Barack Obama Ballot Challenge Proceeding Forward in the NJ Supreme Court

Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Barack Obama Ballot Challenge Proceeding Forward in the NJ Supreme Court

               Barack Obama Ballot Challenge Proceeding Forward in the
                                               NJ Supreme Court

                                            By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
                                                August 8, 2012

The candidate Barack Obama presidential election ballot challenge in New Jersey is proceeding forward. On July 2, 2012, I filed on behalf of my clients, Nicholas E. Purpura and Theodore T. Moran, a Petition for Certification with the New Jersey Supreme Court. See my post entitled, Purpura and Moran File Petition for Certification With the NJ Supreme Court in Obama NJ Ballot Challenge , with 439 comments, accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2012/07/purpura-and-moran-file-petition-for.html . The Petition for Certification may be read here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/98923880/Purpura-Moran-Petition-for-Certification-FILED-7-2-12 .

On July 16, 2012, candidate, Barack Obama, through his attorney, Angelo J. Genova, Esq., filed his Opposition Letter Brief which can be read here, http://www.scribd.com/doc/102405426/Purpura-Moran-Opposition-Letter-Brief-by-Obama-to-NJ-Supreme-Ct-7-16-12 . On July 19, 2012, the New Jersey Secretary of State, through the New Jersey Attorney General (by Deputy Attorney General Alan C. Stephens) filed her Opposition Letter Brief which can be read here, http://www.scribd.com/doc/102405496/Purpura-Moran-Opposition-Letter-Brief-of-SOS-to-NJ-Supreme-Ct-7-19-12 .

Today, Wednesday, August 8, 2012, I filed with the Supreme Court petitioners’ Reply Letter Brief. A copy of the Reply Letter Brief can be read at http://www.scribd.com/doc/102405635/Purpura-Moran-Reply-Letter-Brief-to-NJ-Supreme-Ct-FILED-8-8-12 .

The New Jersey ballot challenge case is now ready for submission to the Chambers of the New Jersey Supreme Court Justices for decision on whether the Court will grant our Petition for Certification. A Petition for Certification shall be granted on the affirmative vote of 3 or more justices. If certification is granted, the matter shall be deemed pending on appeal in the Supreme Court and the Court would then decide the appeal on the briefs, appendices, and transcript filed in the Appellate Division. The Supreme Court may render a decision with or without oral argument.

In the Petition for Certification, we argue that our petition presents questions of general importance which have not been but which should be settled by the Supreme Court and that the interest of justice requires that the Supreme Court grant certification. A democratic majority does not have the constitutional right to elect a President who is not constitutionally eligible. Hence, whether a person running for President is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and constitutionally eligible for that office is a question of great public importance. What role the State of New Jersey through the Secretary of State (“SOS”) has in vetting candidates who are running for the Office of President is also a question of great public importance. Whether New Jersey is responsible for determining the eligibility of its presidential candidates is a significant question for the state to answer. For sure, how best to protect the integrity of New Jersey elections for the Office of President is a question of great public importance to the State of New Jersey, which is guaranteed by Article IV, Section 4 of our Constitution a republican form of government. These questions and their answers are special reasons enough for this Court to grant certification.

We argue that the Administrative Law Judge, whose opinion was adopted by the Secretary of State and affirmed by the Appellate Division, erred in allowing candidate Barack Obama to be placed on the ballot for the primary and general election and to run for office in New Jersey without providing any evidence to the New Jersey Secretary of State showing his identity or where he was born, when challenged to do so.

We argue that, in light of Obama conceding that the State of New Jersey has no evidence of his identity or place of birth, including the 2011 internet image of his alleged birth certificate, the ALJ had absolutely no evidence before him upon which to base his finding that Obama was born in Hawaii.

We also argue that the ALJ misapplied Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, the Fourteenth Amendment, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), and United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), all which he used to find that Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that if one was born before the adoption of the Constitution, one could be a “Citizen of the United States” and be eligible to be President. But it also provides that for all those born after the adoption of the Constitution, one must be a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to be President. That means that today, anybody who is just a “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born Citizen” is not eligible to be President.

The Founders and Framers had good reason for including the “natural born Citizen” clause into the Constitution and requiring that future Presidents have that birth status. St. George Tucker tells us why the Founders and Framers used the “natural born Citizen” clause as a requirement of presidential eligibility:

“That provision in the constitution which requires that the president shall be a native-born citizen (unless he were a citizen of the United States when the constitution was adopted,) is a happy means of security against foreign influence, which, wherever it is capable of being exerted, is to be dreaded more than the plague. The admission of foreigners into our councils, consequently, cannot be too much guarded against; their total exclusion from a station to which foreign nations have been accustomed to, attach ideas of sovereign power, sacredness of character, and hereditary right, is a measure of the most consummate policy and wisdom.”

George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries: with Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States and of The Commonwealth of Virginia (1803) (Philadelphia: published by William Young Birch and Abraham Small; Robert Carter, Printer, 1803), http://constitution.org/tb/tb2.htm . So we can see that the Founders and Framers used the “natural born Citizen” clause as a national security measure designed to make sure that the President worked only in the best interest of the United States and its republican principles and of no other nation. It was also put in place to keep all vestiges of monarchial rule and influence out of the United States.

The Fourteenth Amendment by its clear text gives the status of a “citizen of the United States” to those born or naturalized in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” It does not give anyone the status of a “natural born Citizen.” When the Founders and Framers inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause in the Constitution, there was no Fourteenth Amendment. Hence, they surely did not write the clause into the Constitution having in mind any citizenship standard that is contained in the Fourteenth Amendment. And there does not exist any evidence that the Fourteenth Amendment repealed or amended the Founders’ and Framers’ definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and the Fourteenth Amendment stand as two separate and distinct constitutional provisions which provide two different constitutional citizenship standards.

