tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post6062570623117245372..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: Purpura-Moran New Jersey Obama Ballot Challenge Appealed to Appellate Division-Briefing and Oral Argument ScheduledMario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger95125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-80644994620746287532012-05-29T15:52:27.839-04:002012-05-29T15:52:27.839-04:00A personal story that might have some pertinence -...A personal story that might have some pertinence - My father was born in a village near Frankfurt am Main, in 1900. His father was also born in the same village. In 1918, he went to register for conscription, only to be told he was <i><b>not</b></i> a citizen of Germany, he was a citizen of Austria! This was because his Grandfather had been born in Bohemia. It seems to me that, if it was so widely understood that being born in a country made you a NBC, he would have been German.<br />As it was, this was a fortunate development, as I doubt he would have survived the last days of WW-I to emigrate to the US (on his Austrian Passport) in 1927. He & my mother (born in London) both became naturalized US Citizens in the early 1930s, which allowed me, born in 1943, to claim NBC status!NJ_Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17684407335985785581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-3760049748137898022012-05-22T16:12:28.967-04:002012-05-22T16:12:28.967-04:00John Woodman & Co. insist that Wong Kim Ark an...John Woodman & Co. insist that Wong Kim Ark and therefore the Fourteenth Amendment can make someone a “natural born Citizen.” <br /><br />Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 speaks of both a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.” Today, the President under Article II must be a "natural born Citizen," not only a "Citizen of the United States." <br /><br />The unamended Constitution was adopted in 1787. That Constitution included the “natural born Citizen” clause. Hence, there had to have been a definition of the clause then. <br /><br />The Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868 and speaks only of a "citizen of the United States." <br /><br />How does someone who is a "citizen of the United States" under the Fourteenth Amendment, which was passed in 1868, automatically converted into an Article II "natural born Citizen" without showing that the person in fact meets the definition of a "natural born Citizen" upon which the Founders and Framers relied when they wrote the clause into the Constitution in 1787? <br /><br />Again, the Fourteenth Amendment says "citizen of the United States," not "natural born Citizen." Furthermore, Minor said that the amendment does not define a "natural born Citizen."Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-8174886209448853532012-05-22T01:12:21.429-04:002012-05-22T01:12:21.429-04:00II of II
As McElwee correctly said, “[a]t the tim...II of II<br /><br />As McElwee correctly said, “[a]t the time of the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, under the common law, the terms native born citizen and natural born citizen were synonymous, but, the customary usage was to refer to such type of citizenship as ‘natural born’ instead of ‘native born.’” Binney used “natural born” because his reference was to children born to citizen parents. If he had been referring to children born in the country, he would have used “native born.” Hence, when the focus was citizen parents, the correct term used to describe that relationship was “natural born.” When the focus was birth in the country, the term used to describe that relationship became “native birth” or “native born.” <br /><br />(3) He recognized the importance of the July 25, 1787 John Jay letter to Washington, which expressed concern over foreigners” infiltrating the administration of government and the Office of Commander in Chief, in motivating the insertion of the “natural born Citizen” clause into the Constitution. <br /><br />(4) He explained how careful James Madison was in distinguishing between a “Citizen of the United States” and a “natural born Citizen,” that he made sure that the 1795 Naturalization Act, unlike the erroneous 1790 Naturalization Act, read “citizen of the United States” and not “natural born Citizen,” which is what the 1790 Act had included. In commenting on the error and in criticizing the 1904 Albany Law Journal Article which concluded that children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents were “natural born,” McElwee, says: “The author seemed to have lost sight of the fact that the English common law in respect to citizenship did not become the common law of the United States.” This statement is correct. This statement is also contradictory to his other statement that anyone could be a “natural born Citizen” under the holding of Wong Kim Ark. In any event, he strongly emphasized that there is a critical constitutional distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen.” <br /><br />(5) He recognized that acquiring U.S. citizenship “at birth” does not equate with being a “natural born Citizen.” He so stated to disqualify from the status of “natural born Citizen” children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents (i.e., George Romney). There is no reason that his disqualification does not equally apply to children born in the United States to alien parents who under the Fourteenth Amendment are considered U.S. “citizens” “at birth,” but are not otherwise “natural born Citizens.” Like what McElwee says about children born abroad to U.S. citizen parents, these children are born aliens, but automatically naturalized, not by an Act of Congress which is what is used for children born abroad, but by the Fourteenth Amendment. <br /><br />(6) The “natural born Citizen” clause “was to insure loyalty and freedom from foreign