Credits to:<br />http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/us_constitution/news.php?q=1308252582<br /><br />http://www.thepostemail.com/2009/10/18/4-supreme-court-cases-define-natural-born-citizen/MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-36541638334814237872012-02-13T03:17:29.934-05:002012-02-13T03:17:29.934-05:00Part 1 of 2
@ John Woodman
Care to point out how ...Part 1 of 2<br /><br />@ John Woodman<br />Care to point out how the US Congress and Senate(some of whom were party to the construction of the US Constitution) in 1790, only three years after the adoption of the Us Constitution, regarded and intended "natural born" to mean solely native born without regard to natural descent from parents???<br /> <br />Can you do that?<br /><br />Try to stay with the program and not descend into fantasy-fallacy-land.<br /><br />The first Naturalization Act of 1790 refers, here's the relevant text .......<br />"And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States"<br /><br />http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week08/naturalization1790.html<br /><br />Twenty four years later there is MORE PROOF that natural DESCENT was THE PRIMARY essential quality........<br /><br />The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253 253 (1814)<br />"In the Venus Case, Justice Livingston, who wrote the unanimous decision, quoted the entire §212nd paragraph from the French edition, using his own English, on p. 12 of the ruling:<br />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:<br />“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.<br />“The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are strangers who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound by their residence to the society, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside there, and they are obliged to defend it…"<br /><br />see part 2MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-11445492708911023702012-02-13T01:44:42.741-05:002012-02-13T01:44:42.741-05:00Stranger/A.R. Nash,
This is even better because ...Stranger/A.R. Nash, <br /><br />This is even better because it explicitly acknowledges two separate and distinct types of citizenship (“whichever”) for persons born in the United States rather than two labels which could mean one type of citizenship: <br /><br />“The words ‘shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922’, as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired.”<br /><br />http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.html. <br /><br />The Obots keep screaming that there is no such thing as a U.S. citizen born in the United States who is not a “natural born Citizen.” Clearly, the use of the word “whichever” shows that there are two different types of citizenship. What in heaven could this “native-born” citizen be? Maybe NBC genius Reality Check or maybe even the English common law erudite ballantine, or image "expert" John Woodman, can help us with this one. I would really be pushing it to ask protector Dr. Conspiracy to help us figure this one out.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-18462369541700703162012-02-12T21:54:22.742-05:002012-02-12T21:54:22.742-05:00Ask the Obamatrons to chew on this hard leather:
h...Ask the Obamatrons to chew on this hard leather:<br />http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45104/0-0-0-48602.html<br />Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.<br /> Repatriation.<br />(b) Naturalization . At one time or another since September 22, 1922, women who expatriated themselves under the circumstances set forth in INTERP 324.1 have been able to regain citizenship by...naturalization,<br />[paragraph 6] The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to the status if <b>NATURALIZED, NATIVE, or NATURAL-BORN</b> citizen,<br /> as determined by her status prior to loss.<br /> Clearly there are at least three types of citizenship, to which can be added derivative citizenship for a fourth.<br />A. The Naturalized is foreign born.<br />B. The Native is domestically born to immigrants.<br />C. The Natural-born is born to Americans.<br />D. The derivative citizen is naturalized through a parent (and historically through a husband). <br />That's it. Simple as A,B,C,D,Strangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11517496850974993060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-57933534623838353462012-02-12T21:33:30.314-05:002012-02-12T21:33:30.314-05:00Stranger @ February 12, 2012 1:29 AM - "'...Stranger @ February 12, 2012 1:29 AM - "'I am not yet aware of your definition of a natural born Citizen.' Simple. The off-spring of citizens. Eskimos give birth to Eskimos, Jews give birth to Jews, Americans give birth to Americans." <br /><br />Are all Eskimos citizens of only one government, or are some Eskimos citizens of one government and other Eskimos citizens of another government? <br /><br />Discern the difference between nation and citizen.