Again, Minor v. Happersett confirmed the American “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen,” which Minor said the Founders and Framers were familiar with and used when they wrote the “natural born Citizen” clause. That definition is a child “born in a country of parents who were its citizens.” Id. at 167-68. Minor left open the question of whether a child born “within the jurisdiction” of the United States to alien parents is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. As we have seen, this is a different standard as that which applies to defining a “natural born Citizen.”

Wong Kim Ark answered the single question left open by Minor. It held that Wong, born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents who were neither diplomats nor military invaders was born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States and therefore a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth. The Court’s single task was to interpret and apply the Fourteenth Amendment, not Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. The Court found that Wong’s parents being domiciled and residents (not “citizens”) was enough to give jurisdiction to the United States over them and Wong when Wong was born. Again, since the Fourteenth Amendment neither repealed nor amended Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 “natural born Citizen” clause, Wong defined a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, not a “natural born Citizen” under Article II. In fact, Wong’s specific holding uses the phrase “citizen of the United States,” not “natural born Citizen.” Hence, using that amendment to find someone a “citizen of the United States,” regardless of whether that person is a “citizen” from the moment of birth, has no direct bearing on the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” After all, Article II says “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen,” and is applied for presidential eligibility. What the Fourteenth Amendment can do with reference to a “natural born Citizen” is increase the pool of parents who become “citizens of the United States” and give birth to “natural born Citizens.”

The clause “natural born Citizen” is a word of art, an idiom, a unitary clause, which has a very special meaning as confirmed by Minor. It is constitutional error to conflate and confound a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment with a “natural born Citizen” under Article II. A “natural born Citizen,” being the standard for the President and the Commander in Chief of the Military, requires allegiance and citizenship only to the United States from the moment of birth. A Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” from birth does not have the same allegiance requirement and can even be born with dual and conflicting allegiances, a condition which the Founders and Framers did not permit future Presidents and Commanders to have when born. They were very specific as is evident from the plain text of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, that after the adoption of the Constitution, one had to be a “natural born Citizen,” and not just a “Citizen of the United States.”

There is no other U.S. Supreme Court case that has changed the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” as confirmed by Minor. That definition, which is the definition from the Founding, it therefore the supreme law of the land and stands today until amended by Constitutional amendment. And that definition is a child “born in a country of parents who were its citizens.”

We know that candidate Barack Obama was not born to “citizen” parents. His father was a British/Kenyan citizen who never became a “citizen of the United States.” Obama, even if born in Hawaii, cannot be a “natural born Citizen.” Because his father was not a U.S. citizen when Obama was born, Obama, who wants to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military, while he could have been born a “citizen of the United States” if born in Hawaii, was also born in full allegiance and citizenship of Great Britain and at age two also of Kenya. He was not born within the full and complete allegiance of the United States, an indispensable birth condition for one wanting to be President and Commander of the Military. Hence, Obama is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” See David Ramsay, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789) (citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6; St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries: with Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States and of The Commonwealth of Virginia (1803) (Philadelphia: published by William Young Birch and Abraham Small; Robert Carter, Printer, 1803), http://constitution.org/tb/tb2.htm (“These civil rights [which included the right to be elected President] may be inherited, or acquired, in the United States: they are acquired by a foreigner who is naturalized; they are inherited by all whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens”).

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,” under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 he is not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

I will update this post as soon as I receive new information.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
August 8, 2012
http://puzo1.blogspot.com
####

Copyright © 2012
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved

602 comments:

«Oldest ‹Older 1 – 200 of 602 Newer› Newest»

Andy said...: Proceeding forward? It doesn't seem like you've even gotten cert, let alone actually getting to proceed.

Good luck with that!; August 9, 2012 at 8:48 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Andy,

It is quite evident that you are reading challenged.; August 9, 2012 at 10:11 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Richard Winger reports on his blog, Ballot Access News:

"Wisconsin Invalidates Socialist Equality Presidential Petition Because of Presidential Elector Candidate Residency

August 8th, 2012

The Socialist Equality Party turned in 3,200 signatures to place its presidential nominee, Jerry White, on the ballot. The state requires 2,000. However, the state disqualified the petition because the state says one presidential elector candidate needs to live in each U.S. House district.

However, in 2004, the State Supreme Court ruled in favor of Ralph Nader, and said there is no need for a residency requirement for presidential elector candidates, other than that they live in Wisconsin. That case was Nader v Dane County Circuit Court. The Socialist Equality Party will bring this to
the attention of the election officials."

http://www.ballot-access.org/2012/08/08/wisconsin-invalidates-socialist-equality-presidential-petition-because-of-presidential-elector-candidate-residency/

Isn’t that something. The states want to make sure that the electors for President live in designated parts of their own states (saying its not good enough that they actually live someplace within that state), but concerning the presidential candidate himself are not concerned with who he is, where he was born, and that he is constitutionally eligible for the office he seeks which requires that he be an Article II “natural born Citizen.”; August 9, 2012 at 11:52 AM
SaipanAnnie said...: Godspeed, Mr. Apuzzo.; August 9, 2012 at 11:53 AM
Anonymous said...: Once again you demonstrate that common sense and legal ac cumin are not mutually exclusive.

A proposition which the opposition, in both of the letters opposing 'certification', go to great lengths in efforts to distance themselves from.

They argue that the definition of NBC is settled Law citing cases that are contradicted by other cases which clearly establishes that a CONFLICT OF LAW exists among the various "Opinions of the Courts".

