tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post6483332312512557512..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: How Obama’s Enablers Mislead the Public on the Meaning of an Article II “Natural Born” CitizenMario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger84125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-56264113107006424952012-02-11T21:21:57.709-05:002012-02-11T21:21:57.709-05:00Peter Fuller MBA CA,
Our Constitution in Article...Peter Fuller MBA CA, <br /><br />Our Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and in other sections distinguishes between a "natural born Citizen" and a "citizen." Today, only a "natural born Citizen" may be President. <br /><br />Virginia Minor, born in the U.S. to citizen parents, could not be anything but a "natural-born citizen." <br /><br />The Court said that some authorities maintain that a person could also be a "citizen" by being simply born in the U.S., regardless of the person's parents' citizenship. The Court said that there was no doubt that a child born in the country to citizen parents was a "natural- born citizen." The Court added that "there have been doubts" whether a child born in the U.S. to alien parents was a "citizen."Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-31424157298378361032012-02-11T19:32:57.797-05:002012-02-11T19:32:57.797-05:00Talk about taking Minor out of context:
He is the...Talk about taking Minor out of context:<br /><br />He is the relevant part of the decision:<br /><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, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. 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 />Any honest person who read that passage would conclude that the decision did not define what a natural-born citizen was.<br /><br />"For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts."<br /><br />The only conclusion was that she was a citizen.Peter Fuller MBA CAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12084063084160027214noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-48848060707404963822011-12-02T15:24:46.756-05:002011-12-02T15:24:46.756-05:00A Pen,
Early acts of Congress are good evidence ...A Pen, <br /><br />Early acts of Congress are good evidence of the Founders' and Framers' intent regarding what they wrote in the Constitution. <br /><br />We know that in 1795, the Third Congress repealed the Naturalization Act of 1790. Nevertheless, we are still free to examine the reason why Congress passed the 1790 Act. We are not constrained from doing so by whether the statute is still in force or whether it was repealed. There are varied reasons why a statute may be repealed. We can examine that old statute and draw whatever reasonable conclusions we may concerning why Congress passed it and later repealed it.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-76089723061590936442011-12-02T10:13:51.469-05:002011-12-02T10:13:51.469-05:00Mario, in Minor the court cited the repealed 1790 ...Mario, in Minor the court cited the repealed 1790 act attempting to set rules of naturalization. Does that require the court to revisit that part of their conclusion because they derived intent from a law that does not exist? Would it be possible to then revisit the "born beyond seas or out of the jurisdiction of the US" clause to discern what power of naturalization exists beyond seas or outside it's jurisdiction concerning natural born citizens? They did cite it so it ought to be fair to test it, no? Under the premise that an unconstitutional law never had the force of law it's arguable that a law repealed can still be tested if the court cites it, no?A penhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06519441140048530323noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-13745236884598616872011-11-06T17:43:10.919-05:002011-11-06T17:43:10.919-05:00Tampering with Constitutional meaning & intent...Tampering with Constitutional meaning & intent.<br /><br />Justice Scalia blows the whistle on SCOTUS justices tampering with Constitutional meaning, definitions and intent.<br /><br />(Remove the spaces between the h t t p to use the url link)<br /><br />h t t p://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/current/guest_commentary/scalia-constitutional-speech.htm<br /><br />Quoting Justice Scalia:<br />“Now, in asserting that originalism used to be orthodoxy, I do not mean to imply that judges did not distort the Constitution now and then, of course they did.<br /><br />We had willful judges then, and we will have willful judges until the end of time.<br /><br />But the difference is that prior to the last 50 years or so, prior to the advent of the “Living Constitution,” judges did their distortions the good old fashioned way, the honest way — they lied about it.<br /><br />They said the Constitution means such and such, when it never meant such and such.<br /><br />It’s a big difference that you now no longer have to lie about it, because we are in the era of the evolving Constitution.<br /><br />And the judge can simply say, “Oh yes, the Constitution didn’t used to mean that, but it does now.”<br /><br />We are in the age in which not only judges, not only lawyers, but even school children have come to learn the Constitution changes.<br /><br />I have grammar school students come into the Court now and then, and they recite very proudly what they have been taught: “The Constitution is a living document.” You know, it morphs.<br /><br />Well, let me first tell you how we got to the “Living Constitution.”<br /><br />You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand it.