tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post4876804503083480762..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: Barack Obama Ballot Challenge Proceeding Forward in the NJ Supreme CourtMario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger602125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-61826074630198152772012-10-29T00:13:46.866-04:002012-10-29T00:13:46.866-04:00WoW ! What a nice job. Its going to take me awhi...WoW ! What a nice job. Its going to take me awhile to read all of that but I just wanted to ask you a question.<br /><br />If Obama is NOT re-elected, do all the pending court cases go moot?<br /><br />I just would like to know what to believe, in case he loses. Does he get off scott-free?<br /><br />Thanks Mario, glad to know you are still on top of this important matter.Joehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12343959316501286996noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-63968570502294735562012-10-27T19:53:26.963-04:002012-10-27T19:53:26.963-04:00BrianH,
The simple fact is that a Natural Born Cit...BrianH,<br />The simple fact is that a Natural Born Citizen is one born in the country to citizen parents. Even Mr. Obama has recognized this.<br /><br />The founders clearly understood human nature and the strength of the family and "hometown" bonds. Yes, some people reject both, but the vast majority hold them dear, even if their contact with either or both was very short. It is not uncommon for those separated from their parents at birth to later seek their natural parents. It is not uncommon for people to return to the place of their birth even if the only lived there a short time. An entire industry has been built upon tracing ancestry. While all of this seems to have escaped you, the founders were well aware of it.<br /><br />Additional wisdom was shown with Amendment XX which effectively says that the President Elect must put his cards on the table before he can play.<br /><br />Obama stipulated that he was born under British jurisdiction and has claimed that he was born in Hawaii and in Kenya. He has never put any legitimate cards on the table to verify any claim. <br /><br />As we have seen the past four years, Mr. Obama has no loyalty to this country or respect for our Constitution. The most glaring example is his recent refusal to act in our defense when one of our embassies was clearly under severe and sustained attack and requesting help. <br /><br />Surely there are immigrants and naturalized citizens in this country that have a great love for our ideals. And, there are natural born citizens, even some who have become President, who have not always acted in our best interests. <br /><br />However, the wisdom of the founders is proved with Mr. Obama and with your foolish efforts. The founders understood how easily some people can be blinded and fooled by the promises of the exotic "star from afar".<br />Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07865649369112264344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-36002691478713810052012-10-26T18:02:38.289-04:002012-10-26T18:02:38.289-04:00BrianH,
You can keep repeating the same tripe ove...BrianH,<br /><br />You can keep repeating the same tripe over and over. It is nothing but your own spin on Wong Kim Ark. The historical and legal record is stacked against you. All the spinning cannot help you except if you are among your own kind. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-67616168480478282782012-10-26T16:52:13.184-04:002012-10-26T16:52:13.184-04:00@Robert
(To MarioA) You offer a very key point - ...@Robert<br /><br /><i>(To MarioA) You offer a very key point - "Vattel explained that a nation had a better chance of survival and preservation by deciding who were its citizens and letting those citizens run the nation."</i><br /><br />And under our Constitutional system, only citizens are allowed to serve as President, V.P., or Senators/Congressmen.<br /><br /><i>As opposed to British rule where the government was headed by a King who was determined by natural descent ... <br /><br />As a matter of national security the founders required that the President (after those grandfathered) must be a citizen, born to citizens. Just like a Prince, he must be born in the country into the ruling family of "sovereign citizens".</i><br /><br />You just contradicted yourself.<br /><br /><br /><i>Now, how ridiculous would it be for a sovereign citizenship to accept all comers into the ruling class - the body of "citizens" - without some sort of security system in place to ensure loyalty and the preservation of the Constitution? </i><br /><br />We don't accept all comers. We require for the Presidency that the candidate have been born within the U.S., have attained 35 years of age, and have lived in the U.S. at least 14 years. We require candidates for Congress to have been citizens for a requisite number of years.<br /><br />Now, what's ridiculous is the notion that "national security" requires the commander-in-chief to have been born in the U.S. to have been born of "citizen parents." Under that view, one arrives at the bizarre conclusion that the Framers believed a child born of one or more alien parents would forever be a "security threat." Yet a child whose parent(s) naturalized shortly before the child's birth was no longer a threat. But yet further the child born to a parent who is first naturalized shortly after the child's birth remains forever a security threat.