tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post6492614342246305327..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: Carmon Elliott Files a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court on Ted Cruz Not Being a Natural Born CitizenMario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger265125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-33229380454574410042018-05-10T23:56:52.776-04:002018-05-10T23:56:52.776-04:00Dittos addendum...
Hi Mario,
A few hours ago I w...Dittos addendum...<br /><br />Hi Mario,<br /><br />A few hours ago I was thinking about your two points in paragraph two of your post yesterday here on your Natural Born Citizen blog on May 5, 2018 at 6:44 PM.<br /><br />>> (1) birth or reputed birth in the country <br />>> (2) to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth<br /><br />Mario, <br /><br />To refute your informed conclusion about the two points you made yesterday in the second paragraph, all that needs to be done is for the Obama Obots and the Cruz Cbots, both of which promote the thesis that ONLY one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient for a child to be eligible to be POTUS, even if the child is born to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent on U.S. soil (Sen. Obam) or born on foreign soil NOT under U.S. jurisdiction to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent (Texas Senator Ted Cruz), all they need to do is adduce text where at the least one, ONLY one, just ONE, of the 1787 constitutional convention delegates said that ONLY one U.S. citizen is sufficient for a child to be eligible to be POTUS.<br /><br />In all the recorded discussion among the constitutional convention delegates about the meaning of "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 clause 5 between July 25, 1787 and September 17, 1787, was any delegate recorded as stipulating that ONLY one U.S. citizen parent was the implication of "natural born Citizen" in A2S1c5?<br /><br />Not that I know of.<br /><br />Does any neobirther, Obot or Cbot, know of any such discussion?<br /><br />Not that I know of.<br /><br />Mario, it seems that your two points in paragraph two on May 5, 2018 at 6:44 PM are irrefutable.<br /><br />Art<br />_OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com<br />_Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.com<br />_StopIslamizationOfAmerica.blogspot.comajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-8000790188111077872018-05-10T00:30:26.443-04:002018-05-10T00:30:26.443-04:00Dittos...
Hi Mario,
As you wrote in paragraph tw...Dittos...<br /><br />Hi Mario,<br /><br />As you wrote in paragraph two - - <br /><br />"...there are two elements in the definition of a natural born citizen under the common law...."<br /><br />I concur and I think that John Jay would also agree with you. Jay was a founder and New York ratifier of the U.S. Constitution, including the "natural born Citizen" language in Article II Section 1 clause 5, POTUS eligibility language that was included in Jay's short note on July 25, 1787 to his good friend George Washington and his wife Martha.<br /><br />As I have written before here on your Natural Born Citizen blog and have extrapolated about the original genesis original intent of John Jays' implicit meaning for writing the words "natural born" in conjunction with "Citizen" in his note to Washington sixty-two days before the language of the constitution was adopted, John Jay could ONLY have meant, ONLY implied one thing, marriage to ONLY one spouse ONLY BEFORE the birth of the child.<br /><br />_ONLY singular U.S. citizenship <br />>>>>>[definitely NOT dual citizenship]<br /><br />_ONLY by birth alone <br />>>>>>[ONLY birth and "natural law" and definitely NOT birth and "positive law"]<br /><br />_ONLY on U.S. soil/jurisdiction <br />>>>>>[self-evident because dual citizenship was definitely NOT implied]<br /><br />_ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents <br />>>>>>[self-evident because obviously NOT implied was one OR zero U.S. citizen parents]<br /><br />_ONLY married <br />>>>>>[definitely NOT implied was ONLY one U.S. citizen parent]<br /><br />_ONLY to each other <br />>>>>>[definitely NOT a husband with multiple wives, Mormon OR Muslim]<br /><br />_ONLY before their child is born <br />>>>>>[self-evident by commonsense, NOT by implication]<br /><br />Art<br />StopIslamizationOfAmerica.blogspot.comajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-28861904883087102162018-05-05T18:44:58.989-04:002018-05-05T18:44:58.989-04:00Hello Art,
Thank you for sharing that with us. ...Hello Art, <br /><br />Thank you for sharing that with us. I agree with John Vlahoplus in part. I agree with him that a child born out of the United States to one or even two U.S. citizen parents who are out of the country for private reasons is not a U.S. citizen under the common law, but rather can only be a naturalized citizen under a naturalization Act of Congress, and that therefore such child is not nor can he or she be a natural born citizen under the Constitution. I disagree with how he dismisses the relevance (requirement) of the birth parents ("jus sanguinis") in the natural born citizen definition. <br /><br />As you know, my years of research and litigation in the courts has led me to the conclusion that there are two elements in the definition of a natural born citizen under the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution and therefore under the Constitution, i.e., (1) birth or reputed birth in the country (2) to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth. While the 14th Amendment could have changed this definition, it did not. Nor can any Act of Congress supplant it. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-89712950949358165042018-05-01T11:56:04.770-04:002018-05-01T11:56:04.770-04:00Natural Born Citizen...