sympathy and ideologies.” This is correct and tells us that any definition of the clause has to provide to the greatest degree possible for the People making this policy choice. <br /><br />(7) Presidential eligibility standards are the product of bright line rules which must be honored. This statement shows that the “natural born Citizen” clause could only have had one definition that satisfied the Founders and Framers. You will recall that Minor confirmed what that sole definition was. <br /><br />So, McElwee has his view of what a “natural born Citizen” is. But Minor told us that despite what "some authorities" contended, "there have been doubts" whether children born in the country to alien parents were even "citizens" (let alone "natural-born citizens"). And Wong Kim Ark did not hold Wong to be a “natural born Citizen.” I have to take the word of our U.S. Supreme Court over that of McElwee. It took the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark to make a child born in the U.S. to domiciled alien parents a “citizen” from the moment of birth. But no U.S. Supreme Court case has held that such a child is a “natural born Citizen.”Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-46296164755334252462012-05-22T01:07:51.456-04:002012-05-22T01:07:51.456-04:00I of II
I shared with John Woodman at his site a...I of II <br /><br />I shared with John Woodman at his site an article written by Pinckney G. McElwee, Natural Born Citizen, found in the Congressional Record, June 14, 1967, at 15875. I shared the article to give Mr. Woodman some background information on the Naturalization Act of 1790. I did not say that the McElwee supports my position. Of course, Mr. Woodman cannot just let things be so he has to turn around and say that the McElwee article shows that I am wrong in my position on the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Here is my response to him: <br /><br />************** <br /><br />John Woodman, <br /><br />Why can you not speak one piece of truth about anything that I say? I never said that Pinckney G. McElwee supports my position on what a “natural born Citizen” is. <br /><br />There is some good information in his article, like what I shared with you on the 1790 Naturalization Act, but then there are many things in his article with which I do not agree. <br /><br />First, let us look at what I consider to be the bad. McElwee's problem is that he was so bent on making sure the children born out of the United States were not eligible to run for President, i.e. George Romney, that he sold his soul to the English common law, arguing that the English common law required birth in the country to be a "natural born subject," and that while a naturalization statute made children born out of the country "citizens," those children were at best naturalized "citizens" at birth. This position drives him to many contradictions which usually occurs when one relies upon the English common law to define U.S. citizenship. Hence, he maintained, George Romney, born in Mexico, naturalized at birth under a Congressional Act, could not be a "natural born Citizen," but rather only a "citizen" naturalized at birth. Being naturalized, he concluded he was not eligible to be President. He was so determined to show how powerful birth in the country was that he even erroneously considered the Founders, who were born in the colonies which became the states, to be “natural born Citizens.” <br /><br />McElwee touched upon the issue of what is a "natural born Citizen" only on a very superficial level. While he found great comfort, although unjustifiably, in Wong Kim Ark to support his position that George Romney was not eligible to be President (Wong Kim Ark made Wong a “citizen” by the power of being born in the country and also said that persons born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents, while citizens at birth, were still naturalized citizens under an Act of Congress), his analysis is wanting in the so many historical sources which inform on the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” <br /><br />Another problem with McElwee’s analysis is that he said George Romney, being born in Mexico, was born with “dual citizenship” which disqualified him from being a “natural born Citizen,” but then held a child born in the U.S. to alien parents, who is also born a “dual citizen,” eligible to be President. You seem to be a fan of McElwee. How do you justify such a contradiction? <br /><br />Second, now let us look at what I consider to be the good. Here is some other material included in his article which you have left out of your commentary: <br /><br />(1) “But the question under consideration is not one of simple citizenship but rather, whether he is a ‘natural born citizen’ as prescribed in the Constitution of the United States for the Presidency.” Here, he correctly recognized that being a “citizen of the United States” is not sufficient to be eligible to be President. He correctly stated that one has to be a “natural born Citizen.” <br /><br />(2) He quoted Horace Binney, as quoted in Wong Kim Ark, thus: “ ‘The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen.’” He emphasizes that Binney made his comparison between alien and natural born, not native born. This is an important point which needs further understanding. <br /><br />Continued . . .Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-22991242797753651082012-05-21T16:49:40.330-04:002012-05-21T16:49:40.330-04:00Let's face it if someone were to own the "...Let's face it if someone were to own the "mass media" and also were to own a copy of the missing INS records (which would essentially prove that Obama is not even a citizen, let alone a "natural born citizen"), they might be able to "convince" Obama to do things which are not in America's best interest...like attacking Libya or Iran.