<br /><br />The road is not that complicated. <br />Initially, the Court began giving terms in the text of the Constitution a meaning they didn’t have when they were adopted”MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-83199051658961064482011-11-02T13:46:36.887-04:002011-11-02T13:46:36.887-04:00The definition I have read for binding precedent i...The definition I have read for binding precedent is that it is a court decision that is binding on all lower courts.<br /><br />Stare decisis -- let the decision stand -- is not necessarily binding, although I suspect that a court would have to have a very good reason for overturning a previous history of decisions.<br /><br />This leads to my question. Should an eligiblity case ever reach the Supreme Court, and assuming that the Supreme Court Justices follow all established legal practices, do they necessarily have to use the definition of natural born citizen established in Minor to determine whether a president or person is eligible?<br /><br />To phrase the question differently, can you forsee a legitimate line of reasoning that the Justices could use to change the Minor defintion? Or would their reasoning have to be such that it would justify the decision they wish to reach?Doubleehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09894977171356099262noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-91479626103571720022011-11-02T12:08:20.792-04:002011-11-02T12:08:20.792-04:00Further tampering uncovered at Justia. This whole ...<a href="http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2011/11/02/4217/" rel="nofollow">Further</a> tampering uncovered at Justia. This whole situation is creepily Orwellian.bdwilcoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03723935463347132039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-38602027247960326212011-11-02T09:07:04.426-04:002011-11-02T09:07:04.426-04:00Mr. Apuzzo,
I guess that we do not share many opi...Mr. Apuzzo,<br /><br />I guess that we do not share many opinions and beliefs and you may know that after my few posts.<br /><br />The more I appreciate that you published my "tongue in cheek" post with a reference to "Dr. Squeeky". No other player on this playground - on your side of the field - shows this courage.<br /><br />Sincerely<br />Your<br />EuropeanTheEuropeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10509078125073916666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-31009125114753374042011-11-02T01:02:56.511-04:002011-11-02T01:02:56.511-04:00I spent a little time in the law library leafing t...I spent a little time in the law library leafing through the oldest digests of U.S. case law.<br /><br />English statutes and case law were valid and authoritative as precedent, but only if not supreseded by U.S. (Federal, as Mr. Apuzzo points out) legislated acts. A Pennsylvania court required that any British statute to hold force of law first be listed with the state supreme court.<br /><br />It is indisputable that the 1772 British Nationality Act would consider a child such as Obama, born on U.S. soil, to be solely a British subject. Obama supporters try to claim that British law had no jurisdiction . . . yet, they anneal themselves to the jus soli concept of the 1608 Calvin's Case to insist Obama is a natural born citizen. <br /><br />The fact that Obama is ineligible and his actions as president proceeding from the time of his inauguration are void and a sham is . . . well, you come up with an analogy. <br /><br />I think it was Mr. Apuzzo, with Atty. Hemenway, who cited the Great Chief Justice Marshal in the Cohen's case, that ignoring this matter of constitutional law is TREASON.<br /><br />If you know your local Sheriff, please contact him . . . these are powerful enforcers of law with impressive jurisdiction.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-90095361906522921572011-11-01T12:07:47.535-04:002011-11-01T12:07:47.535-04:00TheEuropean,
Dr. Squeeky would better spend her ...TheEuropean, <br /><br />Dr. Squeeky would better spend her time studying the foundation and history of our nation rather than flipping through DSM IV, practicing pseudo-psychology, and making psychiatric diagnosis of phantom patients, all done for the purpose of misleading and deceiving the American public as to the true meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-67960591058077104342011-10-31T23:19:21.164-04:002011-10-31T23:19:21.164-04:00paraleaglenm and bdwilcox,
As previously said, a...paraleaglenm and bdwilcox, <br /><br />As previously said, adoption of the English common law on the state level does not mean that that law was adopted on the national level. <br /><br />Apart from the fact that our U.S. Supreme Court has never defined a "natural born Citizen" under the English common law, but rather always under natural law and the law of nations, here is some information:<br /><br />(1) In The Federalist No. 42 (J. Madison), Madison said in 1787: <br /><br />“The power to define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, belongs with equal propriety to the general government . . . . Felony is a term of loose signification, even in the common law of England; and of various import in the statute law of that kingdom. But neither the common nor the statute law of that, or of any other nation, ought to be a standard for the proceedings of this, unless previously made its own by legislative adoption. The meaning of the term, as defined in the codes of the several States, would be as impracticable as the former would be a dishonorable and illegitimate guide. It is not precisely the same in any two of the States; and varies in each with every revision of its criminal laws. For the sake of certainty and uniformity, therefore, the power of defining felonies in this case was in every respect necessary and proper.” Note that Madison said that the English common law would be a “dishonorable and illegitimate guide” for defining what a “felony” is. We can only imagine what Madison would have thought about defining a “natural born Citizen” by that same law.