It seems to me that S. THOMAS ANDERSON UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE made it clear that the central issue is the Constitutional meaning of "natural born Citizen", and the requisite circumstances that need to be contemplated in order to determine who is or is not in conformity to those circumstances;

"It is undisputed that the material fact at issue in this case is whether under the circumstances of President Obama's birth, the President is a 'natural born citizen,' a term set out in the United States Constitution and construed under federal law."[pg 6/7]

The Judge has made it a "Citizenship Question" rather than a purely "Political Question", something that I have been trying to advance for some time.

But also, he "indicates" that the proper "resort" is to limit the universe of incidental historical references and judicial dicta and look to the Law established and authorized by the Constitution and construe the statutory construction of both the subject clause and the legislative Acts cum statutes that affect and effect the specific "idiom" in words that say so and what those words then REQUIRE.

In other words, between the Clause, the 1790 / '95 Acts the fullness of NBC Constitution definition is found in words that say so and in words that require it. Then, when viewed in light of the John Jay letter the meaning and intent forms the whole of the Constitutional "idiom".

As an example of 'construeing" statutory construction, view the 'provision' its-self and realise that using both "citizen" and "natural born Citizen" within the same Clause then "requires" that a form of "inheritable citizenship" exist as a Constitutional requirement.

The 1790 Act clearly establishes "Birthright Citizenship" derived solely from the married father/parent with any consideration of a Jus Soli aspect totally absent.

The 1795 Act, although repealing and replacing in whole, re-establishes "Jus Sanguinis" and continues the repudiation of Jus Soli except for the singular purpose of perpetuating NBC/s.

Often, less is more. After 4 years of "resorting" to ALL of history I've come to the conclusion that ONLY the ACTUAL Laws emanating from the Constitution have any AUTHORITY on the subject.

Scott v and Minor v are both affirming that ONLY an Amendment could change the original Framers definition and that can be found in the words and what the words of the Clause and two Acts require. (IMO); August 10, 2012 at 9:07 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: United Natural Born Citizens,

I am glad that you and I agree.; August 10, 2012 at 10:02 AM
jayjay said...: Puzo1:

Your Aug. 8, 2012 Letter Brief is excellent.

File work and deserving to be heard on merit.; August 10, 2012 at 1:29 PM
Doublee said...: The issues of who can become a citizen by birth on U.S. soil and who is a natural born citizen have been debated seemingly forever without any consensus. I accept that Minor is definitive regarding natural born citizenship but at the same time recognize that there are those who disagree even though their arguments at times seem specious.

It might be helpful to consider who should become a citizen at birth.

What does Wong Kim Ark say about that and has it been too leniently interpreted? In other words does the ruling really grant birthright citizenship?

When considering the 14th amendment one must determine the intended meaning of the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” If there was no intended meaning, why were the words placed there? Does being born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof have the same meaning as merely being born in the United States? One would have to conclude that the phrase has an intended meaning.

The Civil Rights Act of 1866 granted citizenship to persons born in the United States who were not subject to any foreign power. The pertinent clause states:

That all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States;

The 14th Amendment was written two years later and it states:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside.”

Why, oh why, did the writers of the 14th Amendment choose the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” rather than the definitive “not subject to any foreign power”?

Wong Kim Ark set the minimum standard for who should become citizens of the United States if they are born on U.S. soil. That standard is that the parents should be permanently domiciled. I would assume that the parents would have to be in the U.S. legally.

Yet, even this minimum standard is ignored when we make citizens of anyone born here to parents who are here temporarily. The exception, of course, is those born to foreign diplomats.

If the ambiguity regarding the meaning of the 14th amendment was removed, I submit that many who are now citizens would not be.

All this leads up this question. Would Barack Obama even be a citizen if the 14th Amendment were interpreted correctly?

It seems that he would not. Obama’s father was not a citizen at the time Obama was born and it would seem that his father had no intention of staying here.

Obama’s mother was a citizen and this does complicate the situation. However, the fact that Obama was also a citizen of Britain by virtue of the British Nationality Act of 1948 gives favor to the argument that Obama could not be a full citizen since by virtue of the act he was dual citizen at birth.

A dual citizen at birth cannot be a natural born citizen.

Note: The following web site discusses birthright citizenship in a balanced manor in my opinion. The author discusses all the ambiguities regarding the interpretation of the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.”

http://www.cis.org/birthright-citizenship

In spite of the ambiguities in the article, I believe that citizenship in the U.S. should be a voluntary. The U.S. forces citizenship on persons whose parents have no intent on residing here permanently. Yet, because of birthright citizenship, many come here merely to get U.S. citizenship for their child.; August 10, 2012 at 1:51 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Doublee,

Throughout human history, nations have granted citizenship to people for policy reasons. Hence, depending on what moment in time a nation finds itself, it will be either jealous or liberal with granting membership in its society. The United States is no different. The Fourteenth Amendment can be interpreted, rightfully or wrongfully, depending on the political, social, and cultural circumstances with which our nation is faced in any given moment in time.

But the point is that the Fourteenth Amendment only grants the status of a “citizen of the United States,” not that of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” A “natural born Citizen” is a status that exists at American “common-law.” It is not created by the Fourteenth Amendment, Act of Congress, or treaty.

So regardless of how we interpret and apply the Fourteenth Amendment, Acts of Congress, or treaties, in the end we are only creating a “citizen of the United States,” not a “natural born Citizen.” Rather, to be a “natural born Citizen,” one must show birth in the country to parents who were “citizens” of the country at the time the child was born. That is a much more stringent standard that that of being a “citizen of the United States.” The Founders and Framers adopted that citizenship standard for presidential eligibility. For being a member of the nation, they adopted “citizen of the United States,” a standard which can change with time in accordance with the will of Congress without the need of a constitutional Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment is not an act of Congress, but part of our Constitution. But yet, it did not repeal or amend the Article II “natural born Citizen” clause. Hence, that clause is still defined as a child born in the country (or its jurisdictional equivalent) to parents who were “citizens” of the country at the time the child was born. This definition is part of the supreme law of the land which can be changed only by constitutional amendment.; August 10, 2012 at 2:19 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: In U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), Justice Gray cites and quotes, among other sources, a British jurist and constitutional theorists, law Professor Albert Venn Dicey (4 February 1835 – 7 April 1922) 11 times in support of his argument that the English common law jus soli rule continued to prevail in the United States after the adoption of the Constitution. Background information on Professor Dicey may be read at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._V._Dicey .

