tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post821820755411141488..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: Donald Trump Is Right to Retweet that Marco Rubio Is Not a Natural Born CitizenMario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger47125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-18152431112206654192016-04-18T03:36:07.913-04:002016-04-18T03:36:07.913-04:00Amendment XIV
Section 1.
All persons born or n...<b>Amendment XIV<br /><br /> <br />Section 1.<br /><br />All persons born or naturalized <i>in</i> the United States, <i>and</i> subject to the <i>jurisdiction thereof</i>, <i>are citizens of the United States</i> and of the state wherein they reside.</b><br /><br /><i>(Note that the 14th Amendment quoted above does not specifically grant any kind of citizenship to those born OUTSIDE of the US. However it does clearly deny birth citizenship to those born OUTSIDE of the US regardless of American parentage. The Constitution of 1787 only references one form of birth citizenship, Natural Born. All other forms of citizenship (except the now moot Revolutionary Generation citizenship) are classified as Naturalized in the 1787 and still current US Constitution. The 14th Amendment of 1868 follows the two 1787 Constitutional divisions, Birth citizenship and Naturalized Citizenship. <br /><br />Canada granted Ted Canadian citizenship at the time of his birth in Canada. At that point Ted violated the Jurisdiction phrase of the 14th Amendment and thus did not have Birth or Naturalized US Citizenship. The 1873 Slaughterhouses case discusses the legality of foreign nations to claim all persons born on their soil as citizens. The 1873 Supreme Court concluded that the US had no power to change the internal citizenship law of a foreign nation.<br /><br />Ted's Canadian citizenship was proven when he had to renounce it 2 to 4 years ago. In other words Ted had Canadian citizenship until he was about 40 years of age. His US citizenship started about 2 to 4 years ago. Clearly it is <i>impossible</i> for Ted to have had US Birth citizenship.<br /><br />He was required to renounce his Canadian citizenship because of the Jurisdiction phrase of the 14th Amendment. <br /><br />References to "Original Intent" of Natural Born in 1787 became moot once the 14th Amendment's clear definition was passed in 1868. Our common legal opinions of Original Intent of Natural Born are irrelevant if they conflict with the 14th Amendment. The definition of birth citizenship is now in the Constitution, the 14th Amendment, which is the highest law in the US, by definition in the Constitution also.<br /><br />The 14th Amendment was written to solve a couple of problems. The 13th Amendment while it freed the slaves it did not give them US Citizenship. The 14th was passed to correct that problem AND also to give a clear definition of US Citizenship. The Supreme Court Justices in the Slaughterhouses case specifically said the 14th was also written to solve the controversy of US Citizenship which had raged in the press, law and US politics since 1790.<br /><br />The very controversy we engage here was settled in 1868.<br /><br />I have read many recent articles from legal experts from several different sources and the vast majority never mention the 14th Amendment. Remember all Federal Law is subject to the Constitution and so is 1787 Original Intent. <br /><br />The highest US Law on US Citizenship is the 14th Amendment. Yet it is almost universally overlooked in today's legal articles. <br /><br />The "invisibility" of the 14th Amendment on Sen. Cruz and Sen. Rubio is a reflection of a general trend to ignore the Constitution on many other issues. The most prominent being Presidential Executive Orders or Presidential Directives or Executive Directives. <br /><br />Federal Regulations derive their authority from Federal Legislation and permission of Congress. When our legislators become lazy they permit unelected bureaucrats to write detailed instructions that implement the spirit of certain parts of Legislation.<br /><br />It is not clear that Congress ever reviews the Regulations which are usually written after the Legislation is passed by Congress. For example the Dodd-Frank Act had 2,500 pages of Legislation when passed in 2010. Yet it's Regulatory writing continues. The last time I looked DF was 14,500 pages long. 14,500 - 2,500 = 12,000 pages of Regulatory Text. <br /><br /><br />Congress has the power to remove or modify Regulation without cause or permission from any Federal Regulatory body. The President specifically lacks this power according to the Constitution.)</i>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00205036955854267484noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-68348733298228542102016-03-10T14:48:39.036-05:002016-03-10T14:48:39.036-05:00Reynaldo Mercanto,