<br /><br />(2) The law of nations “acts everywhere proprio rigore, whenever it is not altered or modified by particular national statutes, or usages not inconsistent with its great and fundamental principles. Hensfield’s Case, 11 F.Cas. 1099 (C.C.D.Pa. 1793 (No. 6,360) (argument of counsel, Peter Du Ponceau).<br /><br />(3) James Monroe said in 1802 that “the application of the principles of the English common law to our constitution” should be considered “good cause for impeachment.” <br /><br />(4) "Manifestly, when the sovereignty of the Crown was thrown off and an independent government established, every rule of the common law and every statute of England obtaining in the Colonies in derogation of the principles on which the new government was founded was abrogated.” U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 709 (1898) (C. J. Fuller, dissenting). <br /><br />(5) And here is the nail in the coffin to the argument that the Founders and Framers followed English common law to define a “natural born Citizen,” the First Congress abrogated the English common law when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 which considered children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens. You will note upon a careful reading of Lynch v. Clark, (1844) 1 Sandf.Ch. 583 and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) that both courts ran as far as they could from the early naturalization acts. <br /><br />(6) Justice Souter, dissenting in Siminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1966) said that the Founders were hostile to receiving English common law as federal law for “the political systems of the new Republic, explaining that there was no notion of a federal government under the English common law prior to the adoption of the Constitution and they were very sensitive to the division of power between the states and the federal government). <br /><br />How then are we to believe that the Founders and Framers relied upon the English common law to define a “natural born Citizen.” <br /><br />See also The Framers Used Emer de Vattel, Not William Blackstone to Define a “Natural Born Citizen” at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/11/framers-used-emer-de-vattel-not-william.html ; <br /><br />The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law' as U.S. Federal Common Law Not English Common Law Define What an Article II Natural Born Citizen Is, at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/08/law-of-nations-and-not-english-common.html.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-74583421175111566032011-10-31T18:27:02.382-04:002011-10-31T18:27:02.382-04:00@bdwilcox
Of course, both the U.S. and India co...@bdwilcox <br />Of course, both the U.S. and India courts rely on English common law terms of art . . . however, except for flaccid reasoning of some judges deeming 'citizen' analagous to 'subject,' a 'natural born citizen' is not under the same legal authorities as 'natural born subject.'<br /><br />U.S. common law from the 1700s and 1800s recognized English law as precedent, as long as it didn't conflict with U.S. legislated act.<br /><br />2010 Code of Laws of South Carolina:SECTION 14-1-50. Common law of England shall continue in effect. [SC ST SEC 14-1-50]<br /><br />How about Virginia?<br /> <br />The common law of England, insofar as it is not repugnant to the principles of the Bill of Rights and Constitution of this Commonwealth, shall continue in full force within the same, and be the rule of decision, except as altered by the General Assembly. Code 1919, §2, §1-10; 2005, c.839<br /><br />Pa. 1897. The omission of a statute from the list of English statutes reported by the judges of the Supreme Court as in force in Pennsylvania, 3 Binn. 595, raises a strong presumption that such statute is not in force there. Gardner v. Keihl, 37 A. 829, 182 Pa. 194.<br /><br />The statutes passed in England before the emigration of our ancestors, which are in amendment of the law, and applicable to our situation, constitute a part of our common law. Pa. 1782. Morris’ Lessee v. Vanderen, 1 Dall. 64, 1 L.Ed. 38. O. & T. 1783. Republica v. Mesca, 1 U.S. 73, 1 Dall. 73. 1 L.Ed. 42.<br /><br />The Virginia Constitution, 1776: <br /><br />"Whereas George the third, King of Great Britain... By answering our repeated petitions for redress with a repetition of injuries: And finally, by abandoning the helm of government and declaring us out of his allegiance and protection. <br /><br />By which several acts of misrule, the government of this country, as formerly exercised under the crown of Great Britain, is TOTALLY DISSOLVED." (emphasis in the original) <br /><br />Further: <br /><br />"All laws shall originate in the House of Delegates... A Governor, [shall] exercise the executive powers of government, according to the laws of this Commonwealth; and shall not, under any presence, exercise any power or prerogative, by virtue of any law, statute or custom of England." <br /><br />The Origin of Government and Laws in Connecticut <br />JESSE ROOT, 1798 <br /><br />”These rights and liberties are our own, not holden by the gift of a despot. Our government and our rulers are from amongst ourselves; chosen by the free, uninfluenced suffrages of enlightened freemen; not to oppress and devour, but to protect, feed, and bless the people, with the benign and energetic influence of their power (as ministers of God for good to them). This shows the ignorance of those who are clamorous for a new constitution, and the mistake of those who suppose that the rules of the Common Law of England are the common law of Connecticut, until altered by a statute.”Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-48899660486105690002011-10-31T12:32:48.126-04:002011-10-31T12:32:48.126-04:00Don't forget that from the East Coast law scho...Don't forget that from the East Coast law schools to the country lawyer reading while on a horse, or by firelight, Blackstone was essential reading.<br /><br />However, even Blackstone noted the 1350 British law guaranteeing jus sanguinis natural British subjects born outside British territories.<br /><br />Calvin's Case was from 1608. The 1772 British Nationality Act superseded that legal discussion on jus solis. The 1772 Act featured jus sanguinis in its Preamble. <br /><br />It is one thing for U.S. jurists to show off their classical education by citing Lord Coke; it is another to correctly analyze the laws in force when Article II and the Natural Born Citizen clause was written, e.g., the 1772 British Nationality Act and the 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-35696414239525686202011-10-31T11:44:02.334-04:002011-10-31T11:44:02.334-04:00The founding fathers told us in no uncertain terms...The founding fathers <b>told us in no uncertain terms</b> that the Constitution was not based on English common law. On Thursday, June 19, 1788, George Mason, delegate from Virginia, was recorded in the notes from the <b>Federal Constitutional Convention</b>, <a href="http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_16.txt" rel="nofollow">stating</a>: "The common law of England is not the common law of these states."bdwilcoxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03723935463347132039noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-58741390750873775312011-10-31T08:44:00.380-04:002011-10-31T08:44:00.380-04:00Mr. Apuzzo,
there is a blogpost out there well wo...Mr. Apuzzo,<br /><br />there is a blogpost out there well worth to be read:<br /><br /><br />http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/de-vattel-delusion-disorder-a-psychiatric-diagnosis/<br /><br />Sincerely your<br /><br />EuropeanTheEuropeanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10509078125073916666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-17450623805010560292011-10-31T03:03:40.490-04:002011-10-31T03:03:40.490-04:00Mario, it is apparent from reading through Lord Co...Mario, it is apparent from reading through Lord Coke's report of Calvin's case, that there is no where to be found any determination of a natural born being such by jus soli only.<br /><br />It is the subject status of the parent father (albeit an alien born parent with "local ligeance")which qualifies a child born in England, as a "natural born subject".<br />i.e. "born under the ligeance of a subject'"<br /><br />So even as the obots cite English common law to enhance their argument, there is nothing in English common law that supports their case.<br /><br />The obots have selectively cherry-picked from Calvin's case claiming that "child born in England to an alien parent = natural born subject" which is only part of the truth.MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-91193134674457357172011-10-30T23:16:12.166-04:002011-10-30T23:16:12.166-04:00The Obots argue that the Founders and Framers got ...The Obots argue that the Founders and Framers got their definition of a “natural born Citizen” from the English common law because the Constitution and the English common law shared the same language, English. This theory is totally baseless. <br /><br />First, am I to believe that the Founders and Framers only knew one language, English. Of course not. We know that many of the Founders and Framers, in addition to English and other languages, knew Latin and French and read books in these other languages. Actually, books written in French were highly respected and considered important works in colonial America. <br /><br />Second, that common language surely did not stop the Americans from declaring their independence from and going to war with England. <br /><br />Third, are we to think that the Founders and Framers were persons of limited intellectual capacity who could not think of constitutional concepts on their own and had to rely on the English common law to write the Constitution because that Constitution was written in the same language as the English common law? Again, of course not. On the contrary, we know how well prepared and read they were. They were individuals of vast knowledge. The world was their garden, not just the English common law. <br /><br />Fourth, we know that the Founders and Framers did not adopt the English common law on the national level. Rather, they started fresh, writing on a tabula rasa. What they wrote on that slate was natural law and the law of nations.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-20395936647342378772011-10-30T00:13:38.713-04:002011-10-30T00:13:38.713-04:00The Big Dollop,