There is something very interesting that I have just discovered about Professor Dicey. He actually advocated a “common citizenship” between the United States and Great Britain. Here are Professor Dicey’s own words in 1897, one year before the U.S. Supreme Court decided U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, expressing his “common citizenship” proposal. His

“aim is to establish the possibility and advocate the policy of instituting a common citizenship for all Englishmen and Americans. My proposal is summarily this: That England and the United States should, by concurrent and appropriate legislation, create such a common citizenship, or, to put the matter in a more concrete and therefore more intelligible form, that an act of the Imperial Parliament should make every citizen of the United States, during the continuance of peace between England and America, a British subject, and that simultaneously an Act of Congress should make every British subject, during the continuance of such peace, a citizen of the United States.”

Contemporary Review, April 1897 (cited and quoted in John Randolph Dos Passos, The Anglo-Saxon Century and the Unification of the English-Speaking People 188(2nd ed. 1903) (“While common citizenship would not affect in the least the political form of substance of the government of either country, the result of its adoption would practically make the English-speaking people, so far as the outside world is concerned, one nation, inspired by one great, noble purpose,” Id. at 189). In other words, Professor Dicey sought to create a citizenship status which by an Act of Congress every “British subject” would become a “citizen of the United States” and by an Act of Parliament, every “citizen of the United States” would become a “British subject.”; August 10, 2012 at 7:47 PM
Teo Bear said...: Mario,

Just posted this on the Birthers

http://thebirthers.org/misc/CoUS.htm; August 10, 2012 at 9:11 PM
jayjay said...: Puzo1:

Sounds like Dicey's notions are just that ... dicey, since he would be placing those under COnstitutional law back under the sort of monarchical law and thereby desgtroying the rule of the Constitutional law.

IOW, his daydreams are not even remotely constitutional and are precisely what we had one or mre armed dust-ups with the Brits about (remember the War of 1812 when we - again - went to war with the Brits when they tried basically the same thing by conscripting American citizens to serve as "subject" in the Brit navy).

Won't work ... never has ... never will. Free is free and should be kept that way despite the Obama Cult.; August 10, 2012 at 11:15 PM
MichaelIsGreat said...: Hello Mr. Apuzzo,

I wish you much luck at finding justice for this particular case in a country where judges do not apply justice but instead apply their own personal political biases to judge cases like yours!!
And it includes the judges of the Supreme Court of the USA!!!!!

Seeing how the judges at the Supreme Court of the USA rejected several cases on Obama's lack of eligibility that they should have heard systematically, I have lost completely my faith that any judgement that lasts will be given in relation to Obama's lack of eligibility to be President of the USA.

Having said that, despite my pessimism, you should keep faith and hope that an exception might occur and therefore your fight should go on despite the very likelihood that this fight will possibly bear no fruits.

The big issue is that there must be a thorough investigation, testing of the "original" that is held by Hawaii by several experts in forgery.
And the problem is that Hawaii will never give access to it because they created this forged "original" and therefore they do not want anybody to thoroughly test it!!
As they could not find an original long form birth certificate for Obama, they created a forged one and that is what they currently have.
Therefore, it is extremely unlikely that a court would request a thorough testing of this forged "original" long form birth certificate when Hawaii surely would provide a "certified" copy of it or an official and fully certified statement acknowledging that Obama's current forged long form birth certificate is indeed authentic when it is simply a forgery that they (the crooks of the Department of Health in Hawaii) have created!!!

And I do not mention all the other issues related to Obama's lack of eligibility:
---Obama's forged Selective service card.
---Obama's false Connecticut social security number that belongs to a deceased person!!
---Obama's all other documents (student's records, etc.) where they surely have several proofs of deception and fraud!!!; August 11, 2012 at 6:23 AM
Robert said...: Michael,
We do not need to see any documentation from Obama. It is he who needs to provide it and prove that it is authentic.

So far we only have the forgeries that you've mentioned. That means that Obama has only established or claimed that he is NOT a natural born citizen and is NOT qualified for the office of president. It means that he has NOT met the Amendment XX requirements that he qualify prior to the time set for him to take office. And, since Mr. Biden has never been sworn in, it means that we have NOT had a legal or authoritative president since "W" left office.

We do have several means of redress reserved to the people. I may have the opportunity to use one this Tuesday if I'm selected as a juror. In the event that the defendant is subject to a ruling based on anything that has been illegally authorized by Obama or otherwise unconstitutional, I will find the defendant "not guilty" on that basis.

I would invite all constitutionalists to do the same and to make sure that they answer every call to serve on our juries.

Perhaps a discussion is in order to address all means of redress and how they might be best employed by each of us.; August 11, 2012 at 11:23 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: The debate continues at Terry Lakin’s Amazon.com page. Here is the latest:

Gonzales says to Mario Apuzzo:

“[N]atural born citizen is a subset of citizen just as naturalized citizen is a subset of citizen. Those who are born citizens are natural born citizens. Again you keep trying to claim that somehow the 14th created this term citizen of the united states.”

Mario Apuzzo responds:

Gonzales,

1. Membership in the United States of America is called “citizen.” There are only two classes of “citizens,” “natural born Citizens,” and “citizens of the United States.” See Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 (clearly provides the nomenclature “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States), other parts of the original Constitution, the Fourteenth Amendment, Acts of Congress, and treaties. There is no “naturalized citizen” as a class in the Constitution, Acts of Congress, or treaties. That is a class which you have invented.