<br /><br />Now that Mario has decisively terminated the Obots and dragged their bloody virtual corpses through the streets of cyberspace, maybe he can put his skills to work on formulating a new legal approach to the issue of "standing" based on the fact that Obama is blackmailable.Harold Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11589162564501693632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-13236006078857374442012-05-21T14:01:08.083-04:002012-05-21T14:01:08.083-04:00I find it interesting that I have seen no mention ...I find it interesting that I have seen no mention of the one non-judicial, non-legal event that has bearing on the subject. I am referring to the War of 1812, whose bicentenary we now celebrating. One of the issues that led to war was the British impressing American sailors into the Royal Navy, on the excuse that they remained "natural-born subjects" of the crown. IMHO, the fact that this was one of the causes (although, admittedly, not the only one) would suggest that we did <b><i>not</i></b> accept the definition given by English Common Law.<br />Also, I read somewhere that Madison himself stated (perhaps with reference to the same circumstances) that "the Common Law of England is <i><b>not</b></i> the Common Law of the United States of America."NJ_Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17684407335985785581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-13385524594735968872012-05-21T13:45:18.736-04:002012-05-21T13:45:18.736-04:00One of the things that amazes me in all this analy...One of the things that amazes me in all this analysis is the ignoring of a single, non-judicial, non-legal fact. I am referring to the War of 1812, whose 200th anniversary is now being celebrated. If I recall correctly, one of the issues in contention was the impressing of American sailors into the Royal Navy, on the grounds that they were still "native-born subjects" of the British Crown. IMHO, the fact that we went to war to settle this (admittedly, amongst other issues) would suggest that we did NOT accept the supremacy of English Common Law.<br />I also believe there was a statement by Madison himself that "the Common Law of England is not the Common Law of the United States."NJ_Tomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17684407335985785581noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-62036572187940762792012-05-21T12:08:10.984-04:002012-05-21T12:08:10.984-04:00@ Harold Smith said...
Here is something which I ...@ Harold Smith said...<br /><br />Here is something which I don't see anyone else talking about:<br /><br />Obama needs to be dethroned because he is blackmailable.<br /><br />================================<br /><br />Amen! EXACTLY!! That is such a critical point. I continue to be astounded that 'nobody' seems concerned.Carlylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371651852897376905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-64263562397531650002012-05-21T11:10:30.469-04:002012-05-21T11:10:30.469-04:00Vattel defined a “natural-born citizen” as follows...Vattel defined a “natural-born citizen” as follows: <br /><br />“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758). <br /><br />Minor, in 1875 held: <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 />Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875). Clearly the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor was just paraphrasing Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen.” Here is more evidence: <br /><br />The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814): Chief Justice John Marshall, concurring and dissenting for other reasons, cites Vattel and provides his definition of natural born citizens and said: <br /><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 ‘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 /><br />Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857): Justice Daniels concurring cites Vattel and The Law of Nations and provides his definition of natural born citizens and takes out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively, stated: <br /><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 natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.” Again: I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country. . . .” <br /> <br />As we can see, the Supreme Court justices in both of these examples not only quoted Vattel, but actually cited him. And there is no doubt that Vattel actually defined a “natural-born citizen” in Section 212 of his acclaimed treatise upon which the Founders and Framers so heavily relied during the Founding.<br /> <br />The Obots make the frivolous argument that Minor did not define a “natural-born citizen” because the Court first said “all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens” and then said that such children were “natural born citizens.” They say that because the description comes before “natural-born citizen,” the Court only gave an example of what a “natural-born citizen” is. This interpretation of what Minor intended is rather absurd given how the Supreme Court has always understood the meaning of "natural-born citizen" and stated its definition. See Vattel at Section 212; The Venus; and Dred Scott. Minor was well aware of how Vattel defined a “natural-born citizen” and how The Venus and Dred Scott treated what Vattel said. <br /><br />The Obot argument is also absurd from a policy point of view. I have continuously asked them to provide all the other “examples” of these other alleged definitions of a “natural-born citizen” that the Founders and Framers had in mind when they wrote “natural born Citizen” into the Constitution. Of course, they do not and cannot answer. And all this comes from the intellectually righteous Obots.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-40977578102986673662012-05-21T02:53:19.372-04:002012-05-21T02:53:19.372-04:00Mario it is almost word for word
Puzo1 said...