<br /><br />A nation is "an extensive aggregate of persons, so closely associated with each other by common descent, language, or history, as to form a distinct race or people" (OED)<br /><br />A citizen is "a member of a state, an enfranchised inhabitant of a country" (OED)<br /><br />When an alien naturalizes they become by positive law, a citizen. They do not share "common descent, language, or history" etc. They are not "of the nation", imbued with our culture. <br /><br />The offspring of a citizen does share "common descent, language, history", they are a member of our nation by descent. They are citizen without positive law, "it has never been doubted" that they are citizens.<br /><br />A citizen is a member of a jural society without reference to nationality. <br /><br />A natural born citizen is member of both a jural society and a nation.<br /><br />"Natural born" by blood, "citizen" by government. Natural born citizen requires both soil (civil jurisdiction) and blood (consanguinity).<br /><br />Jus Sanguinis et Jus Soli = Civis et natura. (hat tip: slcraig)Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04798180198665083783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-33000410212571382132012-02-12T21:23:01.993-05:002012-02-12T21:23:01.993-05:00stepping up onto the soapbox, i have a few words t...stepping up onto the soapbox, i have a few words to share with all you good people. LISTEN UP! ok. here's goes.<br /><br /> No person whose U.S. citizenship is derive from any legal source is a natural born American. Any legal citizenship, including constitutional citizenship, is unnatural citizenship because it is not the product of natural membership, but of membership by permission. No one whose citizenship is by permission of the government is eligible to be the President of the United States.<br /> The citizenship of Barack Obama is of such an arcane nature that there may be only a dozen or so people in the country who know what its source is. It has never been identified in anything I've yet read. It may be via some obscure Supreme Court ruling or some obscure Attorney General Interpretation that is buried somewhere in the INS Code. But it is not via the 14th Amendment as written because when it was written his mother would have been expatriated by marriage and therefore would have been a British subject. His father, not being an immigrant, could not father a child that was not subject to the same jurisdiction as himself, which was British, not American, since he was only a transient alien here on a Visa and not a legally sanctioned immigrant.<br /> Obama, with a mysterious citizenship, with a mysterious past, with a mysterious fake non-physical birth certificate, with mysterious collegiate records and accomplishments, with mysterious friends with subversive backgrounds wants us all to just trust him and give him another chance to wreck the country further for another four years. Anyone have any questions for him?Strangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11517496850974993060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-48674508803134081082012-02-12T20:59:10.170-05:002012-02-12T20:59:10.170-05:00Today I was going to release my analysis of the na...Today I was going to release my analysis of the nature of the two different views regarding whether or not natural citizenship requires a native-birth. It took a whole morning to author and was a crystal clear dissection of the issue.<br /> But this morning a thought came to me as I was waking up, it was a title for a possible new essay; The Things of Nature and The Nature of Things.<br /> As my mind began forming its substance I knew I had to write one more final treatise on natural citizenship. I've now completed it and posted it on my blog for all to read and disseminate. I believe that after reading it that the air-clearing analysis I wrote yesterday will be unnecessary. From its lofty perspective one can easily grasp everything there is to know about the law of natural membership. It is so crystal clear and complete that I thought I must be done forever with explaining the subject, -until that is a new thought came to mind just now..which is the relationship between baptism and naturalization, -leaving the old life and allegiance totally behind and becoming a new creature, -between angels of the kingdom of God and the natural citizens of a homeland of natural members. I'll probably write it someday but for now the one I finalized today is more than adequate to blow the lid off of any position that argues for Obama's legitimacy. The words of "The Things of Nature..." are the literary equivalent to dynamite. Please use without caution. A.R. Nash http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/the-nature-of-things/Strangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11517496850974993060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-89825629623091999652012-02-12T18:27:12.203-05:002012-02-12T18:27:12.203-05:00Mario,