2. The Fourteenth Amendment only addresses the class of “citizens” called “citizens of the United States.” The amendment treats “citizens” who become so under the amendment by either birth or naturalization in the United States as “citizens of the United States.” There is no mention in the amendment of a “natural born Citizen.” Since there is no mention of a “natural born Citizen” in the amendment like there is mention in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, you simply cannot say that the amendment defines a “natural born Citizen,” which Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 confirms is a separate and distinct class.

3. I have told you many times, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 says “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen.” Hence, one does not become a “natural born Citizen” by simply being born a “citizen.” If that is what the Founders and Framers had wanted, they would have simply written “born Citizen,” rather than “natural born Citizen.” Congress can make born “citizens” every day. But Congress cannot make “natural born Citizens.”

4. The American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” (“natural born Citizens” or “citizens of the United States”) when the child was born. Minor v. Happersett; Wong Kim Ark. Every other “citizen” who is not a “natural born Citizen” is a “citizen of the United States.”

5. Obama was born to a “citizen” mother and an alien father. Hence, if he was born in Hawaii, he is a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment. But he is not and cannot be an Article II “natural born Citizen.” 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.; August 11, 2012 at 5:09 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: In 1991, Obama ("Barry") even said that he was born in Kenya. That statement was published in a marketing booklet by his literary agent. See http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/05/17/The-Vetting-Barack-Obama-Literary-Agent-1991-Born-in-Kenya-Raised-Indonesia-Hawaii .

The booklet, which contains a picture of Obama, said: "Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii." There can be little doubt that Obama provided all the biographical information to his literary agent for this booklet. After all, literary agents do not just invent information which only their clients would know. Literary agents also do not go about publishing to the world that their client is born in Kenya when they have not received that information from their own client. It is also customary for agents to request resumes from their clients. That is standard in the industry. Why has the literary agent not produced for the public Obama’s resume that he provided to her?

Now Obama says he was born in Hawaii. So did Obama lie in 1991 or today?

Is it not grand how the Obots tell us about 141 cases that they won and they cannot adequately address such a simple fact.; August 12, 2012 at 1:39 PM
Robert said...: The Obots' claim that they've won any cases is empty of substance.

Who has ever won a game that was not played? Neither is it a win when a court decides it doesn't have the authority (or desire) to hear a case.

Who has ever truly won a game when the referee blatantly, arbitrarily, and with prejudice, changed the rules? Every ruling in favor of Obama has been filled will such contortions and misrepresentations of the facts and the law that they will end up on the trash heap of legal papers. The judges will be lucky if they're not held in contempt or charged with judicial malpractice - if not by the courts, then by the people.

Obama has never once presented evidence that he is a natural born citizen.

Obama has lost every pretense to legitimately gain the office of President and Commander in Chief. A natural born citizen is still one born in the country to citizen parents. Obama is still not eligible. He's still just a Chicago street thug who's trying to become a third world dictator at our expense.

Nothing Obama has done has any authority. In fact, every jurist and every judge hearing any case involving the works of Obama or his appointees has the authority to throw the case out on that basis alone. Every Sheriff, Police officer, and member our armed forces has the complete authority to ignore any orders coming from his office.

Yes, I know that some brave soldiers have faced ill consequences for their patriotic choices, but they will be honored as the heroes they really are when the rest of their brothers-in-arms and WE THE PEOPLE begin to stand up in larger and larger numbers to oust the usurper.

Those who try to defend Obama do so at the cost of being openly complicit in treason. Obama and all of his supporters and apologists will spend the rest of their lives looking over their shoulders and living under the threat of arrest, conviction, and retribution.

How is that a win?; August 12, 2012 at 5:53 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Over at Terry Lakin's Amazon.com page, here is what we have:

"MN-Reader says to Mario Apuzzo:

Not that it matters, but Obama has consistently stated that he was born in Hawaii.

Apuzzo, as a lawyer I'm shocked that you don't realize that whatever Obama has to say about his birth is mere hearsay. No child is a witness to their own birth.

What does matter is what the State of Hawaii has to say about Obama's birth. They have again and again stated that Obama was born in the State of Hawaii and they are the officially recognized record keepers.

Mario Apuzzo responds to MN-Reader,

You said: “Obama has consistently stated that he was born in Hawaii.” Then how do you explain the breitbart.com literary agent statement that Obama was born in Kenya? Who provided that information to Obama’s literary agent? Note that reputation among a person’s associates concerning that person’s birth is an exception to hearsay. Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 803(19).

You said: “Apuzzo, as a lawyer I'm shocked that you don't realize that whatever Obama has to say about his birth is mere hearsay.” I am shocked that you, presumably a lawyer, do not know your rules of evidence. An admission of a party opponent is not hearsay. Rule 801(d)(2).

You said: “no child is a witness to their own birth.” But they sure get to learn a lot about where they were born from their parents, family, birth certificates, and other family documents.

