tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post7385447782706243948..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: Purpura and Moran File Petition for Certification With the NJ Supreme Court in Obama NJ Ballot ChallengeMario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger455125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-73489228490916811232012-10-14T20:51:45.183-04:002012-10-14T20:51:45.183-04:00Hello Mr. Apuzzo,
It is really very upsetting to ...Hello Mr. Apuzzo,<br /><br />It is really very upsetting to see that your case very likely will not be heard before the start of the Presidential election when it is directly related to it!!<br /><br />This judicial system in the US is worse than the worst dictatorships in the world!!! It is simply a mockery of justice, to say the least!!<br /><br />Thanks your efforts to fight to defend the Constitution of the USA and those who think they are above the law, like Hussein Obama, a closet Muslim who has already bankrupted the US by spending more than $6 TRILLION since he took office!!MichaelIsGreathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12020964848057963778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-82016091215605558992012-08-22T03:16:18.064-04:002012-08-22T03:16:18.064-04:00You could do just a bit of research to learn that ...You could do just a bit of research to learn that a parent cannot denounce the US citizenship of their child and that adoption wouldn't change citizenship status either.Lindahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15831390032950683208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-69274681653467928492012-08-08T21:56:31.427-04:002012-08-08T21:56:31.427-04:00William St. George said...
August 8, 2012 2:42 PM
...William St. George said...<br />August 8, 2012 2:42 PM<br /><br />===========================<br /><br />All that is exactly correct.<br /><br />I have never been as big on fighting the NBC battle as some of you (but Mario lets me post here anyway, grin), and have always said that El Presidente Wetback is no kind of American Citizen at all.<br /><br />His school records and passport records would clearly show that.<br /><br />All that is lacking is for a big stick to hit somebody over the head with - a huge smoking gun - choose your metaphor. Perhaps this new bit of information will help in that regard.<br /><br />No one has found any records of EPW ever being naturalized. He is not now an American citizen and perhaps never was. At most, just a few years when he was very young.<br /><br />That is THE BIG SECRET.Carlylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371651852897376905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-82673289001873433632012-08-08T14:42:40.031-04:002012-08-08T14:42:40.031-04:00There are now strong indications that Obama was in...There are now strong indications that Obama was indeed adopted by his mother's 'second' husband who was Indonesian and thereby became an Indonesian citizen and could attend public schools. Unless I am mistaken this would eliminate his status as a natural born citizen even if he were born in the USA, the son of two American citizens. I believe I am correct in thinking that he would have had to be naturalized to become an American citizen when he returned to Hawaii but am not sure what that would entail. Comments?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13458690256053943151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-21429489089433985992012-08-08T11:35:44.437-04:002012-08-08T11:35:44.437-04:00@jayjay said...
August 7, 2012 9:33 PM
===========...@jayjay said...<br />August 7, 2012 9:33 PM<br />============================<br /><br />Yes. Remember this chant:<br /><br />Every Means Available<br />Any Means Necessary<br /><br />Given the pronounced and ongoing criminal activity, middle-fingering the law and the constitution -- why would he 'follow the process' and gracefully lose and just walk away?<br /><br />Remember, I am a scientist and engineer. Think logically and follow trains of thought to their natural conclusions.<br /><br />I also continue to say to those who predict or worry that a coup is in the making:<br /><br />"The coup already happened."Carlylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371651852897376905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-24163230847930630572012-08-08T00:13:42.872-04:002012-08-08T00:13:42.872-04:00Just a reminder for the traitors, i.e. John Woodma...Just a reminder for the traitors, i.e. John Woodman, RealityCheck, Ballantine, BrianH, et al<br /><br />No doubt St George Tucker was very conversant with this principle of English common law.<br /><br />It so happens it was also the US common law.<br /><br />Lord Coke (Calvin's case, the same case cited by Horace Gray in the WKA court)<br /><br />"An alien born is of foreign birth <b>OR foreign allegiance</b>,..."<br /><br />Both English common law and US common law hold that Barack Hussein Obama is an "alien born" at birth, due to foreign allegiance (his father being a British subject).MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-74178540338255893622012-08-07T22:01:21.672-04:002012-08-07T22:01:21.672-04:00Has anyone verified Obama's Kenyan birth recor...Has anyone verified Obama's Kenyan birth records in British National Archives as noted in Daily Pen?phil stonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08798840335706659721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-6212201237831189052012-08-07T21:33:00.621-04:002012-08-07T21:33:00.621-04:00All:
My suspicion is that once Obama realizes his...All:<br /><br />My suspicion is that once Obama realizes his chances of being elected by the voting process (no matter that he's rigged it as much as possible to do so) have failed completely it's my bet that "our guy" will go into full dictator mode ala Hugo Chavez to stay in power as dictator forever.<br /><br />After all he's got a high-maitenance lifestyle for both himself and his li'l wifey and fMILY and his arrogance demands no less. In his mind he deserves it.<br /><br />He's already implemented most of the dictatorial powers (implanted czars, weak-minded communist media, and his ever-loving Executive Orders) he'll need to kick thins off and get things rolling. Maybe he'll even appoint an executions czar since there are so many "undesirables" about. <br /><br />If he does take this path, we'll never see any real elections again in my lifetime ... or yours most likely.<br /><br />Something to think on ...jayjayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09845961766550552240noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-42101648347212787942012-08-04T12:07:53.594-04:002012-08-04T12:07:53.594-04:00There seems to be no hope whatsoever to have a leg...There seems to be no hope whatsoever to have a legal ruling that would support full discovery of the truth on many of Obama's documents!!!<br />Even the judges of the Supreme Court of the USA act dishonestly and illegally concerning Obama's several suits that they refused to hear for dishonest and shameful reasons!!!<br /><br />Not to mention his FORGET long-form birth cerfiticate (officially claimed as being genuine by the crooks in Hawaii)!!!<br />Not to mention his selective service card, forged too.<br />Not to mention his social security number that belongs to a deceased man who was living in Connecticut, not in Hawaii!!!<br />Not to mention many problems that are likely to exist in many of the remaining documents kept sealed from prying eyes by Obama!!!<br /><br />If we can't find justice concerning Obama's serious frauds through this bankrupted American judicial system, where on earth could we get such justice?!!!! And when?!!!!MichaelIsGreathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12020964848057963778noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-45776991113646775612012-08-02T13:17:13.339-04:002012-08-02T13:17:13.339-04:00Speaking of trees and forests, here is an essay I ...Speaking of trees and forests, here is an essay I wrote on trees and plants and basic set theory logic as part of the natural born Citizen battle with the Obots and to educate people as to the games the Obots are playing with language. And now Fred Thompson is doing it. I posted this comment to his article but it has been held in moderation for over 24 hours now and many other later ones have been released. I guess Fred can't stand the truth of basic logic and wants to hide it from others too. This is what I tried to post in Fred Thompson's comments. Geez and he's supposed to be the Law and Order guy. ;-)<br /><br />For more on the legal difference between the legal term of art “Citizen at Birth” and the legal term of art “natural born Citizen” at birth, see this essay I wrote on that subject:<br /><br /><a href="http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/" rel="nofollow">http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/</a><br /><br />CDR Kerchner (Ret)<br />ProtectOurLiberty.orgcfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-18370689711590362582012-08-02T11:48:09.558-04:002012-08-02T11:48:09.558-04:00Robert, certainly many of your 'trees' are...Robert, certainly many of your 'trees' are correct, and you may indeed be right about the 'forest'. But I am not sure this is THE story or at least not the WHOLE story.<br /><br />Those secretive manipulators have had enough technology and power (and money) for at least 50 years to do what you say. Which implies they have held off until just now.<br /><br />Why is that the case? What is so special about right now? Why not install a puppet regime, commit a grand coup, decades ago?<br /><br />In summary, you may be partially right, but you are still missing something critical. What? I wish I knew. I fear whatever it is is 'not a good thing'.Carlylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371651852897376905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-27315377459396968012012-08-01T19:40:58.627-04:002012-08-01T19:40:58.627-04:00Attorney Mario Apuzzo Responds To Fred Thompson’s ...Attorney Mario Apuzzo Responds To Fred Thompson’s Article Defending Marco Rubio’s Constitutional Eligibility | by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.<br /><a href="http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/attorney-mario-apuzzo-responds-to-fred-thompsons-article-defending-marco-rubios-constitutional-eligibility-by-mario-apuzzo-esq/" rel="nofollow">http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/08/01/attorney-mario-apuzzo-responds-to-fred-thompsons-article-defending-marco-rubios-constitutional-eligibility-by-mario-apuzzo-esq/</a><br /><br />CDR Kerchner (Ret)<br />ProtectOurLiberty.orgcfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-45950414882514420412012-08-01T14:48:53.114-04:002012-08-01T14:48:53.114-04:00FLOCK!! Thwarted at every turn. What happened to ...FLOCK!! Thwarted at every turn. What happened to honest debate? Even worse, what happened to due process? How do you sue to get due process?Carlylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371651852897376905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-64754265178546265392012-08-01T13:43:51.242-04:002012-08-01T13:43:51.242-04:00Carlyle,