&q...Mario it is almost word for word<br /><br />Puzo1 said...<br />"I just asked jonroland the following:<br /><br />Jonroland,<br /><br />Tell me if this is a definition of a “natural born citizen:”<br /><br /> “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758)."<br /><br />--------------------------<br />@ jonroland<br /><br />Here's the SCOTUS statement straight from Minor V Happersett, which demonstrates the strong influence of & favor for the principle of perpetuating the "blood-line" of the progeny of citizens and so perpetuate the nation, as was espoused by the very popular Vattel ....<br /><br />Minor:<br />"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 />All the SCOTUS did was put the "natives or natural-born citizens" part from Vattels passage at the end of the passage of text instead of at the beginning like Vattel.<br /><br />By placing the result/subject at the beginning of the passage of text (like the Vattel's layout), the Minor court virtually said the exact same as what they had already said, virtually only the "natives or natural born citizens" part is the other way around anyway ........ nothing in the meaning and definition really changes.<br /><br />Placing "natives or natural born citizens" at the beginning, simply puts the passage in the same order as the Vattel passage, but doesn't change what is being expressed.<br /><br />e.g. here's the result/subject placed at the beginning of the passage showing the SCOTUS virtually saying the same thing, using the Vattel sentence structure and order of nouns.....<br /><br />"the natives or natural born citizens are all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens, these children upon their birth, became citizens also. They were distinguished from aliens or foreigners."<br /><br />One thing of interest is that this statement .... "were natives or natural-born citizens" .....<br /><br />It's like the court is describing both the indigenous native and/or natural-born.<br />It might very likely have additional wisdom in its saying .... "were native", and connecting/including what the natives represented, with what a "natural born citizen" represented, i.e. a deep sense of allegiance to a place and to parents and ancestors ..... a deep sense and connection and collective sovereignty, that it is the place of ancestors to be treasured.MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-846685120388446122012-05-20T18:37:16.764-04:002012-05-20T18:37:16.764-04:00Unfortunately, I happened to be drinking a coffee ...Unfortunately, I happened to be drinking a coffee when I read that gibberish. Now, who's going to buy me a new keyboard?Harold Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11589162564501693632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-63139568291647337902012-05-20T17:46:41.354-04:002012-05-20T17:46:41.354-04:00First, “birth” is just the event of being “born”. ...First, “birth” is just the event of being “born”. “Natural born” means the result of “natural birth”.<br /><br />So a person born in the US to citizen parents, but delivered cesarean, is not eligible? Hahahaha! <br /><br />All citizens are eligible except those delivered c-section... how utterly moronic.<br /><br />Stop already - my sides hurt from laughing so much!Rayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04798180198665083783noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-50201833792046889622012-05-20T17:29:21.896-04:002012-05-20T17:29:21.896-04:00I just asked jonroland the following:
Jonroland...I just asked jonroland the following: <br /><br />Jonroland, <br /><br />Tell me if this is a definition of a “natural born citizen:” <br /><br />“The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758).Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-45030105794843063852012-05-20T17:21:45.307-04:002012-05-20T17:21:45.307-04:00Here is the intellectual strength (actually nothin...Here is the intellectual strength (actually nothing but gibberish) of the Obot machine. And these Obot arguments are supposed to be "winning" arguments. You be the judge: <br /><br />Author: jonroland<br />Comment: Mario, you just insist on misstating and misciting. First, "birth" is just the event of being "born". "Natural born" means the result of "natural birth". Second, Happersett does not contain a definition. A statement that "there is no doubt" that someone born on U.S. soil and also born to U.S. citizen parents is a "natural born citizen" could just as easily be "There is no doubt that someone born on U.S. soil and also born to U.S. citizen parents and also 100 feet tall and also having negative mass and also [any attribute you might want to throw in] is a natural born citizen." That is only saying that at least one of the attributes listed have to be true, but it is not saying that all of them have to be true. You have simply got to learn basic logic and grammar.<br /><br />Source: http://www.gopusa.com/freshink/2012/05/01/natural-born-citizen-requirements/comment-page-6/#comment-14367Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-44294132318391942702012-05-20T15:41:13.194-04:002012-05-20T15:41:13.194-04:00Andy,