Hi Mario,
"John Vla...Natural Born Citizen...<br /><br />Hi Mario,<br /><br />"John Vlahoplus has posted 'Natural Born Citizen': A Response to Thomas H. Lee (American University Law Review Forum (Forthcoming)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:<br /><br />"In "Natural Born Citizen" Thomas H. Lee provides a challenging and in his own words "novel interpretation" of the original meaning of that constitutional term. ... ."<br /><br />This is the url for the abstract on Larry Solum's Legal Theory Blog:<br />>> http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2018/04/vlahoplus-on-lee-on-natural-born-citizen.html<br /><br />This is the url for the SSRN download page for the 19 page pdf:<br />>> https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3154894<br /><br /><b>I. THE TRADITIONAL DEFINITION OF "NATURAL BORN"<br />II. LEE'S ANALYSIS<br />III. OBJECTIONS TO LEE'S STATUTORY ANALYSIS<br />A. Calvin's Case<br />B. Blackstone<br />C. Common Law and Acts of Parliament<br />D. American Understanding of Common and Constitutional Law<br />E. Relevance of Vattel</b><br /><br /><b>D. American Understanding of Common and Constitutional Law</b><br /><br />"In his 1783 Notes on British and American Alienage <b>Thomas Jefferson</b><br />wrote that "[t]he state of the father . . . does not draw to it that of the child,<br />at the Common law."101 Instead, "a Natural subject having a son born in a<br />foreign state; the son was an alien at the Common law."102 Jefferson did not<br />believe that the statutes were declaratory of the common law; instead they<br />naturalized the foreign-born child. "The stat. 25.E.3. st.2. first naturalized<br />him if both parents were, at the time of his birth, natural subjects; and<br />7.Ann.c.5. and 4.G.2.c.21. where the father alone was."103 <b>James Madison</b><br />agreed, writing in 1813 that Britain "naturalizes persons born of British<br />parents in Foreign Countries".104 And the most widely used law dictionary<br />in the early Republic105 listed the Acts of Edw. III, Ann., Geo. II and Geo.<br />III under the term "Naturalization" along with the act naturalizing persons<br />who lived in the colonies for seven years and private acts of Parliament<br />naturalizing foreigners.106<br /><br />"<b>John Adams</b> also denied that children born out of the monarch's<br />dominions were natural born at common law. He wrote in 1775 that "our<br />ancestors, when they emigrated, . . . could not have taken arms against the<br />king of England, without violating their allegiance, but their children would<br />not have been born within the king’s allegiance, would not have been<br />natural subjects, and consequently not intitled to protection, or bound to the<br />king."107<br /><br />"In addition, all of the members of the First Congress who spoke in the<br />reported debates over the first federal naturalization act recognized that<br />foreign-born children of American citizens are aliens who can only become<br />citizens by naturalization. In discussing them Rep. Sherman stated that the<br />difference between a citizen and an alien is that "the citizen is born in the<br />country."108 <br /><br />[...]<br /><br />"<b>The historical evidence from Jefferson, Madison, Adams and the First<br />Congress demonstrates that <i>Americans did not consider</i> foreign-born<br />children of citizen fathers who had gone abroad for private purposes to be<br />natural born citizens under the <i>common law or the Constitution</i>."</b><br /><br /><br />Art<br />Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.comajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-24061833544773635172018-04-27T01:06:41.729-04:002018-04-27T01:06:41.729-04:00Dittos...
Hi Mario,
John Jay, the author of &quo...Dittos...<br /><br />Hi Mario,<br /><br />John Jay, the author of "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his good friend George Washington, would agree that you made an excellent point about the lack of natural born Citizen status of Texas Senator Ted Cruz who was born on foreign soil to only one U.S. citizen parent, and it does not matter the date when the statute was codified by the U.S. Congress.<br /><br />This quote is from the last sentence of your last paragraph posted here on your Natural Born Citizen blog on April 24, 2018 at 6:15 AM:<br /><br />>> "Senator Cruz is constitutionally eligible to be a U.S. Senator, <br />>> who needs to be a 'Citizen of the United States” for a minimum of 9 years, <br />>> but not the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Military <br />>> who must be a “natural born Citizen.' "<br /><br /><b>To be 1787 Article II Section I clause 5 "...eligible to the Office of President" of the United States of America, a person must obviously, as John Jay implied, have<br /><br />_ONLY singular U.S. citizenship<br />_ONLY by birth alone<br />_ONLY on U.S. soil <br />_ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents <br />_ONLY married <br />_ONLY to each other <br />_ONLY before their child is born</b><br /><br />Anybody who says otherwise must first adduce text where founder John Jay said and Constitutional Convention President George Washington agreed that a "natural born Citizen" eligible to be president of the United States was ANY person born ANYWHERE on earth to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, OR born on U.S. soil to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent OR... OR... according to the 1898 United States vs. Wong Kim Ark Supreme Court "fiat" decision, that a person born on U.S. soil to ZERO U.S. citizen parents was a U.S. "citizen" and so eligible to be POTUS.