<br /><br />This requirement that the child have two citizen parents smacks more of absurd astrology-like notions that one's "allegial orbit" is fixed forever at the instant of birth according to the "citizenship position" of the "parental planets" at the moment the child slips through the birth canal. <br /><br />Yes, one can just picture the Commander-in-Chief having to make a military decision against the interests of a nation to which one of his birth parents had connection. And, just at the moment of execution, by some mysterious inner force, he is suddenly rendered passive and confused on account of the "allegiance" that the "law of nature" imprinted upon his tiny brain as an infant, because his father was first naturalized a few weeks AFTER his birth.<br /><br />Makes perfect sense. Oh, wait! This doesn't make sense at all. It's poppeycock.<br /><br />I've pointed how absurd this is three times now. It's no surprise that no one on this Board has attempted in the least to defend this utterly nonsensical notion. <br /><br />It's a grave insult to the Framers when Birthers ascribe to the Framers such a manifestly stupid view of the world. But it's not the Framers who were stupid. Just the Birthers. <br /><br />This seems as good a point on which to wrap up things as any. <br /><br />I doubt this time any future event will be reason to return. The Birther arguments are all dead corpses strewn along the field. Kicking them further is pointless.BrianHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571513361514070221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-88790122692228961602012-10-26T16:14:47.369-04:002012-10-26T16:14:47.369-04:00@MarioA
You can squirm all you want . . .
I have...@MarioA<br /><br /><i>You can squirm all you want . . .</i><br /><br />I have no reason to squirm.<br /><br />I'm not the one here first claiming that Vattel and Coke were starkly incompatible choices ("he was eventually compelled to sacrifice Vattel for Coke, to deny natural reason for the sake of historical truth, and to miss the Revolution.") only to then on the next page have to try to make it look like the ECL was really just a less-artfully phrased, less direct concept that was in substance rather "Vattel-like." In your opposition to Obama it seems you're now channeling Mitt Romney: positions flip from one time to the next.<br /><br /><i>Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 uses the clause, “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen.”</i><br /><br />Strawman. I've never asserted AIIS1C5 speaks of "born Citizen." It says "natural born citizen" which is why J. Gray then compares that term to "natural born subject." The phrase "natural born" appears in Gray's opinion more that 30 times. Clearly, in Gray's view the term "natural born citizen" is relevant to Mr. Wong and it is relevant to the meaning of the 14th Amendment as it pertains to Mr. Wong.<br /><br />In your view of "the story" Gray might as well have just omitted all of that as needless.<br /><br /><i> . . .or what may be called a “born Citizen,”</i><br /><br />Except that no one uses that term. Here, like with "alien subject" you have to resort to coining new expressions in order to force-fit the case into your pre-conceived framework.<br /><br /><i> not whether he was a "natural born Citizen" </i><br /><br />Here again is why you'll never convince any judge in this land. No judge is going to buy your argument that Gray wasn't at all concerned with whether Mr. Wong was an NBC under the common law, when the opinion is replete with references to "natural born citizen" and "natural born subject," at times putting them side by side in direct analogical comparision (e.g., "the same rule" and Gray's citation to J. Swayne "All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together.") Every judge reading the WKA opinion will see this; your "but I just don't see it" argument is thus reduced to mere head-in-the-sand foolishness.<br /><br /><i>Wong Kim Ark looked to the English common law to define a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States" from the moment of birth (“born Citizen”). </i><br /><br />You leave out the middle part where after looking to the ECL definition of "NBS," the Court states that the "same rule" was true of the ACL which pertained at the time of the original Consitution, the NBS/NBC comparision being undeniable.<br /><br /><i>End of story. </i><br /><br />Unfortunately for you, no judge is going to read only your truncated version of the story. When they read the story in full, the label "without merit" quickly gets pinned to your "two citizen parent" argument.<br /><br />BrianHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571513361514070221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-90875247467923849982012-10-26T13:26:13.074-04:002012-10-26T13:26:13.074-04:00BrianH,
Yes, and Minor also did not tell us the ...BrianH, <br /><br />Yes, and Minor also did not tell us the size of Virginia Minor's shoes. Pathetic. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-71035105326704856442012-10-26T13:18:35.142-04:002012-10-26T13:18:35.142-04:00BrianH,