You are correct. Under the c...Reynaldo Mercanto, <br /><br />You are correct. Under the common law doctrine of coverture, the wife, upon marriage to the husband, automatically took on her husband's citizenship. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-63402038791663806612016-03-10T14:16:26.585-05:002016-03-10T14:16:26.585-05:00For Mario Apuzzo:
I recently read that at the tim...For Mario Apuzzo:<br /><br />I recently read that at the time of the ratification of the Constitution the citizenship of a wife was always that of her husband, that the woman became a citizen of his country by virtue of the marriage. If this is so, the argument could be made that, for example, all Trump's children are nbc's because they were born in America to an American father and that whoever was his wife, by the standards of 1790 she was an American also, her citizenship being "by nature" the same as her husband's, although not by current US law. This does not, of course, affect Rubio, Cruz, or Obama/Soetoro, all of whom had foreign born fathers.Reynaldo Mercantohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03422690686227952071noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-65990182841724211912016-03-05T23:43:02.782-05:002016-03-05T23:43:02.782-05:00Robert wrote:
"So, if I read Levin's chal...Robert wrote:<br />"So, if I read Levin's challenge along with Unknown's rational it means that 'The Great One', Mark Levin, will debate any lawyer, scholar, etc. on the topic of Natural Born citizen only as long as they are in agreement with his position."<br /><br />I am that "Unknown". I do not speak for Mark Levin. Speaking for myself about Mr. Levin, of whom I know but little, I would guess that he and I never vote for the same candidates. In so far as I have predicted how your pursuit of some engagement with Mr. Levin would go, that is all my own.<br /><br />That said, I did here represent Mr. Levin's opinion on the particular issue. I quoted him exactly, to the best of my ability, from a clip of his radio show about which obots and birthers were talking. Transcribed it myself:<br /><br />"Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida. He is a natural born United States citizen. And if I get any more of this Birther crap up there. . . This is a warning, and I don’t care who you are; you’re going to be banned. Okay? This is a site I put up for rational people. Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida in 1940, excuse me, 1971. He’s 40. There’s no debate. So take that Birther crap somewhere else. Just a warning. Got it? I’m not into all that crap." -- Mark Levin, 28 September 2011<br /><br />On that one point -- Marco Rubio is so clearly eligible that contrary positions are crap -- I'm pretty sure that Mark Levin and I agree. <br /><br />Robert, you somehow got the idea that Levin's challenge and/or my rational means that Mark Levin is, as you put it in quotes yourself, "The Great One". Well, that sure was not me. I'm not a fan. Thing is, little as I know of Mr. Levin, I don't think it was him either. All you.<br /><br />Robert wrote:<br />"I'm not familiar with this debate format. But, I would like to use it the next time I 'negotiate' a contract."<br /><br />How you negotiate is entirely up to you, Robert. For my part, I expect what you described will not be a productive approach and I will not be encouraging it.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17053257586381012475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-37268462270518807892016-03-01T22:59:45.927-05:002016-03-01T22:59:45.927-05:00Unknown,
You have no refutation to my position w...Unknown, <br /><br />You have no refutation to my position which shows that you lose and you want to talk about standing. Really? Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-91582385687858519152016-03-01T22:08:43.762-05:002016-03-01T22:08:43.762-05:00Oops: Typo/edit-error in last sentence. I meant:
I...Oops: Typo/edit-error in last sentence. I meant:<br />I can still say that birthers lost all their cases and all their appeals, but 7 to 2 is obviously not unanimous.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17053257586381012475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-34837928297162516912016-03-01T22:04:09.901-05:002016-03-01T22:04:09.901-05:00Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"I know that you suffer f...Mario Apuzzo wrote:<br />"I know that you suffer from mindlessness, but have you seen how many split U.S. Supreme Court decisions there are on standing?"<br /><br />Sure. I'm a fan of the Justices who *opposed* recently-deceased AJ Antonin Scalia on the precedents that trashed half your efforts or so. I would not have made the same choices as did the Republican Presidents who put now-retired justices John Paul Stevens and Sandra Day O'Connor on the bench of our highest court, but you will not find me disrespecting them.