<br /><br />Personally, I'm not holding my breath.<br /><br />John Jay, the ultimate definer of the natural born meaning of "natural born Citizen" and my "nbC" new best friend has the final word on the ONLY original genesis original intent meaning about "natural born Citizen" and thus eligibility to be POTUS.<br /><br />Art<br />http://original-genesis-original-intent.blogspot.com/ajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-11953856136962198532018-04-24T09:54:38.562-04:002018-04-24T09:54:38.562-04:00"A naturalization Act of Congress made Senato..."<i>A naturalization Act of Congress made Senator Cruz a “citizen of the United States” “at birth.” ...</i>"<br /><br />And, in fact, since his mother didn't fill-out the paperwork required by that <i>Act of Congress</i> until he was 16 years old, Cruz wasn't <i>technically</i> a US citizen until he was 16 ... and here 'technically' means "in fact of law".Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-49288611222872058502018-04-24T06:15:35.693-04:002018-04-24T06:15:35.693-04:00John C. Moritz of the Caller Times and USA Today N...John C. Moritz of the Caller Times and USA Today Network argues that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen. See https://www.caller.com/story/news/local/texas/state-bureau/2018/04/23/what-you-need-know-ted-cruz/522021002/ . He is mistaken. <br /><br />To throw off all vestiges of a monarchy and to assure absolute loyalty to and thus survival of the constitutional Republic, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that today the President of the United States, who also serves as the Commander in Chief of the Military, must not only be a "Citizen of the United States." Rather, the President must be a "natural born Citizen."<br /><br />Under the law of nations and the applicable common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution, an Article II natural born citizen was a person born or reputed born in the county to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth. Hence, a natural born citizen became a citizen of the country in which he or she was born by virtue of birth circumstances alone and not by the aid of any positive law. The Framers adopted this definition into the Constitution and to date it has never been changed. <br /><br />Senator Ted Cruz is not an Article II natural born citizen. Senator Cruz was born in a foreign country (Canada) to a Cuban father and a U.S. citizen mother. In other words, he was born not only in a foreign nation, but also to a non-U.S. citizen father. Being born to a U.S. citizen mother alone is not sufficient to make him a natural born citizen. It is not enough to give him that allegiance or tie to the United States which a natural born citizen has and which the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Military must have, i.e., unwavering attachment to the nation by being born in it to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth. <br /><br />A naturalization Act of Congress made Senator Cruz a “citizen of the United States” “at birth.” Without this positive law, he would not have been a U.S. citizen at all, let alone a U.S. citizen at birth. One does not become a natural born citizen by way of a naturalization statute passed by Congress. Rather, one becomes a natural born citizen under the common law by the circumstances of birth alone, i.e., being born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth. <br /><br />Hence, Senator Cruz is a citizen of the United States at birth by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress (a positive law), not an Article II natural born citizen by virtue of his birth circumstances alone. Senator Cruz is constitutionally eligible to be a U.S. Senator, who needs to be a “Citizen of the United States” for a minimum of 9 years, but not the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the Military who must be a “natural born Citizen.” <br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-75235709178159319512018-02-01T19:49:58.243-05:002018-02-01T19:49:58.243-05:00Art,
Thank you for sharing this article with us....Art, <br /><br />Thank you for sharing this article with us. I took a quick look and will examine it in more depth. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-5018168398530150602018-02-01T17:10:25.024-05:002018-02-01T17:10:25.024-05:00The url.