You can squirm all you want, but you can...BrianH, <br /><br />You can squirm all you want, but you cannot rewrite U.S. historical and legal history. <br /><br />Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 uses the clause, “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen.” Wong Kim Ark had to decide whether Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States" from the moment of birth or what may be called a “born Citizen,” not whether he was a "natural born Citizen" which according to Minor is not defined by our Constitution. Minor looked to American "common-law" to define an Article II "natural born Citizen." Wong Kim Ark looked to the English common law to define a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States" from the moment of birth (“born Citizen”). End of story. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-82095882395002468062012-10-26T13:11:56.754-04:002012-10-26T13:11:56.754-04:00@MarioA
You fail to understand that you are confl...@MarioA<br /><br /><i>You fail to understand that you are conflating and confounding a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States" with an Article II "natural born Citizen." </i><br /><br />Horace Gray and the WKA majority make abundantly clear that the common law rule as to "natural born citizen" was the "same rule" which had prevailed in England for 300 years by which children of alien parents were "natural born subjects" (noting the same special exceptions). Equally clear is Gray's conclusion that that common law rule was formally incorporated into the 14th Amendment's "born . . . in the U.S., and subject to the jurisdiction there" provision (same exceptions, adding also the special case of Native Americans). <br /><br />I'm not conflating anything, since the 14th Amendment also includes as "citizens" those who are naturalized ("born or naturalized"). <br /><br /><i>You fail to understand that Wong Kim Ark did not change the American "common-law" definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen" as confirmed by Minor v. Happersett in 1875 which is a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country when the child was born. </i><br /><br />Minor didn't purport to "define" anything as to children of alien parents <b>because the Minor case didn't present that question!</b> As an attorney, you should know that. But we know you have to keep pretending otherwise for the sake of your loyal followers.<br />BrianHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571513361514070221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-40975960393262116122012-10-26T12:47:44.826-04:002012-10-26T12:47:44.826-04:00@MarioA
He only used English common law concepts ...@MarioA<br /><br /><i>He only used English common law concepts regarding who were “natural born subjects” to find that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth. He did not use those concepts to find that he was a “natural born Citizen.” </i><br /><br />Here you miss the boat completely.<br /><br />Again, he begins the analysis by observing the linguistic underpinning which the ECL forms to our Constitution:<br /><br />"The interpretation of the Constitution of the United States is necessarily influenced by the fact that its provisions are framed in the language of the English common law, and are to be read in the light of its history." <br /><br />"Citizen of the United States" is not language which finds reference in the ECL. Gray CANNOT POSSIBLY be purporting to look to the ECL's "natural born subject" language as a direct analogy to "citizen of the United States." There is no linguistic point of comparison between these terms. By contrast, the term "natural born citizen" DOES have a direct linguistic comparison to the ECL's "natural born subject" terminology. Those expressions are what Gray is comparing. This cannot be credibly denied.<br /><br />Thus, since the "same rule" by which children born in England of alien parents were "natural born subjects" prevailed under our original Constitution, children born in the U.S. of alien parents were "natural born citizens." That same common law rule then was incorporated as the 14th Amendment's "born . . . in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereor" provision. The common law rule (at least as to white persons) now being declared true as to all others, Mr. Wong is thus a "citizen" and cannot be refused entry to the country.<br /><br />Your argument that Gray is comparing "natural born subject" to "citizen of the United States," and that he is NOT AT ALL comparing "natural born subject" to "natural born citizen" is ludicrous.BrianHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571513361514070221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-47704527451468574792012-10-26T12:11:27.970-04:002012-10-26T12:11:27.970-04:00BrianH,
You fail to understand that you are conf...BrianH, <br /><br />You fail to understand that you are conflating and confounding a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States" with an Article II "natural born Citizen." You fail to understand that Wong Kim Ark did not change the American "common-law" definition of an Article II "natural born Citizen" as confirmed by Minor v. Happersett in 1875 which is a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country when the child was born. Wong Kim Ark only defined a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment which is a different class of citizen than a “natural born Citizen.” <br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-1713683930881765012012-10-26T11:47:05.774-04:002012-10-26T11:47:05.774-04:00@MarioA