<br /><br />There are no split decisions in your eligibility cases, Mr. Apuzzo. You lost each and every time. On the issue here you lost all your cases and all your appeals, and every verdict was unanimous.<br /><br />I used to say that all Birther verdicts were unanimous, but I had to stop a couple years ago. McInnish v. Chapman, Ala case 1120465, March 2014. In the Supreme Court of Alabama, on the issue of mootness, Birthers lost 7-to-2. I can still say that birthers lost all their cases and all their appeals, but 7 to 2 is not obviously not unanimous.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17053257586381012475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-52599637337094987562016-03-01T18:11:46.899-05:002016-03-01T18:11:46.899-05:00So, if I read Levin's challenge along with Unk...So, if I read Levin's challenge along with Unknown's rational it means that "The Great One", Mark Levin, will debate any lawyer, scholar, etc. on the topic of Natural Born citizen only as long as they are in agreement with his position.<br /><br />I'm not familiar with this debate format. But, I would like to use it the next time I "negotiate" a contract.Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07865649369112264344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-2603589683641953352016-03-01T16:24:58.169-05:002016-03-01T16:24:58.169-05:00Unknown,
I know that you suffer from mindlessnes...Unknown, <br /><br />I know that you suffer from mindlessness, but have you seen how many split U.S. Supreme Court decisions there are on standing? Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-23632149526976870352016-03-01T13:29:03.571-05:002016-03-01T13:29:03.571-05:00Robert Pilchman wrote:
"There was reportedly ...Robert Pilchman wrote:<br />"There was reportedly a pillow found above Scalia’s head, and you are making allegation(s ) about ‘serious debate’?"<br /><br />Well, sort of. I am aware that writers for this site expressed great hatred for the federal judiciary's modern doctrine on standing, but I don't think you guys actually murdered its author.<br /><br />-brygenonUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17053257586381012475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-34188858227092411902016-03-01T11:40:02.908-05:002016-03-01T11:40:02.908-05:00Unknown is taken out of any serious debate because...Unknown is taken out of any serious debate because he has no knowledge or reasoning power needed for him to construct any serious argument. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-43993714343314800762016-03-01T11:25:22.314-05:002016-03-01T11:25:22.314-05:00Unknown - There was reportedly a pillow found abov...<br />Unknown - There was reportedly a pillow found above Scalia’s head, and you are making allegation(s ) about ‘serious debate’? If the powers that be would ignore a complaint about 2+2=5 what would that prove? Lack of standing, gross incompetence, corruption, and/or coercion/pressure? "He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods and errors." (--- Thomas Jefferson - http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/t/thomasjeff157254.html ) Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472760191473468260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-84431781111335908492016-03-01T01:56:28.505-05:002016-03-01T01:56:28.505-05:00Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"I do not know who you ar...Mario Apuzzo wrote:<br />"I do not know who you are, but you coming on here and telling me that you warned me in some way about the meaning of a natural born citizen is ludicrous."<br /><br />Ah, it's brygenon. Thought you could tell. What I wrote was, "I think this is what I warned you about. Arguing that Marco Rubio and two actual U.S. Presidents are not eligible takes you out of any serious debate." For example at WesternFreePress I had noted, "Arguing that candidates cannot be President for the same reason that the actual President cannot be president takes you out of any serious debate."<br /><br />Mario Apuzzo wrote:<br />"As far as Mark Levin is concerned, he made the debate challenge and I accepted. Rather than show us how mindless you are, why do you not contact Mr. Levin and ask him why he has not chosen to go forward with his challenge."<br /><br />I expect that pursuing Levin will not be a productive avenue for you and I will not be encouraging it.<br />Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17053257586381012475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-39366589192875614202016-02-29T18:34:23.901-05:002016-02-29T18:34:23.901-05:00Kudos to Mick – Thanks for sharing!!!