Mario, here is the url for the "Ori...The url.<br /><br />Mario, here is the url for the "Originalism and Corpus Linguistics" abstract.<br /><br />>> http://lsolum.typepad.com/legaltheory/2018/01/lee-phillips-on-originalism-and-corpus-linguistics.html<br /><br />Artajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-40980476364030766042018-02-01T16:59:49.677-05:002018-02-01T16:59:49.677-05:00Originalism and Corpus Linguistics
Hi Mario,
On ...Originalism and Corpus Linguistics<br /><br />Hi Mario,<br /><br />On December 31 Prof. Larry Solum posted an abstract about <b>"...a newly released corpus (or database) of founding-era texts"</b> by Thomas R. Lee (Government of the State of Utah - Utah Supreme Court; Brigham Young University - J. Reuben Clark Law School) & James Cleith Phillips (The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty; University of California, Berkeley - Department of Jurisprudence & Social Policy) - - "The initial beta version will contain approximately 150 million words, ... ."<br /><br />Paragraph 4:<br /><br />"To showcase corpus linguistic methodology, the paper will <b>analyze important clauses in the Constitution</b> that have generated litigation and controversy over the years — commerce, public use, and <b>natural born</b>."<br /><br />Here a some sentences of the abstract:<br /><br />"The threshold question for all originalist methodologies concerns the original communicative content of the words of the Constitution. ... . Dictionaries generally just define individual words; they don’t typically define phrases or allow for the consideration of broader linguistic context. And while dictionaries can provide a list of possible senses, they can’t tell us which sense is the most ordinary (or common). ... .<br /><br />"Originalists have also turned to examples of usage in founding-era documents. ... . Originalists tend to turn only to certain sources, such as the Federalist Papers or the records of the state constitutional conventions, and those sources may not fully reflect how ordinary users of English of the day would have understood the Constitution (or at least have used language). Second, the number of founding-era documents relied on is often rather small, ... .<br /><br />"But all is not lost. Big data, and the tools of linguists, have the potential to bring greater rigor and transparency to the practice of originalism. This article will explore the application of corpus linguistic methodology to aid originalism’s inquiry into the original communicative content of the Constitution. We propose to improve this inquiry by use of a newly released corpus (or database) of founding-era texts: the beta version of the Corpus of Founding-Era American English. The initial beta version will <b>contain approximately 150 million words</b>, derived from the Evans Early American Imprint Series (books, pamphlets and broadsides by all types of Americans on all types of subjects), the National Archives Founders Online Project (the papers of Washington, Franklin, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Hamilton, including correspondence to them), and Hein Online’s Legal Database (cases, statutes, legislative debates, etc.).<br /><br />"The paper will showcase how typical tools of a corpus — concordance lines, collocation, clusters (or n-grams), and frequency data — can aid in the search for original communicative content. We will also show how corpus data can help determine whether a word or phrase in question is best thought of as an ordinary one or a legal term of art. To showcase corpus linguistic methodology, the paper will <b>analyze important clauses in the Constitution</b> that have generated litigation and controversy over the years — commerce, public use, and <b>natural born</b>. We propose best practices, and also discuss the limitations of corpus linguistic methodology for originalism.<br /><br />"Larry Solum has predicted that “corpus linguistics will revolutionize statutory and constitutional interpretation.” Our paper seeks to chart out the first steps of that revolution so that others may follow."<br /><br />Art<br />Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.comajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-30440998442992874492018-01-27T00:53:44.788-05:002018-01-27T00:53:44.788-05:00A "fact" vs. an "article that rates...A "fact" vs. an "article that rates"<br /><br />Hi Mario,<br /><br />Come on Unknown/Bry/Bryan, you know better than to assert innuendo as fact. Politifact rates the comment by the Texas State Rep. as "pants on fire" but does not refute the accuracy of the statement contained in the header of the 2011 article, "Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children denies President Barack Obama was born there."<br /><br />After 10 years can you refute it Bryan?<br />Has Kapiolani Medical Center claimed baby Obama as their own?<br /><br />The header of the article states that Kapiolani "denies" baby Obama's birth there, but the more accurate header statement would be that Kapiolani has never "claimed" that baby Obama was born there.<br /><br />In 2009 WND.com posted the article that Queens Medical Center was "dropped" by the White House as the place of baby Obama's birth and claimed Kapiolani is the birth hospital: "...the White House has dropped statements by the president’s family and other spokesmen claiming he was born in Queens Medical Center, instead asserting the president was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center."<br /><br />Again, it is the Obama's making the claim of being born a Kapiolani, not Kapiolani claim that baby Obama was born there.<br /><br />In 2011 WND.com again (and Snopes.com*) posted an article showing baby Obama's Certificate of Live Birth that was provided by BHO, but, and it's a BIG but, it is Obama making the claim of being at Kapiolani. Kapiolani still has NEVER claimed baby Obama as their own.<br /><br />* https://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/birthers/birthcertificate.asp<br /><br />Deal with it Bryan and Obot neobirthers, since baby Obama's alleged birth in "Hawaii" in 1961 no hospital in the United States has EVER claimed baby Obama as theirs... no public or private announcement... no plaque on no wall... no nothin'.<br /><br />Art<br />OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.comajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-32759487810547969602018-01-25T01:48:41.275-05:002018-01-25T01:48:41.275-05:00Ajtelles, I'm impressed. You outdid yourself w...Ajtelles, I'm impressed. You outdid yourself with that claim and citation that you marked with "*1". You asserted it as fact, and cited it to a Politifact article that rates it, "Pants on Fire". Wow. How can you top that?<br /><br />-BryUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01405240206736586939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-46568608381479425162018-01-22T18:46:39.564-05:002018-01-22T18:46:39.564-05:00Opinion vs. Fact