I am not arguing the losing side in U.S. ...@MarioA<br /><br /><i>I am not arguing the losing side in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. </i><br /><br />But you are. Your "two citizen parent" argument depends on "natural born citizen" being understood by reference to Vattel. The moment the WKA majority states our Constitutional terms (like NBC, which is cites to explicitly) are to be understood by reference to the ECL, your argument starts foundering. Because in summarizing the ECL, Gray phrases it in very un-Vattel terms: "therefore every child born in England of alien parents was a natural-born subject." And then Gray sinks the "two citizen parent" argument completely in the next sentence: "The same rule . . . continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established."<br /><br />The dissent argued Vattel's rule should have been applied. That's your argument. And it's the losing argument.BrianHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571513361514070221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-61497289730985168622012-10-26T11:40:12.016-04:002012-10-26T11:40:12.016-04:00It is a little over a week to the election. Is the...It is a little over a week to the election. Is there an update?Andy in Tampahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17580846961040217041noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-11143160924427561902012-10-26T11:37:25.388-04:002012-10-26T11:37:25.388-04:00BrianH,
You misunderstand how Justice Gray used ...BrianH, <br /><br />You misunderstand how Justice Gray used the English common law history to arrive at his decision. In Wong Kim Ark, he used an English common law “natural born subject” to arrive at his holding that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. He only used English common law concepts regarding who were “natural born subjects” to find that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth. He did not use those concepts to find that he was a “natural born Citizen.” Again, Wong needed to be a “citizen,” not a “natural born Citizen,” not to be deported, and the only question before the Court was whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States,” not whether he was a “natural born Citizen.” Justice Gray did not need to nor did he hold that Wong was a “natural born Citizen,” for the United States no longer used the broad allegiance doctrine of the English common law which treated aliens in amity as “subjects” of the King. In the United States, an alien in amity had to go through a formal legal naturalization process prescribed by Congress to become a “citizen” and Minor v. Happersett confirmed in 1875 that one had to be born to “citizen” parents to be a “natural born Citizen.” Still, Justice Gray found that being born in the U.S. to domiciled and resident alien parents was sufficient to make one born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. But he did not hold that such birth circumstances gave anyone the status of a “natural born Citizen.” <br /><br />Actually, Justice Gray in his decision distinguished the two classes of “citizens.” Justice Gray told us twice of this distinction. The first time he said: “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.' Page 22, note. This paper, without Mr. Binney's name, and with the note in a less complete form, and not containing the passage last cited, was published (perhaps from the first edition) in the American Law Register for February, 1854. 2 Am. Law Reg. 193, 203, 204. ” Wong Kim Ark, at 665-66. Later in his opinion, Justice Gray, in speaking about a child born in the United States to alien parents again said that an alien’s “child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, 'If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.'” Id. at 694.<br /><br />So, you are simply mistaken to conflate and confound a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” with an Article II “natural born Citizen” and to argue the Wong Kim Ark defined or even redefined what a “natural born Citizen” is when it only addressed the definition of a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. The “natural born Citizen” clause was already defined by American “common-law” with which the Founders and Framers were familiar as explained by Minor. That definition has never been changed by any constitutional amendment or U.S. Supreme Court decision. That definition today is still a child born in the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-77579298635469974872012-10-26T10:44:11.103-04:002012-10-26T10:44:11.103-04:00@MarioA