Mick – The...<br />Kudos to Mick – Thanks for sharing!!!<br /><br /><br />Mick – The Screenshot - SUPERB CATCH!!! ( https://web.archive.org/web/20160119170238/https://fam.state.gov/fam/07fam/07fam1130.html vs. https://fam.state.gov/fam/07fam/07fam1130.html - “7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency” was apparently deleted !!!) <br /><br /><br />Mick - Another EXCELLENT catch you made “See Thomas' statement about 8 US Code 1401 (g) in Zivotofsky. All part of the plan. Of course that issue was not before the court.” – Apparently you are referring to “It has determined that children born abroad to U. S. parents, subject to some exceptions, are natural-born citizens who do not need to go through the naturalization process. 8 U. S. C. §§ 1401(c), (d), (g).” ( --- https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/13-628#writing-13-628_CONCUR_5 ). OMG OMG OMG. Is this why the pillow was reportedly found above Scalia’s head? <br /><br /><br />It’s also noteworthy that former U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor is apparently pressing for a replacement pronto ( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sandra-day-oconnor-scalia_us_56c5313be4b0c3c55053c6d9 )<br /><br />In http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/29/ny-judge-to-hear-case-on-cruz-eligibility/ (“NY Judge To Hear Case On Cruz Eligibility”) it states “A New York Judge will hear arguments Tuesday on a lawsuit” … This afternoon (Mon 2/29/16) I called 518-285-8989 ( https://www.nycourts.gov/courts/3jd/albany/3JD-Albany%20Supreme%20Court.shtml ) and was told that the hearing was adjourned. I’m also curious if there is an option for a member of the public to submit some type of amicus curiae and if so what the procedure would be. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472760191473468260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-29151416436379715732016-02-29T08:04:24.073-05:002016-02-29T08:04:24.073-05:00Mario,
See Thomas' statement about 8 US Code ...Mario,<br /><br />See Thomas' statement about 8 US Code 1401 (g) in Zivotofsky. All part of the plan. Of course that issue was not before the court.Mickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02864660386925998491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-90940841036959968552016-02-29T08:03:48.367-05:002016-02-29T08:03:48.367-05:007 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”
(...7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”<br />(CT:CON-474; 08-19-2013)<br /><br />Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) provides that the term "naturalization" means "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever." Persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the applicable statutory transmission requirements are not considered citizens by naturalization.<br /><br />This statement is also not correct given the decisions of our U.S. Supreme Court. What the State Department should add is that the fact that someone is not considered to be naturalized pursuant to a statute does not mean that he or she is not naturalized under the Constitution. <br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-29422007289224323802016-02-29T07:59:43.100-05:002016-02-29T07:59:43.100-05:00Mick,
Thank you for catching that and sharing it...Mick, <br /><br />Thank you for catching that and sharing it with us. Here is provision that was scrubbed: <br /><br />7 FAM 1131.6-2 Eligibility for Presidency<br />(TL:CON-68; 04-01-1998)<br /><br />a. It has never been determined definitively by a court whether a person who acquired U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to U.S. citizens is a natural-born citizen within the meaning of Article II of the Constitution and, therefore, eligible for the Presidency.<br /><br />b. Section 1, Article II, of the Constitution states, in relevant part that “No Person except a natural born Citizen...shall be eligible for the Office of President.”<br /><br />c. The Constitution does not define "natural born". The “Act to establish an Uniform Rule of Naturalization”, enacted March 26, 1790, (1 Stat. 103,104) provided that, “...the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born ... out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States.”<br /><br />d. This statute is no longer operative, however, and its formula is not included in modern nationality statutes. In any event, the fact that someone is a natural born citizen pursuant to a statute does not necessarily imply that he or she is such a citizen for Constitutional purposes.<br /><br />Now, as you asked, why would the State Department remove that statement? I am not aware of any U.S. Supreme Court addressing their previous question that it was not sure that a person born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents was a natural born citizen and thereby eligible to be President. <br /><br />We need to do some investigation on how the State Department has come to make this significant change to its policy manual. <br /><br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-59980544212516228632016-02-29T07:45:50.530-05:002016-02-29T07:45:50.530-05:00Unknown,