Your are right to recognize that there i...Carlyle,<br /><br />Your are right to recognize that there is a bigger picture behind Obama.<br /><br />I believe you'll find your answers when you related the phrase, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." with the timing of the review of the charter of the Federal Reserve Bank, the people behind the bank, and the actions that they have taken to protect their interests.<br /><br />As great as the Obama scam is, it's small potatoes compared to the Federal Reserve Bank. They create money from nothing, loan it at interest, leverage that interest enormously through fractional banking, and then pay no taxes on their profits. <br /><br />They have established the ultimate "legal" Ponzi scheme. It is impossible to retire the total debt to the bank simply because there can never be enough money in circulation to do so. They have created a vortex that is quickly sucking up all of the world's wealth at a geometrically accelerating pace.<br /><br />The Fed was established in December of 1913 with a 99 year charter. So, their time comes up for renewal this December.<br /><br />Don't look for any major news announcements as they will try to sneak this quietly under the rug. A knowledgeable and engaged public is their greatest fear. For now, distraction is the name of the game. A clear thinking public would never renew their charter.<br /><br />As important as is our task to bring Obama to justice, we need to also make sure that the charter of the Fed is not renewed, that control of our money supply is returned to a Constitutional Congress, that our money supply is placed on sound footing - solidly backed, and that it is put in circulation at no cost to our government.<br /><br />The more the public becomes aware of this issue, the more likely we'll have a big October surprise. The Puppet Masters don't want us thinking about this. So, there are lots of distractions ready to go should the need arise to create massive instability. I bet you can easily think of several just off the top of your head.<br /><br />At stake for the Puppet Masters is literally trillions of dollars. You can be sure that they will, if necessary, easily sacrifice Obama and all he has done to provide cover for their survival. He is merely a tool for distraction. They don't care if he succeeds or fails. They just want to maintain control of the money.<br /><br />Remember, who controls the money controls the world.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07865649369112264344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-20294801256678502162012-08-01T13:03:07.451-04:002012-08-01T13:03:07.451-04:00I just posted this comment at Fred Thompson's ...I just posted this comment at Fred Thompson's blog in response to his article which maintains that Marco Rubio is a "natural born Citizen:" <br /><br />"I posted my response to Mr. Thompson yesterday which he did not release from moderation. My response contained nothing but my legal argument on the question of whether Marco Rubio and Barack Obama and Bobby Jindal are "natural born citizens." I followed up with an inquiry as to why he did not release my comment from moderation. He also did not release that second comment. Today, I see that my two comments have been totally erased from Mr. Thompson's blog."<br /><br />This third comment is also now in moderation.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-17634606719240892152012-07-31T22:44:41.863-04:002012-07-31T22:44:41.863-04:00The three-part comment that I posted here at 8:56 ...The three-part comment that I posted here at 8:56 p.m. and which I posted earlier at Fred Thompson's blog is still in moderation at his blog. Other comments after mine have been released and posted there. I then posted this comment about 10 minutes ago" <br /><br />"Mr. Thompson, <br /><br />I would appreciate it if you would release my comment from moderation." <br /><br />My second comment is also still in moderation.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-58444508410834571092012-07-31T21:44:06.107-04:002012-07-31T21:44:06.107-04:00BTW - I keep seeing my posts about security cleara...BTW - I keep seeing my posts about security clearances at the top of this page. I guess they would be #401 and #402.<br /><br />Didn't anybody read this? Where is the OUTRAGE?!<br /><br />Doesn't anybody believe me? Or nobody cares?<br /><br />To me, this is REALLY SERIOUS SH-T. This is a major MAJOR national security issue. Perhaps the worst in our nation's history.<br /><br />I know this is not the main focus of this blog, but this is very scary. Who can stop the juggernaut? If he is really a foreign agent, a simple minor thing like an election will not stop him. He WILL win. His handlers cannot afford for him to lose. They will do anything - ANYTHING - to ensure he wins.<br /><br />Does this not trouble you?<br /><br />Do you all think he is just a simple person who wanted to be president and tried to game the system? You know, 'just' a fraud and a conman?<br /><br />If what you all suspect is true, and many of you screaming to be true, is correct - Isn't it much more likely that this was all done for a purpose according to a plan?<br /><br />Whose plan? Some common ordinary Chicago criminal street thug? I don't think so.<br /><br />Some say a second term will lead to a coup, a dictatorship. By all that is righteous, dear people, if what we think is true, the coup done came already.<br /><br />Follow what you believe to it's logical conclusion. Are you afraid yet???Carlylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371651852897376905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-32355170237981089342012-07-31T21:30:56.501-04:002012-07-31T21:30:56.501-04:00Mario -