Your point that the Government in Wong Ki...@MarioA<br /><br /><i>Your point that the Government in Wong Kim Ark argued for Vattel’s rule does not prove that the English common law did not treat aliens in amity located in its territory as “subjects” of the King. </i><br /><br />But my point still holds that Mr. Wong was born of alien parents, and Justice Gray was thus adducing rules pertaining to the children of alien parents. Gray most certainly wasn't seeing in the ECL how these aliens were really more analogous to American citizens because of some oblique reference in Calvin's Case to them being 'subjects.' For him, the important point is that the ECL termed them "aliens."<br /><br />As I've said to Michael, trying to re-analyze WKA by digging out passages from Calvin's Case that Gray didn't cite is a poor way to structure an argument. <br /><br />And your current spin on WKA is disingenuous. Back on September 3 in response to Linda, you were quoting a source indicating that Vattel and Coke were fundamentally at odds:<br /><br />"[f]or James Otis, who was as well read as any American in both the English common law and the European theories of natural law, the conflict became especially acute. His frantic attempts to reconcile the two laws—Coke with Vattel—formed the crisis of his life and helped to tear his mind to pieces. Because he knew English history and the common law too well, because he clung too stubbornly to the veracity of seventeenth-century notions of jurisprudence and parliamentary supremacy, <b>he was eventually compelled to sacrifice Vattel for Coke, to deny natural reason for the sake of historical truth, and to miss the Revolution.</b>"<br /><br />But with me, you know you're not going to be able to get away with this 'appealing to the ECL is a denial of the Revolution' posturing because you know I'll keep whacking you across the head with the portion from WKA where the Court says our Constitutional terms are to be understood by reference to ECL history. So now you're changing tack and trying to send the ECL off to the Swiss tailor and try to dress it up in more Vattel-looking garb. This warrants the yellow card being pulled for intellectual dishonesty. <br /><br /><i>The Government opted for Vattel because his rule was more logical and sound. </i><br /><br />And the Government and Dissent opted for Vattel because they understood the Majority's reliance on the ECL made Wong a natural born citizen, and they didn't like that result!! If C.J. Fuller had thought merely that Vattel provided a clearer rationale to support the same idea, he would have written a concurrence rather than a dissent. But he wrote a dissent because he knew Vattel led to one conclusion, while the ECL led to another. <br /><br />You cannot get away with this attempt to argue that the ECL gets you to the same result as Vattel. <br /><br /><i>In contradistinction, the English common law allowed the parents of a “natural born subject” to be aliens de jure which it treated as subjects de facto.</i><br /><br />And, again, there's nothing in the WKA opinion to suggest in the least that Gray was seeing any "de facto subjects" notion when he was citing the ECL "rule" by which children of aliens were natural born subjects. You're trying to read into the analysis an extra layer that Gray didn't find, nor which would be something he'd be concerned to find given the case before him involved a child of alien parents.BrianHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571513361514070221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-55796430867345816592012-10-23T15:50:11.258-04:002012-10-23T15:50:11.258-04:00There are only two weeks left before the general e...There are only two weeks left before the general election. Surely there has been ample time to make a decision on this. Why do they delay? Justice delayed is justice denied. When I was younger, it was impressed upon me our third branch of government was impartial. It would always be fair. There is nothing fair about this. <br /><br />The Obama eligibility issue has proven to me our judicial system is not blind, it is not impartial, and it is not fair.Sheikh yer Bu'Tayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11964448030393090625noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-55963000797006457982012-10-20T12:59:52.187-04:002012-10-20T12:59:52.187-04:00Mario,
You offer a very key point - "Vattel ...Mario,<br /><br />You offer a very key point - "Vattel explained that a nation had a better chance of survival and preservation by deciding who were its citizens and letting those citizens run the nation."<br /><br />As opposed to British rule where the government was headed by a King who was determined by natural descent and who ruled over his subjects (AKA cannon fodder) with little real hindrance or consent, we have a system whereby the "citizens" are sovereign and the "government" is limited to certain enumerated responsibilities and operates only with the consent of the governed. <br /><br />Now, how ridiculous would it be for a sovereign citizenship to accept all comers into the ruling class - the body of "citizens" - without some sort of security system in place to ensure loyalty and the preservation of the Constitution? Well, it would be as nonsensical as an English monarch being forced to accept anyone who wished to come into his home and family as his own child and as an heir to his throne.<br /><br />As a matter of national security the founders required that the President (after those grandfathered) must be a citizen, born to citizens. Just like a Prince, he must be born in the country into the ruling family of "sovereign citizens". He must be born with the sole expectation that he will be completely loyal to the Constitution which, as President, he will be sworn to preserve, protect, and defend against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic.<br /><br />Mr. Obama, even if he were to be occasionally loyal to this country, just doesn't qualify. He has stipulated that he was born under foreign allegiance via his British/Kenyan father. Therefor, he is not a natural born citizen of the United States of America as determined by our laws.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07865649369112264344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-62935487611503124722012-10-20T12:32:39.347-04:002012-10-20T12:32:39.347-04:00Based on the current trend, is there any reason to...Based on the current trend, is there any reason to believe that Obama's eligibility will be adjudicated on the merits by any court?<br /><br />The Supreme Court denied consideration of the Liberty Legal Foundation's petition without comment on October 4.<br /><br />Has any lower court really addressed the eligibility issue with anything other than flawed reasoning?<br /><br />I find it hard to believe that no judge so far has seen fit to treat the issue with sound reasoning. Not even a corrupt system is that perfect - or is it? There has to be someone, somewhere who will put integrity above expedience.<br /><br />Read this post as a post from a frustrated citizen.Doubleehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09894977171356099262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-31210388633810672502012-10-19T23:32:24.383-04:002012-10-19T23:32:24.383-04:00BrianH,
You asked me: “Why do you think the U.S...BrianH, <br /><br />You asked me: “Why do you think the U.S. Government and the Dissent were arguing Vattel's rule ought to be applied? Answer: because the majority clearly wasn't reading into the ECL some "must be born to a subject which equals being born to a citizen." That's the Vattel notion. That's the losing proposition in WKA. And it's the side you're arguing.” <br /><br />I am not arguing the losing side in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. In Section 212 of The Law of Nations, Vattel defined "citizens” and “natural-born citizens.” Note that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 also includes “Citizen” and “natural born Citizen.” The issue in Wong Kim Ark was whether Wong was a “citizen,” not whether he was a “natural-born citizen.” The Court said he was a “citizen.” In so holding, the Court did not disturb Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” as adopted and made a part of American “common-law” per Minor v. Happersett. So, my position as to what a “natural born Citizen” is under American “common-law” was not changed by nor was it a losing proposition in Wong Kim Ark. <br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-42696941005140935552012-10-19T01:48:16.711-04:002012-10-19T01:48:16.711-04:00BrianH,
Your point that the Government in Wong K...BrianH, <br /><br />Your point that the Government in Wong Kim Ark argued for Vattel’s rule does not prove that the English common law did not treat aliens in amity located in its territory as “subjects” of the King. The Government opted for Vattel because his rule was more logical and sound. Under his rule, in order to be born a “natural-born citizen,” the child’s parents had to be citizens de jure and not simply aliens treated as citizens de facto. In contradistinction, the English common law allowed the parents of a “natural born subject” to be aliens de jure which it treated as subjects de facto. With Vattel, if the parents were not actual citizens, the child could not be born a “natural-born citizen.” And only the nation decided who were its citizens, not an alien by simply coming physically into its territory. Under Vattel’s rule, an alien did not simply come into a nation’s territory and through no consent of the nation become in effect a citizen of that nation which is what the English common law allowed of its aliens in amity and their children born in the King’s dominion. Vattel explained that a nation had a better chance of survival and preservation by deciding who were its citizens and letting those citizens run the nation.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-12796821479354178292012-10-19T00:34:22.502-04:002012-10-19T00:34:22.502-04:00BrianH said...
@MichaelN
ECL = "Bor...BrianH said...<br /><br /> @MichaelN<br /><br /> ECL = "Born under the ligeance of a subject" and in the realm, to be an English NBS<br /><br /> What's simple is that this "the child must be born under the ligeance of a subject" language you keep hauling out is not stated anywhere in WKA as you phrase it.<br /><br /> Michael, it's a poor way to structure an argument when you make it depend on language within Calvin's Case that the SCOTUS didn't bother to quote. I recall telling you that in July.<br /><br /> You're a slow learner.<br /><br />Reply:<br /><br />Justice Horace Gray cited to Calvin's case, this is sufficient for the meaning and original language to be applicable.<br /><br />You are playing with words and have exhausted any credibility you might have had.<br /><br />Justice Horace Gray in his "Opinion of the Court in the Wong Kim Ark case:<br /><br />"<b>This fundamental principle, with these qualifications or [p656] explanations of it, was clearly, though quaintly, stated in the leading case, known as Calvin's Case, or the Case of the Postnati, decided in 1608</b>, after a hearing in the Exchequer Chamber before the Lord Chancellor and all the Judges of England, and reported by Lord Coke and by Lord Ellesmere. Calvin's Case, 7 Rep. 1, 4b-6a, 18a, 18b; Ellesmere on Postnati, 62-64; S.C., 2 Howell's State Trials, 559, 607, 613-617, 639, 640, 659, 679."<br /><br />YOU LOSE AGAIN.<br /><br />Learn to live with it.MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-21922943823797194052012-10-19T00:29:11.858-04:002012-10-19T00:29:11.858-04:00Pert 2 of 2