Please note that I did not "...The Big Dollop,<br /><br />Please note that I did not "postulate" that we have had "forty-four" people as Presidents. As I clearly showed in my article, it was the Indiana Court of Appeals in the Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana case that made that statement in Footnote 14 of its decision. The court could have said “forty-four presidencies held by forty-three people.” Maybe the court got their information from Wikipedia whose article on Barack Obama says he is the “44th President of the United States.” See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama . <br /><br />Thank you for pointing that out. We can now add that error to the list of other errors the Ankeny court made.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-51172344219402976162011-10-29T23:01:11.107-04:002011-10-29T23:01:11.107-04:00A very interesting article sir for which I offer ...A very interesting article sir for which I offer one minor critique <br /><br />Quote <br /> "For all but forty-four people in our nation’s history (the forty-four Presidents)"<br /><br />I was under the impression only 43 people have attained the office of President of the United States of America ... with Grover Cleveland being credited as 22nd and 24th President of the United States there can't possibly be 44 people as you postulate my friend.<br /><br />Yours Aye<br />TBDThe Big Dollophttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06075390518478908818noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-4791744174021925742011-10-29T00:02:20.018-04:002011-10-29T00:02:20.018-04:00Hi Mario,
Does this case have a snowball's ch...Hi Mario,<br /><br />Does this case have a snowball's chance in hell?<br /><br />Just filed this week - Liberty Legal Fdn suing the DNC.<br /><br />http://www.scribd.com/doc/70525434/LIBERTY-LEGAL-FOUNDATION-et-al-v-NDP-of-USA-INC-et-al-USDC-AZ-1-COMPLAINT-Gov-uscourts-azd-651381-1-0<br /><br />Maybe you could give these folks a hand?<br /><br />Hat tip to MichaelNjuniper55https://www.blogger.com/profile/05712527445827431533noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-31615946057765300802011-10-28T19:19:35.430-04:002011-10-28T19:19:35.430-04:00II of II
My response:
For the Founders and Fra...II of II<br /><br />My response: <br /> <br />For the Founders and Framers, for those born after July 4, 1776, “natural born Citizen of the United States” meant born in the county to citizen parents. See Samuel von Pufendorf (1691), Emer de Vattel (1758), and David Ramsay (1789). That a court or Congress subsequently added to our citizens by making other persons “born . . . citizens of the United States,” but not “natural born Citizen[s] of the United States” was neither intended to amend Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 nor did it amend that clause. <br /> <br />The Constitution gave Congress the power to make uniform the laws of naturalization. It did not give Congress the power to create “natural born Citizen[s],” which would in effect have given the power to Congress to change who may be eligible to become President without going through a Constitutional amendment. We saw the Third Congress in 1795 in the Naturalization Act of 1795 remove “natural born citizen” from the First Congress’s Naturalization Act of 1790 and replace it with “citizen of the United States.” Hence, 8 U.S.C. Section 1401 only defines “citizen[s] of the United States,” not “natural born Citizen[s] of the United States.” You will note from reading Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 that the status of being a “Citizen of the United States” as being the sufficient and necessary citizenship standard for presidential eligibility became obsolete for births occurring after 1787. For those born after 1787, the sufficient and necessary citizenship standard became “natural born Citizen,” which would have been and in fact was a more stringent test.<br /> <br />Minor’s “doubts” were about who was a Fourteenth Amendment “born . . . citizen of the United States,” not who was a “natural born Citizen of the United States.” You are confounding and conflating these two citizenship standards. <br /> <br />I do not know about your strawberries, but I will tell you that Vattel said a “natural-born citizen” is a child born in the country to citizen parents. The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758). This is a definition. This definition has been confirmed by, among other authorities, The Venus (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring and dissenting for other reasons), Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) (J. Daniels, concurring), Minor v. Happersett (1875), and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). <br /> <br />We can reduce this definition of a “natural born Citizen” to the following logical statements: If one is a natural born citizen, then one was born in the country to citizen parents (both being necessary and sufficient conditions).<br /> <br />Stated differently: One is a natural born citizen if and only if one is born in the country to citizen parents. <br /> <br />So as you see, I am only stating a bi-conditional and I am not affirming the consequent as in the case of your strawberry example. The difference in our logical arguments is that yours comes from finding and applying a fallacious logical statement to my argument (like applying the wrong law to a given factual scenario) while my comes from finding and applying a valid logical statement which represents the intent of the Founders and Framers in drafting a bright line rule for presidential eligibility (like applying the correct law to a given factual scenario). <br /> <br />Finally, you are wrong that the Founders and Framers left “natural born Citizen” undefined. They specifically told us who is a “natural born Citizen” by telling us in the early naturalization acts of Congress what persons needed naturalization in order to become a “natural born citizen” “at birth” which was later corrected to “citizen of the United States” “at birth” and a “citizen of the United States” after birth.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-45588533400865050962011-10-28T18:27:57.358-04:002011-10-28T18:27:57.358-04:00I of II