Thank you for the clarity on Rubio and Ji...Mario -<br /><br />Thank you for the clarity on Rubio and Jindal. You may recall that I often say no one will take us seriously unless we apply our concerns to everybody where appropriate.<br /><br />They may not take us seriously anyway, but we must remove all hints of partisanship, favoritism, or racism. We must be fair, comprehensive, and even-handed.<br /><br />Besides, the best way for the 'birthers' to go mainstream is to scream bloody murder about one of their own. This might get some media attention and accidentally focus some collateral sunshine on the "must not talk about it" clear and present danger.Carlylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371651852897376905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-34262656553722321542012-07-31T20:59:54.828-04:002012-07-31T20:59:54.828-04:00III of III
Wong Kim Ark did answer the question l...III of III<br /><br />Wong Kim Ark did answer the question left open by Minor and said that those children, born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents, are “citizens of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. But Wong Kim Ark twice demonstrated that those children are only “citizens of the United States,” not “natural born Citizens.” Wong Kim Ark recognized that Wong was a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States,” but not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Justice Gray told us twice of this distinction. The first time he said: “The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.' Page 22, note. This paper, without Mr. Binney's name, and with the note in a less complete form, and not containing the passage last cited, was published (perhaps from the first edition) in the American Law Register for February, 1854. 2 Am. Law Reg. 193, 203, 204. ” Wong Kim Ark, at 665-66. Later in his opinion, Justice Gray, in speaking about a child born in the United States to alien parents again said that an alien’s “child, as said by Mr. Binney in his essay before quoted, 'If born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural-born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.'” Id. at 694. It is critical that when he mentioned it for the second time, his sentence followed the Court’s conclusion which he based on how the English common law held aliens in amity to have sufficient allegiance to the King to make his children born in the King’s dominion “natural born subjects,” that Wong was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. So twice, Justice Gray told us of the distinction between a child born in the country to aliens and a child born in the country to “citizen” parents. He explained that both are “citizens,” but only the latter is a “natural-born citizen.” <br /> <br />So, Minor confirmed the original definition of a "natural born Citizen" used by the Founders and Framers. That definition is a child born in a country to parents who are “citizens” of that country at the time of the child’s birth. To date, that definition has not been changed, not even by the Fourteenth Amendment (only defines a “citizen of the United States) or U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (construing the Fourteenth Amendment, only defined a “citizen of the United States”). Any other U.S. “citizen” is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, Act of Congress, or treaty. So, today, a “natural born Citizen” is still a child born in the United States to parents who were “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. That definition continues to be the supreme law of the land until changed by constitutional amendment. <br /> <br />Barack Obama, Marco Rubio, and Bobby Jindal were all not born to U.S. “citizen” parents (“natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States” at birth or after birth) at the time of their birth. Being born to just one U.S. “citizen” parent (Obama’s birth circumstance) is not sufficient because the child inherits through jus sanguinis from the one non-U.S. citizen parent a foreign allegiance and citizenship just as strong as if born to two non-U.S. “citizen” parents. Hence, Obama, Rubio, and Jindal are all not “natural born Citizens.” Rubio and Jindal, being born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” are “citizens of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. If Obama was born in Hawaii, he too is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. But what this means is that since Obama, Rubio, and Jindal are neither Article II “natural born Citizens” nor “Citizens of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” they are not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military or Vice-President.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-82424260336261872682012-07-31T20:58:45.867-04:002012-07-31T20:58:45.867-04:00II of III