It's really very simple BrianH, e...Pert 2 of 2<br /><br />It's really very simple BrianH, even the US Citizenship & Immigration Service recognizes the distinct difference between native-born and natural born US citizens.<br /><br />http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html<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 <b>native-born OR natural-born</b> citizen (<b>WHICHEVER</b> existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired."<br /><br />Your whole argument is absurd at it's core and you are so desperate that you are merely playing with words and grammar as you sink deeper into your bog.<br /><br />Why would the Framers of the USC, who were VERY SERIOUSLY CONCERNED about foreign influence and national security, choose to have a person with dubious and uncertain allegiance and loyalty to the US as POTUS, i.e. merely a native-born to any foreigner, when they could choose to have one with the most impeccable allegiance, loyalty and dedication as humanly thinkable?<br /><br />An anchor-baby, with foreign influence, loyalty, persuasion and claim?<br /><br />Or, a native-born to US citizen parents?<br /><br />You keep saying that "native' and "natural" were "interchangeable", well it seems if that is true, then it is FOR SURE the Framers in the instance of Article II POTUS eligibility, did NOT intend for "natural" to mean merely "native".<br /><br />"NATURAL BORN" MEANT BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A CITIZEN...... as you well know, it makes perfect sense, the framers would not have been so hap-hazard or derelict in their duty to protect the office of POTUS from foreign corruption.<br /><br />Besides that, Vattel was a VERY BIG INFLUENCE in the framing period and when read in conjunction with the ECL, it makes perfect sense that the framers chose the TWO qualities as mentioned BOTH in ECL AND Vattel, i.e. native-birth AND the allegiance of citizen parents to make a "natural born Citizen", as Coke said "due by nature and birthright".<br /><br />Two qualities, to make a pure a citizen as possible, jus soli and jus sanguinis.<br /><br />You lose BrianH.<br /><br />Learn to live with it.MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-7559273010743850562012-10-19T00:28:28.794-04:002012-10-19T00:28:28.794-04:00Part 1 of 2
BrianH said ....
"Why do you th...Part 1 of 2<br /><br />BrianH said ....<br /><br />"Why do you think the U.S. Government and the Dissent were arguing Vattel's rule ought to be applied? Answer: because the majority clearly wasn't reading into the ECL some "must be born to a subject which equals being born to a citizen." That's the Vattel notion. That's the losing proposition in WKA. And it's the side you're arguing."<br /><br />Reply:<br /><br />The court matter was not about whether WKA was a NBC.<br /><br />Btw, NBC status was not even an eligibility criteria to be a US citizen, rather, it was a term of art used in recognition of a quality of an EXISTING citizen's status beyond the basic minimum standard that made a US citizen.<br /><br />It was a click above a 14th Amendment "citizen of the United States".<br /><br />What Justice Horace Gray recognized was that the minimum standard to be met for "citizen of the United States" was already in practice prior to the 14th Amendment, "for all white persons at least".<br /><br />By studying the ECL and the ACL he pointed out where the native birthright part of the equation had it's origins.<br /><br />The WKA case was ONLY EVER about interpretation of the 14th Amendment and how it applied to WKA.<br /><br />It was about birthright US citizenship via native-birth to alien, non-citizen parents, and NOTHING MORE.<br /><br />It was about what "subject to the jurisdiction" meant, it was NOT about WKA being born "under the ligeance of" a US citizen, as Justice Horace Gray was very careful to state in his summary conclusion at the end of all his exhaustive and definitive study of ECL, Gray deliberately and carefully chose to use a term of art, not found in either the ECL or the USC, instead of the very term of art that he was VERY FOCUSED ON DEFINING; although the time was ripe to say "natural born Citizen" right there and then, if he really thought it to be so, but he DIDN'T, he instead said ....<br /><br /><i>"Passing by questions once earnestly controverted, but finally put at rest by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, it is beyond doubt that, before the enactment of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 or the adoption of the Constitutional [p675] Amendment, all white persons, at least, <b>born within the sovereignty of the United States</b>, whether children of citizens or of foreigners, excepting only children of ambassadors or public ministers of a foreign government, were NATIVE-BORN citizens of the United States."</i><br /><br />Think!...."born within the sovereignty", aka born "subject to the jurisdiction" as opposed to, born subject to the jurisdiction AND in allegiance, hence Horace Gray chose "NATIVE-born" but NOT "natural born" at that very crucial and RIPE TIME for him to say it as he he saw it.<br /><br />MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-17692503567331264012012-10-18T19:38:52.838-04:002012-10-18T19:38:52.838-04:00@MichaelN