An Obama enabler by the screen name of “...I of II <br /><br />An Obama enabler by the screen name of “Sean” has posted these replies to my various comments at http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/pulp/2011/10/marco_rubio_citizen_birther_obama_kenyan.php#comment-348442671 :<br /><br />His comments: <br /><br />(1) “As a citizen, you are either ‘natural,’ or ‘naturalized.’ That's it. End of list. ‘Natural’ means you are a citizen as a condition of your birth, while ‘naturalized’ means you are a citizen via legal immigration and acceptance.<br /><br />8 USC 1401 pretty explicitly states conditions for citizenship at birth. I'm a little surprised a scholarly lawyer such as yourself doesn't cite the law at all.<br /><br />(2) ‘For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts,’ quoting Minor. <br /><br />This alone makes your interpretation of the court's opinion weak at best. It's a logical fallacy, much like: if all strawberries are red, then everything red must be a strawberry.<br /><br />(3) ‘The Natural Born Citizen Clause of Our U.S. Constitution Requires that Both of the Child’s Parents Be U.S. Citizens At the Time of Birthhttp://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009...’<br /><br />No, it doesn't. ‘Natural-born citizen’ is explicitly left undefined by the constitution (presumably to give Congress the authority to make that call).”<br /><br />Continued . . .Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-24536885598501373042011-10-28T14:46:59.905-04:002011-10-28T14:46:59.905-04:00Phil Stone,
The United States came into being pr...Phil Stone, <br /><br />The United States came into being prior to 1787. Our first Constitution was the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union which was drafted by the Continental Congress in 1776-77, was first used in 1777 and was formally ratified by all 13 states in 1781. This constitution referred to the confederacy as the “United States of America.” (Article I said: “The Stile of this Confederacy shall be ‘The United States of America.’"). http://www.law.ou.edu/ushistory/artconf.shtml. Our second constitution was the Constitution of 1787 which in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 refers to “natural born Citizen[s]” and “Citizen[s] of the United States.” These “Citizen[s] of the United States” were the “original citizens.” The Constitution also gave Congress the power to add to these citizens through naturalization. <br /><br />Only those born after July 4, 1776could be “natural born Citizen[s].” The reason for this is that under the natural law and law of nations definition of the term, a “natural born Citizen” needs parents who are “citizens.” Understanding the power of the doctrine of natural allegiance, the Founders and Framers expected both parents to be U.S. citizens so that the “natural born Citizen” child would be born within the full and complete allegiance and jurisdiction of the United States. <br /><br />The Founding generation was eligible to become “citizens of the United States” after July 4, 1776. Those who adhered to the American Revolution became “citizens of the United States.” These became the “original citizens.” These included our early presidents who were grandfathered under Article II to be eligible to be President. <br /><br />Under the same Article II, those born after 1787 had to be “natural born Citizen[s]” in order to be eligible to be President. These “natural born Citizen[s]” referred to the Founding generation’s children born in the United States. President Martin Van Buren was the first of this second generation to be a “natural born Citizen” president. As we have seen, the Constitution gave Congress the power to add to these citizens through naturalization. Hence, more “natural born Citizen[s]” could be made in the future by children being born in the United States to parents who were naturalized “citizens of the United States.”Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-73241442778260446342011-10-28T03:45:32.720-04:002011-10-28T03:45:32.720-04:002 of 2 The question is what is the difference in...2 of 2 The question is what is the difference in citizenship? Does this imply that natural born citizens have US parents and is it sufficient to define the meaning so that it stands alone. I am aware that the founders and framers knew what they were talking about and think the Constitution does define natural born citizen. old marine Phil Stonephil stonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08798840335706659721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-80102363254264273892011-10-28T03:34:56.482-04:002011-10-28T03:34:56.482-04:001 of 2 Was thinking ab...1 of 2 Was thinking about US Const.art 2 sec 1 - the phrase "a Citizen of the United States,at the time of the adoption of this Constitution" means to me that if one were born prior to 1787 the parents were not required to be US citizens since the US did not exist until 1787. Those born after 1787 were required to be natural born citizens.phil stonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08798840335706659721noreply@blogger.com