Hi Mario,
Carlyle makes a valid...Opinion vs. Fact<br /><br />Hi Mario,<br /><br />Carlyle makes a valid point about wanting "access to original source documents" and Unknown/Bryan offers the ancient Factcheck.org article which is not sourced because there is no source for the hospital of baby Obama's birth.<br /><br />For example, it is a fact that officials at the Department of Health and at Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children claim that they can't give out private info about baby Obama's birth in Hawaii or at a hospital. However, it is also a fact that if baby Obama had been born at Kapiolani Medical Center (or at Queen Medical Center) either hospital would definitely have had a public announcement (without private info) of baby Obama's birth at their facility and would have put a plaque on at least one hospital wall, either inside or/and outside.<br /><br />It is also a fact that not one hospital in the United States has EVER had a public announcement about baby Obama's birth at their facility. <br /><br />"Kapiolani Medical Center for Women and Children denies President Barack Obama was born there".*1 "Neither hospital recognized the fact that he was born there and not only that, but you would think that the hospital that gave birth to the president of the United States would have some kind of commemorative plaque or something," and "the White House has dropped statements by the president’s family and other spokesmen claiming he was born in Queens Medical Center, instead asserting the president was born at Kapi’olani Medical Center."*2<br /><br />*1 (2011) http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2011/apr/27/leo-berman/state-rep-leo-berman-says-kapiolani-medical-center/<br /><br />*2 (2009) http://www.wnd.com/2009/07/103796/#kPHXKA1zEpzAYhVf.99<br /><br />It is also a fact that Factcheck.org, Unknown's source, mentions that the Department of Heath <b><i>"confirmed"</i></b> baby Obama's birth in the state of Hawaii, but nowhere on the page is a hospital mentioned. Did I miss it? Did Factcheck.org forget to ask for the name of the hospital?<br /><br />>> https://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/<br /><br />"Update, Nov. 1: The director of Hawaii’s Department of Health confirmed Oct. 31 that Obama was born in Honolulu."<br /><br />"Update Nov. 1: The Associated Press quoted Chiyome Fukino as saying that both she and the registrar of vital statistics, Alvin Onaka, have personally verified that the health department holds Obama’s original birth certificate."<br /><br />Ok, the <i>"health department holds Obama's original birth certificate,"</i> but in which hospital was baby Obama born, and which hospital issued a birth certificate?<br /><br />So Carlyle, it looks like you're not going to get a serious response from Unknown/Bryan who still has no source after 10 years.<br /><br />What's up with that Unknown/Bryan...or any neobirthers who may be reading this? Are there no new online articles from 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 that can be adduced which name the hospital which can claims credit for naming the doctor who saw baby Obama's birth? Is there no single source -- yet, after 10 years -- taking credit for being the only place on earth as the birth place of baby Obama?<br /><br />Art<br />StopIslamizationOfAmerica.blogspot.comajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-78508021638154331852018-01-22T15:03:14.600-05:002018-01-22T15:03:14.600-05:00Carlyle wrote:
"That is just more opinion.&qu...Carlyle wrote:<br />"That is just more opinion."<br /><br />Does the internet work differently for you? Reporters from the University of Pennsylvania's FactCheck.org went out and checked the facts. I linked their report of the facts: https://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa/<br /><br /><br />Carlyle wrote:<br />"Like any good historian, I want access to original source documents."<br /><br />So please cite for us some of the histories you've published with the original birth documents you used in your research.<br /><br /><br />Carlyle wrote:<br />"There are also MANY other unanswered questions and/or mysterious inconsistencies."<br /><br />Proponents of crank conspiracy theories pretty much always say that.<br /><br />-BryanUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01405240206736586939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-87403797306399755922018-01-22T01:27:16.371-05:002018-01-22T01:27:16.371-05:001st Scenario ONLY...
Hi Mario,
Hi Robert Pilchlm...<b>1st Scenario ONLY...</b><br /><br />Hi Mario,<br /><br />Hi Robert Pilchlman, is any other scenario relevant for consideration if the ONLY original genesis original intent scenario of John Jay, when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend George Washington, was:<br /><br />ONLY singular U.S. citizenship<br />ONLY by birth alone<br />ONLY on U.S. soil/jurisdiction<br />ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents<br />ONLY married<br />ONLY to each other<br />ONLY before their child is born<br /><br />Now, if, and it's a BIG "if", if Jay implied by underlining the word "born" that a child could be born anywhere on earth (U.S. soil OR foreign soil) to zero or one or two dual citizenship parents (or two alien citizen parents as the 1898 United States v. Wonk Kim Ark "fiat" decision proclaimed and which has never been corrected by statute or amendment by the U.S. Congress), well then, MAYBE, multiple scenarios could be considered to bring clarity to what a "natural born Citizen" is so that a person could be "...eligible to the Office of President" of the 1787 militarily weak United States of America.