You said: “What does matter is what the State of Hawaii has to say about Obama's birth. They have again and again stated that Obama was born in the State of Hawaii and they are the officially recognized record keepers.” Again, you are supposed to be a lawyer who knows evidence law. Why do you not know that what some Hawaii Health Department official “says” today about where Obama was born is hearsay? What is an exception to hearsay is a record of vital statistics such as a birth certificate. Rule 803(9). This would be an original or certified true copy of Obama’s birth certificate. That does not include some internet image of a birth certificate. Also, the original or certified true copy of a birth certificate is an exception to hearsay only “if the report thereof was made to a public office pursuant to requirements of law.” Hence, someone wanting to introduce Obama’s alleged Hawaiian birth certificate into evidence would have to establish such a foundation. Also, please note that in no court has Obama introduced any such original birth certificate or certified true copy of such birth certificate. So, Obama to date has operated only on hearsay of his alleged birth in Hawaii and not competent evidence thereof that is admissible in any court."; August 12, 2012 at 11:55 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Over at Terry Lakin's Amazon.com page, Gonzales accuses me of calling Obama's mother names and challenging Obama on his not being a "natural born Citizen" becuse he is black. This is what I told him:

"Gonzales,

You are a liar. I never called Obama's mother anything. Regarding your race politics, as I have told you many times, there have been numerous cases of presidential candidates being challenged for eligibility. These challenges involved:

Chester A. Arthur
Christopher Schürmann
Charles Evans Hughes
Barry Goldwater
George Romney
Lowell Weicker
Róger Calero
John McCain

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural-born-citizen_clause .

None of the above candidates were black. You will note that even John McCain, who is white and who ran against Barack Obama, was challenge before anyone challenged Obama. So you really need to take your race politics and peddle them to the ignorant."; August 13, 2012 at 11:43 AM
cfkerchner said...: Mario: Gonzales and their marxist Saul Alinsky trained social engineering ilk are practicing the disinformation tactic of "projection" on to you. They are accusing you of doing what they do all the time. Talk about name calling -- look at what they are doing at Amazon with the name calling, slander, and blatant lies about former LtCol Terry Lakin and the contents of his book. You have paid operative bald faced liar and disinformation specialist using various pysch-ops techniques such as "projection" to change the subject and to accuse the target of exactly what they are doing to confuse the unknowing new reader. This is a tactic practiced by the far left routinely to confuse the unknowing masses.

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm; August 13, 2012 at 12:13 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: More from Terry Lakin's Amazon.com page:

Kasprzycki says:

"Full Faith and Credit Clause, Mario. Remember the Constitution?"

Mario Apuzzo responds:

"Kasprzycki:

You said: 'Full Faith and Credit Clause, Mario. Remember the Constitution?'”

The “Natural Born Citizen” Clause, Kasprzycki. Remember the Constitution?

Full Faith and Credit sounds nice and fancy. But we also have a national security policy expressed in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 that anyone wanting to be President must be a “natural born Citizen.” Hence, we do not just go about blindly accepting full faith and credit without analyzing the case to make sure it is properly being applied.

During litigation, full faith and credit is not given by a nation or even the public. Rather, it is given by the court in which the matter is pending. Hence, full faith and credit to Obama’s alleged birth certificate is not given through the internet or even in the media. Rather, his alleged birth certificate needs to be proved and admitted as evidence in a court of competent jurisdiction. Such having been done, the court would give the birth certificate full faith and credit and subsequent courts would also give that court’s judgment res judicata effect (already decided and not to be litigated again).

You will note that Obama has not presented any birth certificate to one court of the 121 (your number) courts which have ruled on one issue or another concerning the eligibility dispute, to be proved and admitted into evidence under the full faith and credit clause. He has had every opportunity to do so, but has not taken it. Also, there is not one court that has heard and granted any argument that the matter of Obama’s birth certificate is res judicata.

So, while your full faith and credit argument sounds nice, I have not seen Obama use any of it in one court yet. What is suspect is that in order to invoke the full faith and credit clause, Obama would have to present a valid birth certificate to the court. He has chosen not to do that, but rather has allowed 121 cases to be filed against him."; August 13, 2012 at 1:01 PM
bdwilcox said...: Mario,

Watching Antiques Roadshow from Tucson last week, I was struck at how far our state election process has fallen.

Here you can watch the Carter campaign's attorney in Maine discuss the fact that in 1976 the state of Maine was refusing to allow Carter onto the ballot as "Jimmy Carter", instead demanding he be placed on as "James Earl Carter". The Carter campaign had to go to court to plead their case why he should be allowed on the ballot as "Jimmy Carter". It appears the court granted him a special dispensation to appear on the ballot as "Jimmy Carter".

Contrast this with the situation today where we have a cipher whose current legal name is unknown, who lacks any legal identification, and who has instead proffered up fraudulent documentation. And rather than keep him off the ballot, the states break their own laws to keep him on the ballot, make a mockery of the court system, and ultimately attack any concerned citizen who raises objection.

The mind boggles...; August 13, 2012 at 10:54 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: bdwilcox,

I also love how the states are so concerned about the qualifications of presidential electors, but could not care less about the qualifications of the presidential candidate for whom those electors will be voting.

You just can't make this stuff up.; August 14, 2012 at 12:57 AM
Robert said...: I have contacted my local Sheriff inquiring what he intends to do about ballots containing openly illegal candidate(s) being distributed in our county. As he is a Constitutional officer he should be concerned about election fraud, campaign fraud, and treason.

We'll see.

I'm not holding my breath. They probably won't get too concerned until the citizens take charge.; August 16, 2012 at 6:38 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Take a look at this video entitled, Dishonorable Disclosures: How Leaks and Politics Threaten National Security, accessed here http://www.opsecteam.org/

"A group of former Navy SEALs, members of Delta Force, the Marines, Army Special Forces and the intelligence community have joined together and are standing up, demanding that America’s political leaders immediately stop leaking sensitive military information.

This morning at 10am, the group known as the Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund (OPSEC) released a twenty-two minute film titled “Dishonorable Disclosures: How Leaks And Politics Threaten National Security.” Here is the promo reel for that movie."

