tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post8576350019560106661..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: The Illinois Board of Elections Got It Wrong: Ted Cruz Is Not a Natural Born CitizenMario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger72125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-62132024702510798942016-02-29T17:39:39.899-05:002016-02-29T17:39:39.899-05:00Progue: "Don't you know the two citizen p...<b>Progue:</b> "<i>Don't you know the two citizen parent theory only applies to people Mario doesn't like. But if you're born out of wedlock two citizen parents don't matter in Mario's world.</i>"<br /><br />I wonder if Progue knows -- and, more importantly, cares -- that the citizenship of a bastard born overseas to a US citizen woman and a non-citizen man is treated differently in statute law than the citizenship of a bastard born overseas to a US citizen man and a non-citizen woman?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-51940457895415364112016-02-29T17:36:09.602-05:002016-02-29T17:36:09.602-05:00Mr Apuzzo,
You name was recently mentioned to me a...Mr Apuzzo,<br />You name was recently mentioned to me as a resource on the question of natural born citizenship, and I must say: thank you for all the <i>reasoning</i> you have put into this.<br /><br />Myself, I'm not a lawyer, but I am a reasonably intelligent person with what passes these days for a normal education (*) ... and on my own I had already come to almost the precise conclusions you detail here.<br /><br />On what small bit of differences there are between my conclusions and yours, you have given me *reasons* to reconsider.<br /><br />(*) and, to slightly overcome the particular handicap of my normal education, I have always been brutally logical/rational, even as a child.Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-35095152581743137392016-02-29T17:05:36.054-05:002016-02-29T17:05:36.054-05:00Pogue,
You are as bad as Squeeky, thinking that ...Pogue, <br /><br />You are as bad as Squeeky, thinking that you actually said anything. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-15716057553308022092016-02-29T16:23:43.504-05:002016-02-29T16:23:43.504-05:00Don't you know the two citizen parent theory o...Don't you know the two citizen parent theory only applies to people Mario doesn't like. But if you're born out of wedlock two citizen parents don't matter in Mario's world.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-85791621718768995072016-02-25T22:53:49.791-05:002016-02-25T22:53:49.791-05:00Squeeky,
Is that supposed to be some in for you ...Squeeky, <br /><br />Is that supposed to be some in for you to start embarrassing yourself again with your artsy farsty theories on what a natural born citizen is? Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-58866233037489481512016-02-25T21:14:32.697-05:002016-02-25T21:14:32.697-05:00Oh Gee, Mario Apuzzo, Esq.!!! Are you STILL pushin...Oh Gee, Mario Apuzzo, Esq.!!! Are you STILL pushing the two citizen parent nonsense??? I would thought by now that I had finally educated you on this.<br /><br />Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm<br />Girl ReporterSqueekyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13526929347358296892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-53664864625055757942016-02-22T00:40:30.453-05:002016-02-22T00:40:30.453-05:00https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/02/21/const...<br />https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2016/02/21/constitutional-eligibility-challenges-to-cruz-rubio-and-other-candidacies-to-be-heard-on-tuesday-in-ny/ "Constitutional Eligibility Challenges to Cruz, Rubio, and Other Candidacies to be Heard on Tuesday in NY " ---> http://www.thepostemail.com/2016/02/21/eligibility-challenges-to-cruz-rubio-jindal-candidacies-to-be-heard-on-tuesday-in-new-york/ - "Eligibility Challenges to Cruz, Rubio, Jindal Candidacies to be Heard on Tuesday in New York" ---> http://blog.timesunion.com/capitol/archives/246279/state-boe-receives-flurry-of-natural-born-objections-to-rubio-cruz/ - "State BOE receives flurry of ‘natural-born’ objections to Rubio, Cruz"Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472760191473468260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-55028858084382518922016-02-21T16:54:30.183-05:002016-02-21T16:54:30.183-05:00Donald Trump was asked about his retweet ( https:/...<br />Donald Trump was asked about his retweet ( https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/701045567783219201 ) regarding the ineligibility of both Cruz and Rubio (--- by George Stephanopoulos approximately 1:30 of https://youtu.be/R9GkFo1Kfno ("Donald Trump on His South Carolina Primary Win, the GOP, and the Cruz Campaign Tactics")) ( http://redstatewatcher.com/article.asp?id=7663 ).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472760191473468260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-69428343739463151992016-02-21T06:01:49.950-05:002016-02-21T06:01:49.950-05:00It’s an interesting question, if in the upcoming y...