Why don't you cover the answers I post...Mario,<br /><br />Why don't you cover the answers I posted to Michael's nonsensical claims?John Woodmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01902469557720276627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-28584185684579530452012-02-12T18:19:30.189-05:002012-02-12T18:19:30.189-05:00Below you will find a comment that MichaelN left f...Below you will find a comment that MichaelN left for Supreme Obot, Reality Check, at his Obamaton Den where he and his lapping buddies are actively trashing me. Read and enjoy: <br /><br />"What is it about the fact that the framers of the USC didn't use Black's Law Dictionary that you don't get? What is it about the fact that the term 'natural born Citizen' was a unique construct of the framers without ANY precedent, that you don't get? What is it about the fact that in and around the framing period, as far as the framers, the US Congress & Senate were concerned, the term "natural born" primarily meant by natural decent and by looking into the first two naturalization acts in proves that 'natural born' could not have possible have meant solely native to the exclusion of natural descent, that you don't get? What is it about the fact that the framers, who had a extremely high level of education, chose to use the term 'natural born' rather than 'native born' in the Article POTUS eligibility clause of the USC, that you don't get? What is it about the fact that Vattel was very popular and a huge influence on the framers in and about the framing period, that you don't get? What is it about the fact that the framers had an imperative to ensure only those with the least or no foreign allegiance, loyalty and claim should be eligible for the office of POTUS, that you don't get? What is it about the fact that the SCOTUS didn't rule WKA to be a 'natural born Citizen', that you don't get? What is it about the 14th Amendment not stating that all native born children were 'natural born Citizens', that you don't get? On second thought, don't bother answering, you do get it, your are just too deep into your commitment to political bias, too deep in denial and too damn dishonest to admit to the truth. But you have to live with that."<br /><br />MichaleN February 12, 2012Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-77181976008421765062012-02-12T14:22:13.373-05:002012-02-12T14:22:13.373-05:00I often ask people who state Congress has the powe...I often ask people who state Congress has the power to change the definitions of words, terms, phrases, clauses in the Constitution by Acts of Congress and not Amendments;<br /><br />What would you do if Congress changed the definition of the words, slave, person, elections, citizen, state, meeting, bill, science, useful arts, warrants, search, seizure, exercise, crime, public, involuntary, servitude, and trial?<br /><br />Because a few decades of poor instruction in law schools that are now designed to separate American Law from the Constitution and replace it with judicial precedent doesn't change the definition of NBC.<br /><br />I always wonder why the Obama is a NBC crowd doesn't recognize A1,S8,C10 as meaning the Law of Nations authored by Vattel as just as likely as being Laws between Nations?<br /><br />Since there was no convening authority for trial against claims made by other nations, and according to Al Gore that precludes any actionable claims [statement made during Clinton election funding crimes], then it's just as likely A1,S8,C10 means Vattel’s Law of Nations.Jackhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05882622079052783895noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-89164907110091008562012-02-12T14:18:48.025-05:002012-02-12T14:18:48.025-05:00Stranger/A.R. Nash,
You will soon have my answer...Stranger/A.R. Nash, <br /><br />You will soon have my answer in a new essay that I will publish shortly.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-59169362098035742812012-02-12T12:15:29.525-05:002012-02-12T12:15:29.525-05:00@ thalightguy said...
Maybe someone can explain h...@ thalightguy said...<br /><br />Maybe someone can explain how it is Constitutional for a State to pass a law telling their elector how to vote?<br /><br />=======================================<br /><br />You hit on a VERY sore point and a VERY important one. But unfortunately that train left the station decades ago. I too believe it is an EXTREME perversion of the constitution, but what are you going to do about it?<br /><br />Clearly the Founding Fathers intended the Electors to come together as a committee with no bias and no preconceived disposition and debate and then select the President.<br /><br />But modern practice has the Electors to be pre-committed -- or at least pre-conditioned -- to vote a certain way. Once you get over that hurdle, the amount of pre-conditioning or the mechanism (or scoring) for the bias is immaterial.<br /><br />I strongly believe the Republic cannot be restored until proper constitutional voting is done and Senators are elected by States, not People. I don't believe a Republic can be made to work otherwise. We end up being just a Popular Democracy (i.e. a Mob).<br /><br />But that's just me.Carlylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371651852897376905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-39020599810659267682012-02-12T10:18:03.343-05:002012-02-12T10:18:03.343-05:00MichaelN said...