You see, regardless of whether you answer ...Andy, <br /><br />You see, regardless of whether you answer “yes” or “no” to my “black widow spider” question, you lose. If you answered “yes,” you would be admitting that Minor v. Happersett gave us a definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Of course, you think you are real slick so you say “no” as not to fall into that trap. But then your “genius” does not realize that by saying “no,” you are denying that a child born in a country to parents who are citizens of that country is a “natural born Citizen” which is what the English common law, you and your Obot clan, and the whole world has always conceded. That the definition of a “natural born Citizen” (“black widow spider) is broader, as you incorrectly maintain, does not mean that a child born in the country to citizen parents is not a “natural born Citizen” (is not a “black widow spider”). Nice playing, Andy, but you lose, again.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-80917451604086132262012-05-20T15:27:02.018-04:002012-05-20T15:27:02.018-04:00SCOTUS in the Minor court doubted a native-born ch...SCOTUS in the Minor court doubted a native-born child to non-citizen parents was a US "citizen", but used the term "natural born citizen" to describe a native-born child to US citizen parents.<br /><br />All because of the status of the parents.MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-14936531801906347782012-05-20T15:08:14.406-04:002012-05-20T15:08:14.406-04:00III of III
So this other class of persons that M...III of III <br /><br />So this other class of persons that Minor referred to and which it said created doubts concerning whether it should be “include[d]” as a “citizen” class was comprised of neither “natural-born citizens” nor naturalized citizens, for if its persons fell into any one of these categories, there would be no question that that class too was to be included as a “citizen” class. This other class was made up of children who had been born in the United States to alien parents and still sought birthright citizenship. We know that under the exiting naturalization acts of Congress, they could not even be “citizens of the United States” through naturalization after birth until their parents naturalized if done during their minority or on their own thereafter, let alone born “citizens.” But because of the Fourteenth Amendment and its new “subject to the jurisdiction” clause, a new question now needed to be answered. Were these children, born in the United States to one or two alien parents, born “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and therefore “citizens of the United States?” Minor did not and did not need to answer that question because Virginia Minor was a “citizen” by virtue of being a “natural born Citizen.” <br /><br />The question left open by Minor was eventually answered by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) which held in 1898 that a child born in the United States to domiciled alien parents was born “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and therefore a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States.” So, Wong created this other class of born “citizen” (a new birthright U.S. citizenship ). While not holding him to be a “natural-born citizen” because of not meeting the “no doubt” definition of a “natural-born citizen” confirmed by Minor, Wong Kim Ark held Wong to be a “citizen of the United States” under the new Fourteenth Amendment. <br /><br />Minor confirmed the precedential definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Wong Kim Ark did not change that definition, but rather created a new born “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. <br /><br />Finally, there is a constitutionally critical distinction between an Article II “natural born Citizen” and a Fourteenth Amendment born “citizen of the United States.” The former is born with allegiance and loyalty only to the United States. The latter is born with allegiance and loyalty not only to the United States, but through jus sanguinis, also to the nation of any parent who is not a U.S. citizen at the time of his or her birth. <br /><br />Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, only a “natural born Citizen,” not having any allegiance or loyalty to any foreign power from the moment of birth, is eligible to be President.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-51523073368657936522012-05-20T15:07:33.773-04:002012-05-20T15:07:33.773-04:00II of III
(b) With respect to the ultimate holdi...II of III <br /><br />(b) With respect to the ultimate holding of the Court, unfortunately for Virginia Minor, the Court also held that voting was not included as part of Article IV privileges and immunities. Hence, the state of Missouri could decide through its own state laws whether women would be given the right to vote. Since Missouri through its constitution and statutes decided that it would not allow women to vote, there was nothing the U.S. Supreme Court could do about it. Therefore, Virginia Minor won the battle to show that a woman was as much a “citizen” as any man was, but lost her battle to establish that as a woman and “citizen,” she had the constitutional right to vote which Missouri or any other state could not abridge because of the Fourteenth Amendment.