<br />It’s an interesting question, if in the upcoming year, the U.S. Supreme Court would issue a 4-4 decision (and the Obama U.S. Supreme Court appointees would not recuse themselves) (or if the U.S. Supreme Court would issue a 3-3 decision (and the Obama U.S. Supreme Court appointees would recuse themselves)) regarding natural born Citizen and there would be different Circuits issuing different opinions regarding the meaning of natural born Ciizen … <br /><br />Also, would Cruz/Rubio appoint justices to the U.S. Supreme Court like Scalia when a majority of such justices would most probably him find him ineligible for the presidency? (Note: Even if the Rubio/Cruz U.S. Supreme Court appointees would recuse themselves it still could lead to the invalidation of a Rubio/Cruz presidency.)<br /><br />In any event, I’m glad to see that Trump may now be going after both Rubio and Cruz (as not being natural born Citizens) based on https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/701045567783219201 (""@ResisTyr: Mr.Trump...BOTH Cruz AND Rubio are ineligible to be POTUS! It's a SLAM DUNK CASE!! Check it! http://powderedwigsociety.com/eligibility-of-cruz-and-rubio/ …""). However, Trump still has apparently NOT initiated any actual litigation … <br /><br />Also, in any event, we should contact our Senators to discourage approving any more Obama nominations for SCOTUS. Besides any invalid nature of such an appointment, our rights such as the first amendment, second amendment, etc. are on the verge of being usurped!!!<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472760191473468260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-72390998212015508502016-02-18T03:43:29.181-05:002016-02-18T03:43:29.181-05:00I do not know if scalia died a natural death but ...I do not know if scalia died a natural death but I do know that the courts, including the supreme court, are a farce after reading minor back in 2012. Scalia should not have attended the fake inaugurals and should've pointed out in public or in sc opinions that obama has no right to do anything as President because he is not a natural born citizen. The lack of character, honesty and real patriotism is appalling in dc. Cruz and Andrew Napolitano talking about trumps lawsuit, if he does it, being frivolous is a flat out lie. I have called obama President and I never will, that is reserved for real CiCs like Presidents Washington and LincolnAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08928771256273232563noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-3041178732333830302016-02-17T21:39:23.882-05:002016-02-17T21:39:23.882-05:00
Unfortunately, with the passing (homicide (???)) ...<br />Unfortunately, with the passing (homicide (???)) of Justice Scalia, I doubt that there would be a majority opinion interpreting natural born Citizen in accordance with the original meaning (Vattel). BY THE WAY, A DECISION THAT WOULD DECIDE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN IN ACCORDANCE WITH VATTEL WOULD SEEM TO INVALIDATE THE OBAMA PRESIDENCY AND ALL HIS LEGISLATION AND JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS - TALK ABOUT A POTENTIAL MOTIVATION IN THE SCALIA DEATH. GIVEN THE CURRENT POSSIBILITY OF A LAWSUIT BY ONE PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE AGAINST ANOTHER PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE THE POWERS THAT BE MAY BE CONCERNED THAT THERE IS A SERIOUS POSSIBILITY FOR SUCH A LAWSUIT TO SOON REACH THE U.S. SUPREME COURT.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472760191473468260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-78101997877364202852016-02-17T14:38:54.043-05:002016-02-17T14:38:54.043-05:00Just to follow up on my comment of "February ...<br />Just to follow up on my comment of "February 16, 2016 at 5:34 PM":<br /><br />http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme-court-justice-antonin-scalia-death-conspiracy-theories-texas-ranch-owner-clarifies/ ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyWrp9kLIyY ( http://www.wtsp.com/story/news/2016/02/17/ranch-owner-clarifies-how-he-found-scalias-body/80495122/ ) "The ranch owner, John Poindexter, later tried to clarify his comments, telling "CBS This Morning" Scalia had a pillow over his head, not over his face as some have been saying. The pillow was against the headboard." (Notice: Donald Trump apparently commented about it on two radio talk shows.) Question: If this is simply a misunderstanding (i.e. the pillow was not in contact with his body) then what is the likelihood that the ranch owner would mention anything about the pillow when commenting about the death of Justice Scalia??? Also did Justice Scalia usually sleep/rest in bed without resting his head on a pillow??? Also how long did it take for the owner to attempt to "clarify"??? Speaking of Trump, he apparently is continuing to threaten to sue Ted Cruz [about his ineligibility] [but still hasn't actually filed] <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472760191473468260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-55579327184856029912016-02-17T13:46:20.222-05:002016-02-17T13:46:20.222-05:00A Bright Light at Harvard...