"The citizens are the members of t...II of III<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 the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country."<br /><br />Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 Citizens and natives (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758). Vattel required that for a child to be a “natural-born citizen,” at the time of birth, the child had to be born in the country to “citizen” parents. See also The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring) (“The natives or indigenes are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (J. Daniels concurring) (“The natives or natural-born citizens are those born in the country of parents who are citizens”).<br /> <br />Minor added that "some authorities" go further. But the Court was referring to whether a child "born in the jurisdiction" to alien parents is a "citizen of the United States" under the Fourteenth Amendment, not whether that child is an Article II "natural born Citizen." After all, the Founders and Framers had only one definition of a "natural born Citizen" in mind and the Court stated that doubt-free definition. That definition came from the law of nations and was confirmed by our First Congress which passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 and subsequent Congresses which passed the acts of 1795, 1802, and 1855 (all treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens), and also in 1814 by Founder, Chief Justice Marshall. When the Constitution was adopted, that one definition became the supreme law of the land which can be changed only by constitutional amendment. Minor would also not have referred to the Founders and Framers as "some authorities" and even add that "there have been doubts" about their definition of a "natural born Citizen." In fact, the "natural born Citizen" clause was not even debated during the Constitutional convention, so surely there were no doubts about its definition. On the contrary, the Court even said that there were no doubts about the definition of a "natural-born citizen" that it gave.<br /> <br />Continued . . .Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-4695843611864016572012-07-31T20:56:48.153-04:002012-07-31T20:56:48.153-04:00Fred Thompson has written an article in which he a...Fred Thompson has written an article in which he argues that Marco Rubio is eligible to be Vice-President. See it at <br />http://fredthompsonsamerica.com/2012/07/31/is-rubio-eligible/#comment-2254 I have left this comment at his blog: <br /><br />I of III<br /><br />Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Did you see that, today only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. A “citizen of the United States” is not eligible to be President today. <br /><br />The clear distinction between a “citizen” and a “natural born Citizen” is natural and therefore universal, for a civil society must start with original members (called “citizens” in a republic) who are the creators of that society. Their children, grandchildren, etc. (“Posterity”) then are the “natural-born citizens.” This is what Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 in effect says. The creators of the new republic were “Citizens of the United States” and their “Posterity” (Preamble to the Constitution) were “natural born Citizens.” The Founders and Framers also allowed for new citizens through naturalization. Hence, any naturalized citizen under any Act of Congress becomes a “citizen of the United States,” just like the original “Citizens of the United States.” A reading of the plain text of the Fourteenth Amendment shows that it also only adds to the “citizens of the United States,” simply by persons being born (without requiring “citizen” parents) or naturalized in its jurisdiction. And the children (“Posterity”) born in the United States to those new first generation “citizens of the United States” then become “natural born Citizens,” just like the children of the descendents of the original “Citizens of the United States.” <br /> <br />Minor defined a "natural-born citizen" under the "common-law" with which the Framers were familiar. The definition it gave is a child born in a country to parents who were "citizens" of that country at the time the child was born. Some argue that this definition is not dispositive, because the Court did not say that a child born in the United States to alien parents is not a “natural-born citizen.” This argument is frivolous, for we need to understand what the Court intended by what it said, and not by what it did not say. If I want to define a dog, I include as many of a dog’s attributes, including that a dog by nature is an animal with warm blood. I do not also have to say at the same time that by nature a dog is not an animal with cold blood. There is no indication that this definition is not totally inclusive and exclusive. On the contrary, this has always been the definition of the clause. This definition has never changed. <br /> <br />It is more than clear that Minor had two types of “citizens” in mind, a “citizen” and a “natural-born citizen,” and it cannot be otherwise. In the doubt-free definition of a “natural-born citizen” presented by Minor and to which you also concede, the parents are “citizens” and the children are “natural born citizens.” <br /><br />So, there was no question for the Minor Court whether children born in the United States to alien parents were or were not “natural-born citizens.” Those children simply did not meet the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of a “natural-born citizen.” So, they were not “natural-born citizens.” The only question was whether those children now fell under the new Fourteenth Amendment which included as “citizens of the United States” children born “within the jurisdiction” of the United States. Minor did not need to answer that question, for Virginia Minor was a "natural-born citizen." <br /> <br />Minor did not itself create this definition but only confirmed it. In fact, Emer de Vattel had already stated this same definition in 1758 as follows: <br /> <br />Continued . . .Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-34335669250510073872012-07-31T13:28:30.305-04:002012-07-31T13:28:30.305-04:00@ Robert said...