Read the full story at The Blaze:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-video-shows-former-military-members-of-the-intel-community-uniting-to-stop-leaks/; August 16, 2012 at 11:20 PM
bdwilcox said...: Mario,

I wrote this on their YouTube site but I doubt the mods will post it:

Oh boo, hoo, hoo. Yeah, after what the military did to Terry Lakin, that you aided with your deafening silence, you now reap what you've sown. We told you the true enemy, the enemy both foreign and domestic, was sitting in the White House. And what did you do? You threw that brave soul, one of your own no less, to the wolves where he was devoured. Now you too will be devoured. "You had the choice between war and shame. You chose shame and now you will have war."

Notice how everyone in the video addresses him as Mr. President, fully accepting the fraud and criminal as legitimate. And also notice the 800 pound gorilla in the room, or the lack of one, to be precise. The two most fitting words missing from all of their babbling were these: "traitor" and "treason".

I love how the one analyst says that if someone like him came out and spoke about the treason in the White House they might even be...FIRED! Oh noes! Say it isn't so! What sacrifice! What selflessness! How could they go on! So much for giving all for your country...

Give me a break. If these jokers were really serious about protecting national security, they wouldn't be whining about some leaks, they'd be calling out the real problem: Obama (or whatever the hell his real name is).; August 17, 2012 at 4:33 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 166-67 (1875), after explaining that to be a “citizen” in our republic means merely to be a member of the nation, sought to determine who were the first members of the new nation. It then said:

"To determine, then, who were citizens of the United States before the adoption of the amendment [Fourteenth Amendment] it is necessary to ascertain what persons originally associated themselves together to form the nation, and what were afterwards admitted to membership.

Looking at the Constitution itself we find that it was ordained and established by "the people of the United States," [n3] and then going further back, we find that these were the people of the several States that had before dissolved the political bands which connected them with Great Britain, and assumed a separate and equal station among the powers of the earth, [n4] and that had by Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, in which they took the name of "the United States of America," entered into a firm league of [p167] friendship with each other for their common defence, the security of their liberties and their mutual and general welfare, binding themselves to assist each other against all force offered to or attack made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever. [n5]"

3. Preamble, 1 Stat. at Large, 10.
4. Declaration of Independence, Ib. 1.
5. Articles of Confederation, § 3, 1 Stat. at Large, 4.

Note that the Court recognized that the people who created the United States did so with the understanding that an attack upon the United States can come from “religion, sovereignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever.” The first duty that a nation has is self-preservation and survival. Hence, we, as a nation, are to be forever vigilant for attacks upon us which can come by any means identified by the Court in Minor.; August 18, 2012 at 1:48 PM
Carlyle said...: Off topic - but perhaps important -

WATCH YOUR MOUTH
WHAT YOU SAY
WHAT YOU WRITE

We have been expecting this - given Big Sis's ranting about returning war vets being more dangerous than terrorists - but this is the first known example. Perhaps the long-awaited crackdown has begun. Perhaps the SHTF is beginning.

note: I will let you know as the facts evolve - the situation is fast moving -

Look up Brandon Raub on the Internet. He is a recently returned and decorated Marine. He has been posting things via email, on blogs, and on facebook about the corrupt Federal Government, the nasty secrets of the FED, and why certain events and situations (such as 9/11) are not necessarily as the official story goes.

True, he pushes some of these things to conclusions he holds in his heart, where further evidence one way or another is required. But he has not advocated violence and and has not behaved in a violent manner.

He was arrested recently by the FBI and hauled off without being charged or reading of rights. He got put into mental evaluation so they could hold him for 72 hours without a specific cause. There is supposed to be a hearing and bringing of charges on Monday.

Some of the things he says are pretty far out, but he still has a right to say them and ask questions. However, remember, we already know that Terry Lakin was severely punished for asking wrong questions.

Furthermore, in the guy's defense, some official government stories are known to be wrong. OK City bombing is a case in point. The radical conspiracy theorists (of which this guy may be one) would say that it was a government inside job. The more sane skeptics, like myself, know that the facts don't square, but suspect it is only because the government thought it best for the peace of the world to suppress that Muslims were involved.

Watch and see what is reported on the MSM.

If it turns out that the guy really does appear guilty of something, I will let you know. I do not want to be the disseminator of false information. But it is important that you know to watch your mouth - at least for a few days until this gets sorted out.; August 19, 2012 at 1:39 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: For those who want to look into the perverted, warped, and pretentious mind of a typical Obot, take a look here, found at Doctor Conspiracy’s blog:

“Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter August 19, 2012 at 3:00 pm Squeeky Fromm, Girl Reporter(Quote) #

I think when you know the “name” of something, you do gain power over it. The trick is, to be sure you know the right name. That requires seeing past the superficially obvious, and into the very nature of the thing. For example, what is the “name” of the person at WND who writes those stupid Birther Internet Articles, and is also a Special Deputy on the Cold Case Posse???

If you say, “Jerry Corsi”, then you have only repeated his ordinary name, the moniker he goes by in public. Knowing this gives you no power.

But, what is his secret name??? What really describes him??? If you start with “Hack Writer Who Lies With Ease”, now you are beginning to get somewhere. The more you can add to that Secret Name, and the more you know of his nature, the more power you will have over him.

You will know where he is coming from and where he is going. You can be there before he arrives. You will be able to describe for others what he does, and how he does it, and why. Now, you are beginning to have power over him.

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter”

Squeeky Fromm envisages herself/himself as the leader of the Obot artsy intellectual elite.; August 19, 2012 at 11:45 PM
Unknown said...: Squeeky Rocks.; August 21, 2012 at 1:24 AM
thalightguy said...: Mr Apuzzo,

Your what are your thoughts on:

Principles of Statutory Construction - James McClellan, Liberty, Order, and Justice: An Introduction to the Constitutional Principles of American Government [1989]

http://oll.libertyfund.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=679&chapter=68537&layout=html&Itemid=27; August 22, 2012 at 1:50 AM
thalightguy said...: James McClellan as listed in my post above defines a natural born citizen as a person born in the U.S to U.S. citizen parents but then uses Justice Story to explain why it would be reasonable to define Mitt Romney's father George who was born in Mexico as a natural born citizen because his parents were U.S. citizens.; August 23, 2012 at 9:17 AM
Carlyle said...: Brandon Raub Update

This seems to have gone all quiet. That is very unfortunate, because like the Terry Larkin situation, it is very disturbing and potentially a major harbinger.