Mario,
I'll try...<b>A Bright Light at Harvard...</b><br /><br />Mario,<br /><br />I'll try this again.<br /><br />Harvard Prof. Einer Elhague's has a short and succinct article at Salon.com that reads like something you could have written. What Prof. Elhague wrote sure sounds like he's reading your blog, although he wrote his Salon article before you posted your article here, <i>The Illinois Board of Elections Got It Wrong: Ted Cruz Is Not a Natural Born Citizen.</i>. What he wrote about originalism, textualism and <b>"at birth"</b> is like a breath of fresh air coming from Harvard University. His emphasis is on the implication of <b>"at"</b> birth and not on <b>"at"</b> birth vs. <b>"by"</b> birth as you articulated so well in this article.<br /><br />"Einer Elhauge is the Petrie Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Founding Director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology and Bioethics."<br /><br />>> http://www.salon.com/2016/01/20/ted_cruz_is_not_eligible_to_run_for_president_a_harvard_law_professor_close_reads_the_constitution/<br /><br /><b>Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for president: <br />A Harvard Law professor close-reads the Constitution</b><br /><br />"The closer you study the Constitution, the weaker Ted Cruz's case squares with the actual meaning of "natural-born" "<br /><br />This is part of paragraph #8 of Prof. Elhague's article:<br /><br /><i>"The contrary position also has two difficulties. <br />"It defines a “natural-born citizen” to mean <br />"anyone who Congress has defined to be a citizen at birth; <br />"that is, anyone born a citizen. <br />"This effectively reads the word “natural” out of “natural born citizen.”</i><br /><br />It sure would be nice if Prof. Elhague could influence his fellow professors Laurence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz regarding their "living theories of constitutional interpretation" as he mentioned in paragraph #9:<br /><br /><i>"In short, both textualism and originalism <br />"cut strongly against Cruz being a natural-born citizen. <br />"Some argue that <b>living theories of constitutional interpretation</b> cut in favor of Cruz, <br />"but even living theories start with text and history, ..."</i><br /><br />Compared to Mr. Warren Norred's article on his blog in which he says that the Congress can define "natural born Citizen" any way it wants, Prof. Elhague's comments are definitely erudite and are like a breath of fresh air coming from a Professor of Law at Harvard University. <br /><br />Art<br />Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.comajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-4242546289506311982016-02-16T17:34:27.115-05:002016-02-16T17:34:27.115-05:00Just to add to Kanbun: How much hope is there for ...<br />Just to add to Kanbun: How much hope is there for an honest and competent result via the judiciary? Indeed, many believe that U.S. Supreme Court Justice Scalia may have just been murdered!!! If Justice Scalia wasn't even apparently given an autopsy despite a report that he was found with a pillow over his head ... then why shouldn't we be skeptical about our hopes via the government?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16472760191473468260noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-30510390804955556862016-02-16T16:26:08.404-05:002016-02-16T16:26:08.404-05:00Kanbun,
People can read Minor for themselves and...Kanbun, <br /><br />People can read Minor for themselves and decide for themselves what it is saying. That counts more than all the spin of the "experts." Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-31846037820407366512016-02-16T15:46:32.474-05:002016-02-16T15:46:32.474-05:00This sounds familiar...