I do not know who you are, but you comi...Unknown, <br /><br />I do not know who you are, but you coming on here and telling me that you warned me in some way about the meaning of a natural born citizen is ludicrous. You make no argument. You delude yourself into thinking that you can convince us that we are wrong based on some secret knowledge that you possess. <br /><br />As far as Mark Levin is concerned, he made the debate challenge and I accepted. Rather than show us how mindless you are, why do you not contact Mr. Levin and ask him why he has not chosen to go forward with his challenge. We can even do the debate at the College of William and Mary, if they permit it, on Levin TV. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-51356966778855335572016-02-29T06:48:17.970-05:002016-02-29T06:48:17.970-05:007 FAM 1131.6-2 "Eligibility for Presidency&qu...7 FAM 1131.6-2 "Eligibility for Presidency" was scrubbed from the internet on 2/24/16<br /><br />They did not even change the numbering!! They even added, in 1131.6-3, the statute that naturalized Ted Cruz (8 US Code 1401(g)), as some sort of basis that 8 US Code "citizen at birth benificiaries are "Not Citizens by Naturalization."<br /><br />Here is the screen shot WAYBACK from Feb 20, 2016<br /><br />https://web.archive.org/web/20160119170238/https://fam.state.gov/fam/07fam/07fam1130.html<br /><br />Here is the current version<br /><br />https://fam.state.gov/fam/07fam/07fam1130.html<br /><br />Do you know how these entries are made Mr. Apuzzo?<br /><br />I undestand that the INS is now the USCIS under Homeland Security. The question is why would the State Dept. want to help Ted Cruz?<br /><br />Hmmm....Mickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02864660386925998491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-9497257483153121892016-02-29T03:34:26.692-05:002016-02-29T03:34:26.692-05:00Mario Apuzzo wrote:
"Too bad that Mark Levin ...Mario Apuzzo wrote:<br />"Too bad that Mark Levin has not accepted my acceptance of his challenge that he expressed on his radio show to millions across the globe that he is willing to debate any attorney, authority, or scholar on the meaning of a natural born citizen and that Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen under that definition."<br />I think this is what I warned you about. Arguing that Marco Rubio and two actual U.S. Presidents are not eligible takes you out of any serious debate.<br /><br />"Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida. He is a natural born United States citizen. And if I get any more of this Birther crap up there. . . This is a warning, and I don’t care who you are; you’re going to be banned. Okay? This is a site I put up for rational people. Marco Rubio was born in Miami, Florida in 1940, excuse me, 1971. He’s 40. There’s no debate. So take that Birther crap somewhere else. Just a warning. Got it? I’m not into all that crap." -- Mark Levin, 28 September 2011Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17053257586381012475noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-91101869548446171962016-02-28T22:01:44.516-05:002016-02-28T22:01:44.516-05:00The difference between a "born Citizen" ...The difference between a "born Citizen" and a "natural born Citizen" shown pictorial via a simple Euler Logic Diagram. Common sense, some basic logic, and a picture are worth a thousand words against the disinformation put out by Cruz and Rubio and their backers and enablers ... who are just as bad as the OBOTS were. Load this link and then scroll down just a wee bit to see the Euler Diagram. Feel free to circulate it and pass it along: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/euler-logic-diagram-shows-logical-relationship-of-constitutional-article-ii-natural-born-citizens-to-other-type-citizens-of-the-united-states/cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-11441934774716711722016-02-28T21:56:45.960-05:002016-02-28T21:56:45.960-05:00Atty Apuzzo and CDR Kerchner (Ret) this Monday wil...Atty Apuzzo and CDR Kerchner (Ret) this Monday will be on Ringside Radio Show hosted by Jeff Crouere on WGSO 990 AM of New Orleans LA | CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/02/28/atty-apuzzo-and-cdr-kerchner-ret-will-be-on-ringside-radio-show-hosted-by-jeff-crouere-on-wgso-990-am-of-new-orleans-la/<br /><br />CDR Charles Kerchner, P.E. (Retired)<br />Lehigh Valley PA USA<br />http://www.protectourliberty.org<br />http://www.scribd.com/protectourliberty/collections/cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-14271672165329515042016-02-28T16:41:32.940-05:002016-02-28T16:41:32.940-05:00Mark Levin can't afford to debate you. Surely,...Mark Levin can't afford to debate you. Surely, he's read your site. As a gifted debater and Constitutional scholar, he knows that you hold all the cards. As a lawyer he knows to never ask a question in court unless you already know the answer is in your favor.<br /><br />To debate you would lead to the questions, "How did you (Levin" not know this?", "Why didn't you (Levin) tell us the truth sooner?" and "Who's side are you (Levin) really on?". It would destroy his credibility and, thus, his push for an Article V Convention wherein he and his puppet masters wish to completely rewrite our Constitution to legalize all the criminal activities that our government is currently engaged in and set up a statist empire where the people would return to being subjects of the state as they were under English rule. <br />Roberthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07865649369112264344noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-30407581122226020182016-02-28T11:32:20.844-05:002016-02-28T11:32:20.844-05:00
Part II