<br /><br />I don't think that John Jay and George Washington would have considered any other scenario to be relevant to the natural security of the new nation but ONLY singular U.S. citizenship that could ONLY be passed on to the child by ONLY two U.S. citizen parents who did NOT have dual U.S./foreign citizenship but who had ONLY singular U.S. citizenship to pass on to the child.<br /><br />If anybody, a neobirther with an agenda or a constitutional scholar, has ever articulated a dual U.S./foreign citizenship scenario for the parents that would make their child a "natural born Citizen" with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, well, they certainly have NEVER done so yet, at least not that I am aware of and have never heard about.<br /><br />PS.<br /><br />A "neobirther" is simply a handle for anybody who promotes the 20th/21st century myth and theory that ONLY one parent with ONLY U.S. citizenship is the sufficient intent of "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution. One U.S. citizen parent (or two dual U.S./foreign citizenship parents) is contrary to the semantic original genesis intent for original "birther" John Jay underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington, an original "genesis" intent that could ONLY imply that "born" meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship that could ONLY be passed on from ONLY two married parents with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship. <br /><br />If ONLY singular U.S. citizenship is Jay's only scenario, all other scenarios are picayune, of little value or importance for consideration because the 1787 reason for Jay underling the word "born" in his note to Washington was the national security of the new and militarily weak United States of America. <br /><br />My conclusion is that Jay's original genesis original intent for underlining the word "born" in 1787 is that Jay and Washington agreed that the command of the new U.S. military was to "devolve" ONLY on a person with singular U.S. citizenship which Article II Section 1 clause 5 identified as a "natural born Citizen" of the new and militarily weak United States of America.<br /><br />Art<br />StopIslamizationOfAmerica.blogspot.comajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-25123393026866097362018-01-20T23:39:30.734-05:002018-01-20T23:39:30.734-05:00
4th Scenario / Scenario D:
A child is born in t...<br />4th Scenario / Scenario D: <br /><br />A child is born in the United States (in U.S. jurisdiction) to two parents (John and Jane Doe) who both have dual citizenship - both John and Jane Doe are American citizens but they both are also citizens of another country. Would the child be a natural born Citizen? Also would it matter if the other country that John and Jane Doe are citizens of would be the same or different? In my opinion, if the other country that John and Jane Doe are citizens of would be the same then it would be even more difficult to believe that such a child would be considered a natural born Citizen to Vattel. Any thoughts? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472760191473468260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-12853234461163531972018-01-20T16:43:02.539-05:002018-01-20T16:43:02.539-05:00Date correction...
Hi again Mario,
While the url...Date correction...<br /><br />Hi again Mario,<br /><br />While the urls are correct on yesterday’s comment here (January 20, 2018 at 12:58 AM), I got a couple of dates wrong.<br /><br />This quote has the correct dates --<br /><br />"Here are the urls from two previous posts here on your Natural Born Citizen blog about ALL 5 of the children of Pres. Trump, who, while U.S. citizens, are not Article II Section 1 clause 5 eligible to be POTUS, articles that I posted here on" February 22, 2016 at 6:59 PM, and July 25, 2016 at 9:43 PM.<br /><br />February 22, 2016 at 6:59 PM<br />>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/02/donald-trump-is-right-to-retweet-that.html<br /><br />July 25, 2016 at 9:43 PM<br />>> https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/07/carmon-elliott-files-petition-for-writ.html<br /><br />Also, Melania naturalized on July 28, 2006 (not 2016), four months after Barron was born on March 20, 2006.<br /><br />PS.<br /><br />Mario, I wonder if the neobirthers, Democrat or Republican or Independent or Libertarian or Anarchist or whatever and whoever, who assert the "myth", the "theory" that ONLY one U.S. citizen is implied in "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 clause 5, will they defend the children of Pres. Trump if they want to be elected POTUS even though they were born with ONLY one U.S. citizen parent?<br /><br />Here's a sensible question for neobirthers: <br /><br />If ONLY "one" U.S. citizen parent is, as some neobirthers have said before, "good enough" and "sufficient" (for national security purposes) for a person to be eligible to be POTUS, is ONLY "two" of lesser sufficiency or of greater sufficiency? If they say that "two" is of greater sufficiency for security purposes they are admitting that ONLY "one" is of lesser sufficiency and is NOT "good enough" to protect the integrity of the original genesis original intent of John Jay's underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 not to George Washington. <br /><br />To protect the integrity of the office of president, ONLY two U.S. citizen parents is sufficient because ONLY two U.S. citizen parents can pass on to the child ONLY singular U.S. citizenship and eligibility to be president.<br /><br />Now, if any neobirther can articular how and why a child born with dual U.S./foreign citizenship is better than OR equal to a child born with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, well, let them try 'cause Unknown/Bryan sure can't -- he's never tried and he never will 'cause he can't -- and neither can ANY neobirther defend the "myth", the "theory" that dual U.S./foreign citizenship is better than OR equal to ONLY singular U.S. citizenship for eligibility to the office of president.<br /><br />Art<br />Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.comajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-31081355524420744742018-01-20T00:58:16.911-05:002018-01-20T00:58:16.911-05:002/2