"Basically, "natura...MichaelN said...<br /> "Basically, "natural born Citizen" in the context of USC Article II, means BOTH by descent and by native birth."<br />------------------------------<br />Stranger replied .........<br /> You offer some quality logic for believing that native birth is required for nbc status. But there's a problem,..it doesn't hold up to serious scrutiny. <br />------------------------------<br />Response:<br />In the framing period, it is obvious that the POTUS would have to be a citizen.<br /><br />The additionally that citizen was required to be "natural born".<br /><br />In 1790 the US Congress and Senate, with some of their sitting members, being the very same people who were responsible for the US Constitution, termed a child born off-shore, to US citizen parents, a "natural born citizen" by natural descent in the absence of native US birth.<br /><br />In the subsequent naturalization act of 1795 they termed a child born in the same circumstances, a "citizen", omitting the term "natural born", but still the child gained their "citizen" status by natural descent.<br /><br />What do you suppose the reason was for the change?............. discuss.MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-52274310466488725902012-02-12T04:29:00.635-05:002012-02-12T04:29:00.635-05:00Mario wrote: "Do you not think that the "...Mario wrote: "Do you not think that the "Citizen" in "natural born Citizen" comes from positive law? It really is silly for you to argue that a "citizen" existed in a state of nature."<br /> <br /> Citizenship is an abstract idea until you connect it to something real.<br /> I'll refer you to natural law which is what Vattel referred to for many of his observations. If you recall he stated that citizenship is nothing more than membership in a group. I've written more about group membership and its relationship to citizens than anyone ever. Before Obama arose there wasn't much point to doing so but since then there's been a huge point in doing so. Because by the law of group membership he is shown to not be a natural citizen since no one with an outsider for a father will be born as a natural member of any group but will be allowed to be part of the group only by its permission, not by natural right.<br /><br />"You go on and on with your personal opinions about natural law. You are going to have to cite some authority for your opinions."<br /> Dear Mario, you've cut straight to the heart of the matter. The reason I've come to speak with authority is that I've come to recognize the fact that there is no authority except Reason itself. No human is an authority that can alter natural law, we can only observe it and describe it. Anyone with eyes and a brain can speak and write with the authority of what they've seen, learned, and surmised from that. Citing to the authority of flawed, imperfect men with legal backgrounds isn't much removed from citing to the authority of the mobster who asks: Who you gonna believe, me? or your lying eyes? We all should prefer our own lying eyes. They see things as they really are.<br /><br /> "I am not yet aware of your definition of a "natural born Citizen."<br /> Simple. The off-spring of citizens. Eskimos give birth to Eskimos, Jews give birth to Jews, Americans give birth to Americans. That's the primary lesson of membership that one can draw from natural law. Anything else is an added appendage.<br /><br /> Today I wrote my final word on the nature of the dispute between us. I would have shared it tonight but had so much to reply to that I'm postponing it until tomorrow sometime. Then I won't be back until you write a new article and post it as a new blog page. My interest in the issue of Obama's ineligibility will remain as high as ever but I've reached the point where I've said everything there is to say to explain that which is so simple that any child can understand it. Now it's up to others to read and comprehend or read and not comprehend. I for one cannot comprehend not comprehending something so plain and clear.<br />A.R. Nash http://obama--nation.comStrangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11517496850974993060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-80719052609743231742012-02-12T03:58:39.086-05:002012-02-12T03:58:39.086-05:00Regarding my previous statement about Congress not...Regarding my previous statement about Congress not having authority to legislate as to the citizenship of those not born to U.S. parents, I wasn't contemplating the foreign born to non-citizens but only the domestically born to non-citizens.<br /><br />Mario said: "The Constitution is based on common sense. It is not a document to be read through the lense of Obotic logical manipulation asserted for the purpose of achieving a political objective." Amen to that brother. That is what I've been asserting. I gather from that out-of-the-blue comment that you still have not read anything that I've written and pointed to you but chose to guessimate what it must say and gamble that you'd be correct. You weren't. And your were wrong.<br /> But I've argued that contortions of logic resorted to in order to manipulate the meaning of a general observation is a case of error in logic. But that error is not ascribed to political manipulation but to the blind spot that results from subjectivity rather than Vulcan-like totally objective clarity.<br /><br />"The definition of a "natural born Citizen" does not keep changing with time. It is fixed." <br /> I'd agree if I agreed that a definition even exists. I do believe one does exist but you think of it as something pronounced by the sterling august authority of wise men while I argue that it is only definable via natural law and not opinion or observation of the common place reality everywhere on earth.Strangerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11517496850974993060noreply@blogger.com