Mario,
Harvard Prof. Ein...This sounds familiar...<br /><br />Mario,<br /><br />Harvard Prof. Einer Elhague's short but succinct article at Salon.com linked to below sounds familiar, and remind me of your comments about originalism, textualism and <b>"at birth"</b> in your current article, although his emphasis is not on <b>"at"</b> birth but its implication--see paragraph #3 below.<br /><br />Compared to Mr. Warren Norred's article on his blog in which he says that the Congress can define "natural born Citizen" any way it wants, Prof. Elhague's comments are definitely erudite and are like a breath of fresh air.<br /><br />>> http://www.salon.com/2016/01/20/ted_cruz_is_not_eligible_to_run_for_president_a_harvard_law_professor_close_reads_the_constitution/<br /><br /><b>Ted Cruz is not eligible to run for president: <br />A Harvard Law professor close-reads the Constitution</b><br /><br />"The closer you study the Constitution, the weaker Ted Cruz's case squares with the actual meaning of "natural-born" "<br /><br />Einer Elhauge <br /><br />Wednesday, Jan 20, 2016 02:37 PM PST <br /><br />"Einer Elhauge is the Petrie Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and Founding Director of the Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology and Bioethics."<br /><br />Here are four paragraphs from his Salon article.<br /><br />~ ~ ~ ~ ~<br /><br />"The U.S. statute in 1790 provided that “children of citizens of the United States” that are born abroad “shall be considered as natural born Citizens.” This has been thought the strongest evidence for Cruz’s position since so many 1790 congressmen had participated in the Constitutional Convention. However, this statute did not say these children were natural-born citizens. It instead carefully said they “shall be considered as” natural-born citizens, suggesting that Congress thought they were not natural-born citizens but should be treated as such. Indeed, there would have been no need to pass the statute if they were already understood to be natural-born citizens.<br /><br />"Further, when this Act was reconsidered in a few years, Madison himself pointed out that Congress only had constitutional authority to naturalize aliens, not U.S. citizens, and reported a bill that amended the statute to eliminate the words “natural born” and simply state that “the children of citizens of the United States” born abroad “shall be considered as citizens.” This indicates that Madison’s view was that children born abroad of U.S. citizens were naturally aliens, rather than natural born citizens, and thus could be naturalized by Congressional statute but should not be called “natural born.” Congress adopted this amendment in 1795.<br /><br />"The contrary position also has two difficulties. It defines a “natural-born citizen” to mean anyone who Congress has defined to be a citizen at birth; that is, anyone born a citizen. This effectively reads the word “natural” out of “natural born citizen.” It also means Congress can by statute change the constitutional limit on who can run for president, when the whole point of constitutional limits is typically that Congress cannot change them.<br /><br />"In short, both textualism and originalism cut strongly against Cruz being a natural-born citizen. Some argue that living theories of constitutional interpretation cut in favor of Cruz, but even living theories start with text and history, and it is not clear why the principle animating the clause would merit a different conclusion in current times. Presumably modern equal protection norms would bar a sexist rule that said children born abroad with one U.S. parent were natural born only if that parent were a man. But that is no argument against the interpretation that persons are natural born citizens only if born in a U.S. territory or to a parent serving the U.S. abroad.<br /><br />Art<br />Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.comajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-84498061140021229582016-02-16T13:38:10.338-05:002016-02-16T13:38:10.338-05:00Mario,
I continue to be curious why there has neve...Mario,<br />I continue to be curious why there has never been a single mainstream media type or so-called legal expert that refers to Minor in defining NBC. Your references, and a plain layman's reading of the case citation, seems so straightforward to me. Is it because these experts (would argue) believe that this is dicta and not precedent (I certainly can't tell)? To me, precedent or not it doesn't matter - the court clearly expressed an opinion that should have value in this discussion.<br /><br />The lack of substantive justification or backup to these various arguments made by these experts makes the media's attention to only the spin all the more perplexing. Wouldn't you think that there would be one credible pundit that would at least have the sense to suggest that Minor has some import?<br /><br />Kanbunhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03554597626551685635noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-54995470096671925682016-02-16T09:48:27.862-05:002016-02-16T09:48:27.862-05:00II of II