See Ivana's naturalization notice in the ...2/2<br /><br />See Ivana's naturalization notice in the May 26, 1988 Lewiston-Auburn, Maine Journal. She naturalized 11 years after Don was born, 7 years after Ivanka was born, and 4 years after Eric Trump was born.<br /><br />>> https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1899&dat=19880527&id=LiEgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=YmYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5053,3823442&hl=en<br /><br />"With her at <b>Wednesday's ceremony</b> was her husband, billionaire developer Donald Trump."<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />"Mrs. Trump, a 38 year-old, Austrian-born, former Czechoslovakian national, came to this country 10 years ago after working as a model in Montreal."<br /><br />"Donald John "Don" Trump, Jr. (born December 31, 1977)...."<br />>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump,_Jr.<br /><br />"Ivanka Marie Trump (/iˈvɑːnkə/, born October 30, 1981)...."<br />>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivanka_Trump<br /><br />"Eric Frederic Trump (born January 6, 1984)...."<br />>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Trump<br /><br />Maybe Mr. Trump's friend, author Ann Coulter, could take the bull by the horns and write at least one entire article about how Mr. Trump's children are not eligible to be president of the U.S. for the same reason that Mr. Cruz and Mr. Rubio are not eligible: all 5 "citizens" do not fulfill the original genesis (birth) original intent (citizenship) of ONLY singular U.S. citizenship ONLY by birth on U.S. soil ONLY by birth to two (2) U.S. citizen parents.<br /><br /><b>Here is the second article:</b><br /><br />>> https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/07/carmon-elliott-files-petition-for-writ.html<br /><br />Here is something relevant to the “nbC” “issue” issue; an update about the POTUS eligibility of Donald Trump’s five children, Don, Ivanka, Eric, Tiffany, Barron.<br /><br />_Ivana naturalized four years after third child Eric was born.<br />_Fourth child Tiffany was born before Donald and Marla were married.<br />_Melania naturalized four months after fifth child Barron was born.<br /><br />I posted the dates earlier here on July 7, 2016 at 1:46 PM, and here is another Wikipedia page that has the dates all on one page in the Personal Life – Family section. Melania’s naturalization date of July 28, 2016 is not noted but she did reveal it during her RNC speech on July 19, 2016.<br /><br />>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#Family<br /><br />Listen to Melania at 5min. 35sec. of her RNC speech. She naturalized July 28, 2006, three months and three weeks after Barron was born March 20, 2006.<br /><br />>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVQsj95dI1c<br /><br />Mario, all five of Donald Trump’s children are not Article II Section 1 clause 5 natural born citizens.<br /><br />Although all five children were born to at least “one” U.S. citizen parent on U.S. soil in accordance with the implication of the Fourteenth Amendment language that <i>“All persons born...in the United State...are citizens of the United States….”</i>, all five were not born to two U.S. citizen married parents in accordance with the implication of “born” and “citizen” in Article II Section 1 clause 5. <br /><br />Well, Mario, that’s the current situation concerning the eligibility to be POTUS of Pres. Trumps 5 children.<br /><br />If it wasn’t for John Jay underlining the word “born” in “natural born Citizen” in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington, a suggestion that was accepted “as is” by the constitution delegates, we would not have an “original genes” (born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen married parents) starting point for understanding Jay’s original intent about who would be eligible to be POTUS and commander in chief of the U.S. military (ONLY a U.S. “citizen” who was by birth ALONE a “natural born Citizen).<br /><br />Art<br />Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.comajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-69169987178447756532018-01-20T00:57:58.488-05:002018-01-20T00:57:58.488-05:001/2
What...Unknown...again?
Mario,
Unknown is su...1/2<br /><b>What...Unknown...again?</b><br /><br />Mario,<br /><br />Unknown is such a waste of time because he lacks depth and substance. He merely ridicules with shallow soul silliness.<br /><br />Unknown, aka Bryan has not and he never will respond to my request for a response about what John Jay, the author of the underlined word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington, what did Jay mean by the natural law words "natural born" as associated with the positive law word "Citizen" which was accepted without debate by the constitutional convention delegates?<br /><br />Did Jay mean that eligibility to be POTUS was ONLY by birth alonw ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents ONLY married to each other ONLY before the child was born ONLY on U.S. soil/jurisdiction with ONLY singular U.S. citizenship, or was eligibility to be POTUS ALSO by dual U.S./foreign citizenship whether born on U.S. soil OR foreign soil to either two or one or zero U.S. citizen parents?<br /><br />It's such a simple question with ONLY one answer, not two, not either or, which would definitely be confusing to John Jay and George Washington.<br /><br />Mario, the shallow thinking by the neo-birthers, as articulated by Unknown/Bryan, is boring 'cause they, well, they are not very deep, they are shallow when it comes clarifying what John Jay's original genesis original intent was on July 25, 1787 for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen", a suggestion that was adopted and subsequently incorporated into the U.S. Constitution in Article II Section 1 clause 5 on September 17, 1787.<br /><br />It seems to me that America still needs information about who is "...eligible to the Office of President" with the talk by some Pres. Trump supporters that Donald Trump Jr. or maybe Ivanka Trump Kushner could be POTUS in the future. Well, not if they are not "natural born" Citizens.