<br /><br />What all this shows is that all “natural born Citizens” are necessarily “citizens.” Hence, there is no doubt that someone who is a “natural born Citizen” is a “citizen.” It was never doubted that any child who was born in the country to citizen parents, which made them “natural born Citizens,” were also “citizens.” There were “no doubts” that such a person was a “citizen” because there were “no doubts” that such a person is a “natural born citizen,” and there were “no doubts” that all “natural born Citizens” are necessarily “citizens.” So Minor’s “no doubts” go to both what a “natural born Citizen” is and also to the fact that anyone who is a “natural born Citizen” is also necessarily a “citizen.” But ultimately, being a “citizen” did not give one the right to vote under the privileges and immunities of Article IV. <br /><br />(2) Another important point about Minor, which has been unjustifiably exploited by those who argue that Obama is a “natural born Citizen,” is the Minor Court’s statement: <br /><br />“Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.” <br /><br />In all, the Court did nothing more than say that there were two types of “citizens,” “natural-born citizens” and naturalized “citizens,” with both being “citizens.” It added that “some authorities” “include” as “citizens” “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents.” Given what the Court had explained was a “natural-born citizen,” the Court was not suggesting that this other “class” of person could be included with the “natural-born citizen” class. Rather, it said that there was a question whether it was proper to “include” the members of this other class of persons as “citizens.” And the reason there were doubts whether it was proper to “include” them as “citizens” is that, unlike Virginia Minor, they were not “natural-born citizens” which would have automatically qualified them to be “citizens” and therefore removed any doubt about their status. And they could not be “natural-born citizens” because they were not born in the country to “citizen” parents. <br /><br />Continued . . .Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-81732311861003921792012-05-20T15:06:44.452-04:002012-05-20T15:06:44.452-04:00I of III
Justin,
You said in reference to Minor...I of III<br /><br />Justin, <br /><br />You said in reference to Minor v. Happersett: “The ‘no doubt’ part isn't about the definition of natural born Citizen, it's about the citizenship status of natural born children.” <br /><br />I disagree. <br /><br />(1) The Court’s ultimate goal in Minor was to determine whether women, as “citizens of the United States,” had the constitutional right to vote which states could not abridge because of the privileges and immunities enjoyed by “citizens” under Article IV and the protection from state abridgement that they received under the Fourteenth Amendment. <br /><br />(a) While the parties did not contest that Virginia was a “citizen,” before it could answer the underlying question, the Court sought to first determine whether the first premise of its question was true. Hence, the Court set out to first determine through a thorough and well reasoned analysis which took it back to the founding and to the present, whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen.” <br /><br />After explaining who the Founding “original citizens” were and how more citizens could be made by Congress under its naturalization powers, it accomplished that goal of determining whether Virginia Minor was a “citizen” by confirming what the definition of a “natural born Citizen” had been under American “common-law” or national law, i.e., a child born in a country to parents who are citizens of that country which definition was a paraphrase of Emer de Vattel, Section 212, The Law of Nations (1758). The Court then told us that all “natural born Citizens” are necessarily also “citizens.” Hence, Virginia Minor, born in the United States to citizen parents which made her a “natural born Citizen” under the definition confirmed by the Court, was also necessarily a “citizen.” Being a “citizen,” she was therefore entitled to the “citizens[’]” privileges and immunities of Article IV which received protection from state abridgement through the Fourteenth Amendment. <br /><br />Here is a logical syllogism that shows what the Minor Court held in its initial holding: <br /><br />All “natural-born citizens” are “citizens.” <br />Virginia Minor was a “natural born citizen.” <br />Virginia Minor was a “citizen.” <br /><br />Continued . . .Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-2189532186066082082012-05-20T13:59:30.418-04:002012-05-20T13:59:30.418-04:00Here is something which I don't see anyone els...Here is something which I don't see anyone else talking about:<br /><br />Obama needs to be dethroned because he is blackmailable.<br /><br />This is not to minimize the fact that he is in violation of the letter and spirit of the Constitution and has defrauded the people of the U.S., accordingly, but to point out why anybody living in the U.S. should have standing to bring some kind of legal action. <br /><br />Just think if you had the original (or even a copy of) the suspiciously missing records from the INS archives showing that his Mother and he flew from Kenya to Hawaii in early August 1961.