The historical record shows that Mr. No...II of II <br /><br />The historical record shows that Mr. Norred is mistaken. It demonstrates, among other things, that James Madison in Federalist No. 42 did not complain about how the states were making persons natural born citizens. Rather, he complained about how the states each had their own rules for naturalizing people to be state citizens. It was uniformity and certainty with U.S. citizenship that Madison wanted. Hence, he saw the need for a uniform rule of naturalization throughout the United States and for the nation to have one uniform rule for defining the “natural born citizens” of the United States and the “citizens” of the United States. Surely, while the definition of a citizen of the U.S. could change given the needs of the nation, the definition of a natural born citizen could not.<br /> <br />Case law of our U.S. Supreme Court also shows that Mr. Norred is in error. Minor v. Happersett (1875) told us what the Framing period common understanding of the meaning of a natural born citizenw was. It expressed nicely who the natural born citizens were and what people were in need of naturalization when it simply and plainly said: “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.” Id. at 167. Indeed, there was no doubt those children born in the country to parents who were its citizens were not only citizens like their parents, but also “natives, or natural born citizens.” See Vattel, Section 212 (provides the same nomenclature and definition when he said: “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”). Minor also explained that under that common law, all other persons were “aliens or foreigners,” and how those people could be naturalized. Through this explanation, Minor exhausted all persons who could be natural born citizens, i.e., only those born in the country to citizen parents could be. Hence, Minor confirmed that the only persons needing naturalization were persons not born in the country to citizen parents. And it is these people who would become the object of Congress’s naturalization powers, not the natural born citizens. And it is these people that Congress, since 1790, has acted upon with its naturalization Acts, thus confirming as early as 1790 who the natural born citizens were and what the common understanding of the meaning of that clause was. <br /> <br />Congress’s naturalization power did not nor does it extend over any person born in the U.S., who becomes automatically a citizen from the moment of birth. Historically, one had to satisfy the common law to be a citizen at birth by birth in the country and only if also born to citizen parents could one gain that status. These were the “natives, or natural-born citizens.” The Fourteenth Amendment extended the right of citizenship at birth by birth in the country to anyone born in the United States while subject to its jurisdiction (under Wong Kim Ark meaning also born to alien parents who are domiciled and permanently residing in the United States and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders). Under the very text and intent of the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark, these are “citizens” of the United States at birth and not to be conflated, confounded, and confused with the common law natural born citizens. Even today, because of the Fourteenth Amendment, Congress cannot through its naturalization power or any other power deny to any person born in the United States while subject to its jurisdiction the right to be a “citizen” of the United States at birth. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). And it surely could not deny that right to any natural born citizen. <br /> <br />There is more that I can say which demonstrates so much more of what Mr. Norred wrote in his article to be wrong, but will leave it here for now.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-61526286359977095632016-02-16T09:42:10.176-05:002016-02-16T09:42:10.176-05:00I of II
Art,
Attorney Warren Norred proclaims:...I of II <br /><br />Art, <br /><br />Attorney Warren Norred proclaims: "I can state that I could not find any limiting language in any Founding Era documentation that clearly supports or argues against the idea that Congress can define ‘natural-born citizen’ any way it wishes." Mr. Norred takes the typical Obama and Cruz supporter approach to defining a natural born citizen, i.e., if we cannot figure out what the Framers told us it means (they do not try very hard to find out or if they do, they do so dishonesty), we can make it mean anything we want. They constitutionalize and thereby legitimize their approach by calling it “the living Constitution.” <br /><br />Mr. Norred misses, apart from the historical record and case law from the U.S. Supreme Court, the elephant in the room, the text and structure of the Constitution. The text of our Constitution established a central government of limited powers. That government has only the powers the Constitution gives to it, express or implied, with all those that are not given reserved to the