<br /><br />Here are the urls from two previous posts here on your Natural Born Citizen blog about ALL 5 of the children of Pres. Trump, who, while U.S. citizens, are not Article II Section 1 clause 5 eligible to be POTUS, articles that I posted here on February 2, 2016 and February 7, 25, 2016<br /><br />>> http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/02/donald-trump-is-right-to-retweet-that.html<br />>> https://puzo1.blogspot.com/2016/07/carmon-elliott-files-petition-for-writ.html<br /><br /><b>Here is the first article:</b><br /><br />"...birth alone..."<br /><br />Mario,<br /><br />In your third paragraph you accurately state "...birth alone. ... birth does not exist in a vacuum."<br /><br />>> "A natural born citizen is a citizen by virtue of birth and birth alone. <br />>> "But birth does not exist in a vacuum. <br />>> "There are circumstances that exist at the time of birth. <br />>> "Those circumstances are, among many, the parents to whom one is born <br />>> "and the place where one is born. ..."<br /><br />One of the circumstances as you mention in this article, and in the previous two articles, is the citizenship of both parents and where the child is born.<br /><br />I have a suggestion for Mr. Trump about how to clarify who a "natural born Citizen" is that will get the respect of the Cruz birthers, the Rubio birthers, etc., and that is to bring into the eligibility conversation the naturalization date of his first wife, Ivana and the birth dates of his own children with Ivana.<br /><br />If Donald Trump were to simply state that his own children are not natural born citizens because, while they were born on U.S. soil, they were not born to two U.S. citizen parents, so they are not "...eligible to the Office President" according to the original intent of Article II Section 1 clause 5, so he, as a presidential candidate must insist that both Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio not pursue the presidency of the United States because they [were] not natural born citizens.<br /><br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~ajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-46565128062160800562018-01-19T10:06:17.461-05:002018-01-19T10:06:17.461-05:00@unknown/bryan
That is just more opinion. Like an...@unknown/bryan<br /><br />That is just more opinion. Like any good historian, I want access to original source documents.<br /><br />There are also MANY other unanswered questions and/or mysterious inconsistencies. The usual news diggers (and folks like yourself) have had zero interest or even the least curiosity. The only logical explanation is that all are afraid of what they might find.<br />Carlylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371651852897376905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-77640344206681342032018-01-18T08:10:40.935-05:002018-01-18T08:10:40.935-05:00Unknown/Bryan ,
It must really smart losing your...Unknown/Bryan , <br /><br />It must really smart losing your arguments here. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-40645777802618148052018-01-18T02:48:05.519-05:002018-01-18T02:48:05.519-05:00Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:
"Whether or not Nikk...Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:<br />"Whether or not Nikki Haley is an Article II "natural born citizen" depends on"...<br /><br />It sure doesn't depend on what you say, Esquire Apuzzo. Here we are, over two hundred comments under an article you wrote a year and a half ago about challenging the Article II eligibility of Ted Cruz. Need I remind you of your results on that?<br /><br />We all know that Ted Cruz was a tangent for you, as is Nikki Haley, but he was by far the best chance you ever had. Your perfect test case: a Canadian-born son of a Cuban. You vandalized your client's efforts with your crank nonsense, but the arguable notion that a good lawyer might have done better against Cruz will not help against Haley. I don't know whether Ambassador Haley will run for our highest office, but I can safely predict that she will *not* run for president of your fantasy world. Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01405240206736586939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-71381036104201675402018-01-18T02:12:09.981-05:002018-01-18T02:12:09.981-05:00Carlyle wrote:
"Personally, I don't KNOW ...Carlyle wrote:<br />"Personally, I don't KNOW the actual and complete truth - but I would like to find out"<br /><br />Did the link I gave not work for you? I'll check again... yeah it works:<br /><br />https://www.factcheck.org/2008/08/born-in-the-usa<br /><br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01405240206736586939noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-91426588564593260592018-01-15T16:36:06.843-05:002018-01-15T16:36:06.843-05:00Bryan,
You have asked me to continue, so here we...Bryan, <br /><br />You have asked me to continue, so here we go. <br /><br />Whether or not Nikki Haley is an Article II "natural born citizen" depends on what definition of the clause one accepts. The historical and legal evidence demonstrates that the Founders and Framers in matters of allegiance and citizenship took their legal norms and definitions from the law of nations and the common law thereunder. That body of law defined a natural born citizen as a child born or reputed born in the country to parents who were both citizens of the United States at the time of the child's birth. The first Acts of Congress in matters of naturalization reflect this definition when they provided for the naturalization of all others not born under such circumstances. Hence, the original meaning of a natural born citizen under the Constitution is a child born in the country to parents who were both citizens of the United States at the time of the child’s birth. <br /><br />While Nikki Haley was born in the United States, she was born to parents who were both non-U.S. citizens. She is therefore a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the subsequent Fourteenth Amendment (not the common law) which did not amend the common law definition of the natural born citizen clause. Not also being born to U.S. citizen parents, she is not an Article II natural born citizen.<br /><br />As you see, there is no crying involved, just historical and legal evidence and reason. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-5417564256207339612018-01-15T14:40:14.768-05:002018-01-15T14:40:14.768-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com