ECL = "Born under the ligeance of ...@MichaelN<br /><br /><i>ECL = "Born under the ligeance of a subject" and in the realm, to be an English NBS</i><br /><br />What's simple is that this "the child must be born under the ligeance of a subject" language you keep hauling out is not stated anywhere in WKA as you phrase it.<br /><br />Michael, it's a poor way to structure an argument when you make it depend on language within Calvin's Case that the SCOTUS didn't bother to quote. I recall telling you that in July.<br /><br />You're a slow learner.<br /><br />BrianHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571513361514070221noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-4624931187545633392012-10-18T19:34:17.214-04:002012-10-18T19:34:17.214-04:00ON TOPIC
As a result of the Libya discussion at t...ON TOPIC<br /><br />As a result of the Libya discussion at the debate, The Obama has been most forcefully yet proven to be a flaming liar and a manipulator of 'facts' to suit his political agenda and aspirations. So, why in the world do we believe anything he says about his past?<br /><br />OFF TOPIC<br /><br />And, speaking of the debate, how can you ignore The Elephant In The Room?<br /><br />Lately (since the Benghazi incident) he has been on a tear of religious toleration. Either via Hillary, Susan Rice, or he himself, like at the UN speech, have very forcefully disavowed and disparaged, over and over again, ad nauseum, the disrespect, denigration, or blasphemy of other people's religions.<br /><br />To which I say "hurrah hurrah!" Let us start here:<br /><br />What about "There is but one god, Allah, and his prophet is Mohamed"? Does that sound very ecumenical to you? Does this sound like the recognition or tolerance of other religions? This says exactly "we are right and you are wrong". This likely rises to blasphemy, and certainly is extremely disrespectful and denigrating. It is really throwing down the gauntlet (of, if you will, showing the bottom of your shoe) at the other guy's religion.<br /><br />In fact, this is the strongest and most belligerent such statement of any major world religion. So, let's start with this one. Clean it up first, then we can sit back and analyze ourselves and other such elements of Western Civilization and see if we need minor adjustments here and there.<br /><br />Does that sound OK to you Mr. Obama? Mr. "fair and equal". Mr. "all play by the same rules, on a level playing field".<br /><br />In any case, apologizing seems way premature.<br /><br /><br /><br />Carlylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371651852897376905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-81163193356782268712012-10-18T19:24:40.705-04:002012-10-18T19:24:40.705-04:00@MichaelN
Given that "subject" and &quo...@MichaelN<br /><br /><i>Given that "subject" and "citizen" were analogous as was proposed in the SCOTUS, and it was necessary for a native-born child in England to be "born under the ligeance of a subject", to be a NBS, then it would be necessary for a US native-born child in US to be "born under the ligeance of" a US citizen.</i><br /><br />Except that the SCOTUS majority didn't see it your way. For the majority, it was just necessary that the child be born under the ligeance of the sovereign. That was understood to be the case as to all births within the country, with the exception of children of invaders and diplomats. Gray cites with approval the earlier decision by Justice :<br /><br />"All persons born in the allegiance of the King are natural-born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural-born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country, as well as of England. . . . We find no warrant for the opinion [p663] that this great principle of the common law has ever been changed in the United States. It has always obtained here with the same vigor, and subject only to the same exceptions, since as before the Revolution."<br /><br />You can search the WKA opinion top to bottom and you won't find the notion of "the child must be born under the ligeance of a subject" written anywhere. That detail which mesmerizes you isn't one the majority opinion even bothers to mention. For the child to be a "natural born citizen," the child need just be born in the country to alien parents who weren't invaders or diplomats.<br /><br />Why do you think the U.S. Government and the Dissent were arguing Vattel's rule ought to be applied? Answer: because the majority clearly wasn't reading into the ECL some "must be born to a subject which equals being born to a citizen." That's the Vattel notion. That's the losing proposition in WKA. And it's the side you're arguing.BrianHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07571513361514070221noreply@blogger.com