<br /><br />What defense is there against that damning proof? <br /><br />What would Obama do for me, for example, if I had that INS record in my hand and the power and influence (media and otherwise) to make it an issue? <br /><br />Clearly, the "machine" has enough control over the "system" that this issue would be the perfect lever of control, should "President" "Obama" happen to develop a conscience or to get cold feet and stray from the agenda. <br /><br />Our Masters, experts at deceit and the manipulation and control of morally incompetent people, would have the power and the finesse to use this lever against Obama while at the same time obstructing the hapless peasantry from seeking justice.<br /><br />As fate would have it, the "birther" movement seems to be spiraling out of their control, and as such, may have paradoxically given Obama some small degree of "freedom" (as if in "nothing to lose" freedom)...but I digress.<br /><br />The point is, I don't want a blackmailable "President" in office, because he can never represent me, he can only represent whoever it is that's holding the missing INS records, for example. And whoever has those missing records wants to destroy what's left of the U.S.Harold Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11589162564501693632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-16013859423466336622012-05-20T13:54:32.245-04:002012-05-20T13:54:32.245-04:00@Puzo1
My answer: No
Read here:
http://en.wikip...@Puzo1<br /><br />My answer: No<br /><br />Read here:<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_widow_spider<br /><br />LIke NBC, the "black widow spider" is a much broader term than you can get your head around.Andyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12015953394964020906noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-17794285272127599582012-05-20T12:49:18.942-04:002012-05-20T12:49:18.942-04:00@ Unknown said...
It was I understand to prevent ...@ Unknown said...<br /><br />It was I understand to <b>prevent treachery by someone with divided loyalties becoming president</b> and thereby commander and chief. <br /><br />=================================<br /><br />Exactly! You have to grasp this basic point before you are entitled to argue detail and nuance. If not, all your arguments collapse into various versions of "how many angels can dance on a pin".<br /><br />It is very like having a Supreme Court justice that had never read The Federalist Papers. We would never be so stupid as to do that! Oh, wait - - - OOPS! - - -Carlylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371651852897376905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-77322969836429031472012-05-20T12:44:13.375-04:002012-05-20T12:44:13.375-04:00The Obots seem especially fond of and extremely fi...The Obots seem especially fond of and extremely fixated on SOIL right now. I can hardly wait until it is proved that The Obama was not born in US. At which point, one can only suppose, they will immediately and wholesale convert to BLOOD! And of just one parent.<br /><br />One can only imagine what they will do when they further find out that The Obama had a foreign mother also. Perhaps some form of Immaculate Conception or Magic?Carlylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371651852897376905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-89382279885295211392012-05-20T12:21:02.338-04:002012-05-20T12:21:02.338-04:00Time for a quick break to ponder this:
If "B...Time for a quick break to ponder this:<br /><br />If "Barack Obama" is the "President", then this is not the United States of America.Harold Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11589162564501693632noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-17645546631239535072012-05-20T07:43:24.642-04:002012-05-20T07:43:24.642-04:00Even Minor conceded that there is a difference bet...Even Minor conceded that there is a difference between citizen and subject. If he had conceded that there meant the same thing, then English Common Law would have certainly been asserted, but he didnt. <br /><br />The 4th paragraph of the opinion makes this very clear;<br /><br />"For convenience it has been found necessary to give a name to this membership. The object is to designate by a title the person and the relation he bears to the nation. For this purpose the words "subject," "inhabitant," and "citizen" have been used, and the choice between them is sometimes made to depend upon the form of the government. Citizen is now more commonly employed, however, and as it has been considered better suited to the description of one living under a republican government, it was adopted by nearly all of the States upon their separation from Great Britain, and was afterwards adopted in the Articles of Confederation and in the Constitution of the United States. When used in this sense it is understood as conveying the idea of membership of a nation, and nothing more."<br /><br />The rest is history. Mario hit it right on the head and the Obots just fail. Read the WHOLE OPINION and its FULL meaning comes into focus. Take statements out of that context, and the conclusions become lies of omission.jshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03556528525557443583noreply@blogger.com