states and the people. The Constitution did not give Congress any express or implied power to define a natural born. With respect to Congress’s power over citizenship, it says only one thing: “The Congress shall have power “[t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization . . . throughout the United States.” Warren conveniently dismisses this text out of hand. On the contrary, this “naturalization” power can be interpreted to apply only to anyone who needs naturalization. And who could that be? This power could extend only over persons who were not natural born citizens, for anyone who was not a natural born citizen needed naturalization. A natural born citizen was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. So, that child did not need naturalization. <br /> <br />The structure of the Constitution also demonstrates Mr. Norred to be wrong. If the Framers would have wanted Congress to have the power to define a natural born citizen they would have told us as they did through Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 that Congress had the power “t]o define . . . Piracies and Felonies committed on the High Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations.” The clause “natural born citizen” already had a definition at common law and so there was no need for Congress to define it. Minor. In fact, there is no recorded debate either in the Constitutional Convention or any of the state ratifying conventions on the meaning of a natural born citizen. Hence, there must have been common understanding among the people as to what it meant. Nor did the Framers want Congress to define a natural born citizen, for they did not trust Congress to select who shall be President and Commander in Chief, which is the reason that they took away from Congress the power to select the President and rather gave it to the people but only through the Electoral College. <br /> <br />Continued . . . <br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-78015884938252388972016-02-16T00:46:37.733-05:002016-02-16T00:46:37.733-05:00Dittos...
Mario,
Here is an example from Norred&...Dittos...<br /><br />Mario,<br /><br />Here is an example from Norred's article on his blog (the url is posted earlier) of a conclusion that sounds erudite, but, something's missing:<br /><br />"In fact, after a long and torturous examination <br />"of every instance of the word "naturalization" and "natural-born" <br />"(with and without the hyphen), <br />"I can state that I could not find any limiting language <br />"in any Founding Era documentation <br />"that clearly supports or argues against the idea that <br />"Congress can define "natural-born citizen" any way it wishes."<br /><br />Norred could not find <b>"limiting language"</b> so, what, anything goes?<br /><br />And since there is no "limiting language" Congress can redefine the original genesis original intent of original birther John Jay and his reason, only four years after he was a signatory to the 1783 Treaty of Paris, his reason for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" <b><i>(implying ONLY singular U.S. citizenship -- NOT dual U.S./foreign citizenship)</i></b> in his note to his long-time friend original birther George Washington, a meaning that was accepted without debate by the original birther framers and original birther ratifiers?<br /><br />Mario, it seems to me that the dual U.S./foreign citizenship aficionados don't really have a coherent and cogent argument against ONLY singular U.S. citizenship as being the obvious meaning of "born" in "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-77428221275593713162016-02-15T23:30:36.761-05:002016-02-15T23:30:36.761-05:00II of II
Vattel asked whether that foreign-born ...II of II <br /><br />Vattel asked whether that foreign-born child was a "citizen," not whether that child was a "natural born citizen." Vattel explained that the municipal laws of the child's parents' nation had to be followed when determining whether that foreign-born child was a citizen of his parent's nation. In other words, if those laws said that such a child was a citizen, then the child was. If those laws said that the child was not or did not provide for such a child, then the child was not. Vattel added that by nature alone, the place of birth could not take away from the child what nature had given to the child, and that such a child inherited from his or her parents (through the father) their citizenship. But Vattel explained that the laws of nature applied to the affairs of nations became the law of nations. Vattel’s law of nations parents did not live in a state of nature, but rather in civil and political society. Hence, Vattel added that the child's parents' nation, for various reasons, could pass political or civil laws which would take precedent over what nature ordained. Vattel also explained that the parents would not have quitted their native country and if they did, their child would not inherit their native citizenship. If the parents would have become permanent inhabitants of the foreign nation, then a child born to them in the foreign nation would inherit from them the status of a permanent inhabitant, not that of a citizen of their nation. This principles also applied to Vattel's Section 212 natural born citizen, requiring that the child be born in the country to parents who were its citizens and if not, then not even a citizen of that nation in which born. You will note that Congress in the early naturalization Acts treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens and in need of naturalization.