July 30, 2012 11:06 AM
========...@ Robert said...<br /><br />July 30, 2012 11:06 AM<br /><br />=================================<br /><br />Thank you very much for that.<br /><br />That is a Big Picture item of great merit and importance.<br /><br />I have always been uncomfortable with the USSC being The Interpreter of the constitution. I suppose you cannot stop them from being A interpreter, but they should not be THE interpreter.<br /><br />At a minimum, each and every state MUST be allowed some measure of interpreting the constitution within their own state. And a sufficient number of them acting together should be able to rule in regards the whole country.<br /><br />I realize the constitution does not provide the specifics of a mechanism like this, but the overall nature and origin of the constitution, and the 9th and 10th amendments certainly provide strong clues.<br /><br />In any case, your observation about El Presidente Wetback is critical. Regardless of the USSC, each state MUST determine for itself the eligibility of this putative foreign fraud.Carlylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371651852897376905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-19499118837348493852012-07-30T14:56:38.758-04:002012-07-30T14:56:38.758-04:00It is also worth noting, pertaining to Ark, that O...It is also worth noting, pertaining to Ark, that Obama senior was not permanently domiciled here nor was he maintaining a business. There are also questions regarding his relationship with the Kenyan government as he was a participant in a US/Kenya education program as a representative of Kenya.<br /><br />So, Ark goes out of its way to exclude Obama. And, apparently for good reason. Obama senior was such a self-serving miscreant that Harvard sought to have him thrown out of the country.<br /><br />We can see that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07865649369112264344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-78988037146421197542012-07-30T13:34:11.209-04:002012-07-30T13:34:11.209-04:00That Obama eligibility matter can be summarized ra...That Obama eligibility matter can be summarized rather easily. <br /><br />Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution of the United States: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President.” Did you see that, today only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. A “citizen of the United States” is not eligible to be President today. <br /><br />Minor held” <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 />Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875). Minor defined an Article II "natural-born citizen." <br /><br />Wong Kim Ark held: <br /><br />"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that the question must be answered in the affirmative."<br /><br />U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 705 (1898). Wong Kim Ark defined a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States." <br /><br />So there you have the legal definitions of both an Article II "natural born Citizen" and a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States." And the facts show that Obama, who was born to a non-U.S. citizen father, does not meet Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen.” If he was born in Hawaii, he can meet Wong Kim Ark’s definition of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States.” The problem for Obama is that he has to be a “natural born Citizen,” not just a “citizen of the United States.” What this means is that since Obama is neither an Article II “natural born Citizen” nor a “Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution” he is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-86391887301981826862012-07-30T11:12:16.358-04:002012-07-30T11:12:16.358-04:00Then again, if properly defined, the 14th Amendmen...Then again, if properly defined, the 14th Amendment should not include BHO as a citizen.<br /><br />RE: <a href="http://www.federalistblog.us/2007/09/revisiting_subject_to_the_jurisdiction/" rel="nofollow">Federalist Blog</a><br /><br />Under Sec. 1992 of U.S. Revised Statutes the same Congress who had adopted the Fourteenth Amendment, confirmed this principle: “All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”<br /><br />Who are the subjects of a foreign power? Thomas Jefferson said “Aliens are the subjects of a foreign power.” Thus, the statute can be read as “All persons born in the United States who are not aliens, excluding Indians not taxed, are declared to be citizens of the United States.”<br /><br />A citizen under the 14th amendment would literally exclude children born with alien citizenship, as that citizenship made them subject to a foreign power.jshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03556528525557443583noreply@blogger.com