Furthermore, even the majority opinion (...<br />Part II<br /><br />Furthermore, even the majority opinion ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html ) did not seem to decide on “natural born citizenship” – rather only on “born Citizenship”. Furthermore, in Wong Kim Ark the case involved someone BORN IN THE UNITED STATES to parents legally allowed to be in the United States. The majority opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court (in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html ), stated “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 /><br /><br />Indeed, in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 21 Wall. 162 162 (1874), it states “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 [88 U.S. 162, 168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.” ( http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/88/162.html , https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/88/162/case.html ) <br /><br />BOTTOM LINE: IS THERE ANY LEGITIMATE SOURCE THAT SUGGESTS THAT SOMEONE BORN BOTH OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES AND WHEN HIS FATHER WAS NOT A CITIZEN WOULD BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN??? As for 8 U.S. Code § 1401 – Nationals and citizens of United States at birth (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401 ), I didn’t see the expression “natural born Citizen” used in 8 U.S. Code § 1401, and thus 8 U.S. Code § 1401 clearly does NOT appear to even allege any relevance to being NATURAL. <br /><br />Thus, while Cruz may conceivably be a “born Citizen” it APPEARS INCONCEIVABLE THAT HE COULD BE A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN!!! BY THE WAY, IS IT REASONABLE TO BELIEVE THAT SOMEONE COULD NOT ONLY BE A BORN CITIZEN OF THREE COUNTRIES (I.E. CANADA, CUBA, AND THE UNITED STATES) BUT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN OF THREE COUNTRIES (I.E. CANADA, CUBA, AND THE UNITED STATES)??? THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS!!!<br /><br />THUS, SUPPORTING ELECTING SOMEONE TO BE COMMANDER IN CHIEF WHO IS NOT A NATURAL BORN CITIZEN SEEMS TO BE FACILITATING VIOLATION OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!!! <br /><br />FURTHERMORE, HOW COULD ONE EXPECT SOMEONE LIKE SENATOR CRUZ TO NOMINATE TO THE SCOTUS JUDGES, LIKE SCALIA, WHO SINCERELY BELIEVE IN FOLLOWING THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE CONSTITUTION WHEN SUCH A JUDGE WOULD HOLD THAT CRUZ IS INELIGIBLE TO BE POTUS? <br /><br />INDEED, SICK AS IT MAY SEEM, TO THE EXTENT OF POPULAR VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE(S) CONSTITUTIONALLY INELIGIBLE TO BE POTUS SO COULD CONCEIVABLY DISREGARDING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE BECOME LESS REPUGNANT. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472760191473468260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-25759738530717972072016-02-28T11:29:38.278-05:002016-02-28T11:29:38.278-05:00Part I
Kudos to Trump!!! Rubio and especially Cru...<br />Part I<br /><br />Kudos to Trump!!! Rubio and especially Cruz do not appear to be NATURAL born citizens. (Also, I believe Katrina Pierson (Trump spokeswoman) should have said natural - not naturalized - at approximately 1:12 of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOnk5yZpPro ). <br /><br />Regardless of whether or not Cruz is a "born Citizen", Cruz is clearly NOT a "natural born Citizen".<br /><br />One question seems critical to not lose focus on: What's the difference between a "born Citizen" and a "natural born Citizen"? <br /><br />In the Naturalization Act of 1790 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1790 ) it apparently states that ‘And the children of citizens of the United States, that mayibe born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, …’ ( http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg103.pdf ). Some attempt to argue that this means that it is not necessary to be born in the United States to be a natural born Citizen. However, even in the Naturalization Act of 1790 it apparently states “children of citizens” – citizens in the plural (i.e. both parents). Moreover, the expression “shall be considered as” implies a leniency (and thus actually supports that “natural born Citizen” as used in the U.S. Constitution is more stringent (i.e. it is also necessary to be born in the United States)). In any event, in 1795, the Congress apparently repealed and replaced the Naturalization Act of 1790 (while George Washington was still the president) as elucidated in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalization_Act_of_1795 ( http://legisworks.org/sal/1/stats/STATUTE-1-Pg414a.pdf ). Furthermore, prior to the 14th Amendment, it seems clear that the prevailing understanding of born Citizenship (let alone natural born Citizenship) required more than just being born in the United States or why else would the (Citizenship clause of the) 14th Amendment have been necessary? <br /><br />Natural law seems to imply obviousness and thus a “natural born Citizen” seems to mean a born Citizen so obvious as not to require a statute. Apparently, the requirement for the president to be a “natural born Citizen” is a safeguard to maximize allegiance for this unique position (which includes the military role of Commander in Chief). There also seems to be a “widespread and long-standing” tradition (prior to Barack Hussein Obama II) of adherence to the requirement of a president being born in the United States to both parents who are U.S. citizens (unless someone managed to deceive us regarding his background) as apparently documented in http://www.votefortheconstitution.com/natural-born-citizen1.html . <br /><br />Indeed, in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)) ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/169/649/case.html ), "MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, with whom concurred MR. JUSTICE HARLAN dissenting" stated: <br />“Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:<br /><br />"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 />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472760191473468260noreply@blogger.com