<br /> <br />In Section 215, Vattel was talking about a nation's positive laws making citizens of children born out of the country, not making natural born citizens of those children. In referring to those foreign-born children, Vattel did not in the least suggest that the citizenship status that their parents’ nation may bestow upon them through its positive laws would somehow change the definition of a natural born citizen. The changing definition of citizenship of which Vattel spoke in Section 215 referred only to children born out of the country who Vattel saw as citizens, not as natural born citizens. Surely, if those children were natural born citizens, they would not have needed those civil or political laws to seal their citizenship fate. We have seen Congress since 1795 (it repealed the Naturalization Act of 1790) constantly change its naturalization Acts which it applied to children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents and to alien parents. On the other hand, Congress has never sought to change the meaning of a natural born citizen, not even through the Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, Warren has this wrong, too. <br /> <br />Art, I also read Warren's full article. He makes many points with which I disagree. I could go on much further and as you can see from the little that I have written above, it could get much worse for Warren if I did.<br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-90848779204686829102016-02-15T22:59:26.346-05:002016-02-15T22:59:26.346-05:00I of II
Art,
Attorney Warren Norred said: &qu...I of II <br /><br />Art,<br /> <br />Attorney Warren Norred said: "Art, thanks for the reference. Of course, Mario is making the same mistake in adopting Vattel's definition as authoritative and unchanging, when Vattel himself said it was dependent on national laws regarding such matters."<br />~~~~~<br /><br />Let's examine this statement. First, the historical and legal record demonstrates beyond any doubt that Vettel was and still is "authoritative" when interpreting the Constitution. So Warren fails there. <br /> <br />Second, Vattel defined a natural born citizen. The historical and legal record demonstrates that the definition of a natural born citizen has never changed in the United States. That definition has been and continues to be a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. Minor v Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). The Framers adopted that definition into the Constitution. The Constitution has never been amended in that regard. Therefore, the definition of a natural born citizen has been "unchanging." So warren fails there, too. <br /> <br />Third, Warren says that Vattel himself said "it" was dependent on national laws regarding "such matters." What Warren get wrong is that "it" referred to whether a child born out of the country to citizen parents was to be considered a citizen. Vattel explains it in Section 215: <br /> <br />§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.<br /><br />It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also. <br /><br />Continued . . . <br />Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-7686427439455059842016-02-15T21:45:47.021-05:002016-02-15T21:45:47.021-05:00"US Government Ruling From 1885 by Secretary ..."US Government Ruling From 1885 by Secretary of State Thomas Bayard Proves Chester Arthur’s British Birth Was Kept From Public."<br />https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/us-government-ruling-from-1885-by-secretary-of-state-thomas-bayard-proves-chester-arthurs-british-birth-was-kept-from-public/<br /><br />"The Holy Grail of POTUS Eligibility Law Review Articles: Mr. Obama and Mr. Arthur… Meet Attorney George Collins"<br />https://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2009/08/25/the-holy-grail-of-potus-eligibility-law-review-articles-mr-obama-and-mr-arthur-meet-attorney-george-collins/<br /><br />Several interesting articles by legal scholar who agrees with Mario Apuzzo. If Shakespeare's Hamlet were subjected to a "living Constitution" interpretation what kind of play would we end up with? Actually scholars are at pains to determine exactly what each word and expression meant at the time of Shakespeare; a scholar who started inventing new definitions would lose status quickly! <br />Surely the Constitution deserves equal respect and treatment. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13458690256053943151noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-13053174540262585372016-02-15T19:26:49.721-05:002016-02-15T19:26:49.721-05:00Bryan Garner redux...
Mario,
In the The Atlantic...Bryan Garner redux...<br /><br />Mario,<br /><br />In the The Atlantic article by Prof. Garner that I mentioned yesterday, February 14, 2016 at 10:00 PM, there are some comments by Warren Norred, Esq. about John Jay and Emer de Vattel.<br /><br />After his comments on The Atlantic that I include below is his response to me yesterday after I suggested that he visit your blog, specifically your current article.<br /><br />Mr. Norred is an Arlington Patent, Business, Bankruptcy, and Litigation Attorney. <br /><br />Since it seems that Mark Levin is not serious about taking on, as he said on the radio, to take on "all comers" in debating "natural born Citizen" and Sen. Cruz's eligibility, maybe Mr. Warren Norred, Esq., if he visits your blog, will engage with you, and, for one example, make an attempt to rebut and refute your excellent articulation of Article II Section 1 clause 5 and the Fourteenth Amendment as you wrote in this article, and how, these are my words, the positive law (statute)<b>"at birth"</b> and natural law (nature)<b>"by birth" alone</b> relate to both parts of the U.S. Constitution that mention "born" in references to being a U.S. "natural born Citizen" and a U.S. "citizen" and a "citizen" of the states in which they reside.<br /><br /><<>><br /><br />Partial quote #1 -<br /><br />"Those quibbles aside, <br />"I'm pleased that Mr. Garner concludes with the reality that <br />"the modern jurisprudence would reject a gender-based analysis <br />"and allow Cruz his time in the White House, <br />"if he is able to garner the electoral votes."<br /><br />"(I wrote a whole article on the Ted Cruz eligibility question, focused mostly on the Birther arguments at <br />>> https://norredlaw.com/2015/04/13/natural-born-citizen/#comment-33289<br /><br /><b>Is Ted Cruz a Natural-Born Citizen? Yes.</b><br />Natural-Born Citizenship and the Constitution<br /><br />Partial quote #2 on The Atlantic -<br /><br />"As Mr. Garner no doubt knows, <br />"the "natural born citizen" language <br />"was added almost absentmindedly <br />"in the middle of the constitutional convention <br />after prodded by a letter from John Jay,..." [he quotes Jay's entire note]<br /><br />Partial quote #3 on The Atlantic -<br /><br />"Vattel's definition does not control here. <br />"I've written an entire article just for people like you [a commentator on The Atlantic], <br />"who think that they have some sort of secret higher understanding of the law: https://norredlaw.com/2015/04/13/natural-born-citizen/#comment-33289<br /><br /><<>><br /><br />Here is Mr. Norred's comment to me on his site about Vattel in which he mentions you:<br /><br />"Art, thanks for the reference. <br />"Of course, Mario is making the same mistake <br />"in adopting Vattel's definition as authoritative and unchanging, <br />"when Vattel himself said it was dependent on national laws regarding such matters. <br /><br />"But I was unaware of the Illinois Board's ruling."<br /><br /><<>><br /><br />Mario, Mr. Norred wrote his defense of Sen. Cruz's eligibility last year, ten months ago, April 13, 2015 [ https://norredlaw.com/blog-history/ ], so, being an Esquire, he probably would not mind getting some comments other than my comment which is the only one there.<br /><br />Art<br />Original-Genesis-Original-Intent.blogspot.comajtelleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08126712347019345867noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-19233987225834284292016-02-15T01:58:41.601-05:002016-02-15T01:58:41.601-05:00ajtelles,
Thanks as always to you. I like this ...ajtelles, <br /><br />Thanks as always to you. I like this in the Garner article. He tells us: "I wrote it over the course of the day." Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com