Apparently at his Monday hearing he was committed into the psychiatric system for another 30 days. Sounds like a 'punt', not an actual determination of anything. Looks like they are doing everything they can finesse just to simply detain him.

These FACTS seem to be known at this time:

1. He was not arrested nor charged, he was kidnapped from his home and taken to Psych Eval. No due process, etc.

2. HOWEVER - his FB page does speak of revolution and that he personally would be 'coming after them'. Highly ambiguous as to what that means. It is most worrisome in that it is the kind of words that could inflame a wacko and cause unintended harm. It probably rises to the level of him needing a visit from the Secret Service and/or the FBI and getting a stern 'talking to'. As you may recall, Ted Nugent got such a visit.

Here is a pretty good news item I found.

Monday, August 20, 2012

Under What Grounds was Brandon Raub Pulled from His House and Taken to a Psychiatric Hospital?

The more details emerge about the government grab of Brandon Raub for his comments on his Facebook page, the more this resembles an old Soviet style grab of a dissident. Reports seem to indicate that Brandon Raub, who was taken by Chestrerfield County, Virginia police, was not arrested.

According to Richmond FBI spokeswoman Dee Rybiski, the agency did not arrest Raub, but took him to John Randolph Medical Center for psychiatric evaluation.

It is difficult to understand under what grounds an American can be grabbed by government agents and taken to a psychiatric medical center. This is not your grandfather's America.; August 23, 2012 at 11:50 AM
Carlyle said...: Half the problem seems solved for now. BT has been released. Now, when and how are we going to hold these out-of-control government agencies accountable?

(from local CBS affiliate in VA)

UPDATE: Brandon Raub released, on his way home

HOPEWELL, Va. (WTVR) – A Hopewell circuit court judge has ordered that a Marine veteran detained over anti-government Facebook posts be released from a psychiatric hospital.

CBS 6 News’ Catie Beck said the Judge Allan Sharrett dismissed the case Thursday against Brandon Raub. The judge said the original petition for Raub’s detention contained no facts. In other words, there was no information on why Raub was being held — and the judge deemed this violated his civil liberties.

As a result, the judge ruled the government had no grounds to hold Raub.

Beck said the judge is in the process of writing an order for Raub’s release. He is has been released from the hospital in Salem, Virginia Thursday afternoon and is headed home to Chesterfield.

The decorated U.S. Marine veteran was questioned by FBI agents about his Facebook postings and then hauled away from his Chesterfield County home in handcuffs last Thursday.; August 24, 2012 at 8:49 PM
Linda said...: Raub has been released.; August 25, 2012 at 1:40 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: My response to smrstrauss at The Daily Pen, http://thedailypen.blogspot.com/2012/07/hawaii-now-refuses-to-validate-obamas.html?showComment=1345919648722#c9021708422586785790

I of III

Smrstrauss at July 29, 2012 5:38 PM,

You made the following statements which I quote. My responses follow:

1. “You are quoting Vattel, but there is no evidence that the writers of the US Constitution followed him.”

You are wrong. I have explained in my briefs to the courts and on my blog that the historical record shows that the Founders and Framers looked to Vattel for their ideas on natural law and the law of nations. These fundamental laws, and not the English common law, were incorporated into the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, foundational documents of our republic.

The Founders and Framers did not look to Vattel only in a general way on natural law and the law of nations, but also specifically for their definition of a “natural born Citizen.” As examples only and not as an exhaustive list, during the 1789 Ramsay-Smith congressional debate on whether Representative William Smith was at least a “Citizen of the United States” for seven-years so as to be eligible to be a representative under Article I, Section 2, Smith relied upon Vattel to show that he was such a “citizen.” David Ramsay in 1789 said that birthright citizenship after July 4, 1776 belonged only to the children of “citizens.” St. George Tucker in 1803 said the same. Our first law school at the College and William and Mary, along with many other early colleges, taught courses on Vattel, the law of nations, which they considered to be “national law.” These courses specifically provided explanations of Vattel’s definitions of “citizen” and “natural born citizen” under natural law and the law of nations.

In my presentations, I have also explained that several U.S. Supreme Court and lower court cases specifically cited and quoted or paraphrased Vattel and his Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen.” Cases that cited and quoted Vattel for the definition of a “natural born Citizen” are The Venus, 12 U.S. (8 Cranch) 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring) (cited and quoted Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen”); Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857) (J. Daniels concurring) (cited and quoted Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen”); Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879) (cited and quoted Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen”); and United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890) (cited and quoted Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen”). Cases that paraphrased his definition are Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830) (a child inherits the citizenship of his parents); Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830) (a child inherits the citizenship of his parents); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (said that the Founders and Framers were familiar with the “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen;” the American “common-law” definition that the Court gave was a paraphrase of Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural-born citizen” and not that of the English common law’s definition of a “natural born subject”) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 708 (1898) (cited and quoted Minor and its Vattel paraphrased American “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen”). These cases, along with other historical evidence, show that Obama’s supporters are wrong when they say that Vattel did not provide the Founders and Framers with the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” On the contrary, this evidence demonstrates that it was, indeed, Vattel who provided the Founders and Framers with the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Indeed, this historical and case law evidence conclusively demonstrates that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” can be . . .

Continued . . .; August 25, 2012 at 2:46 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of III

traced to Vattel’s Section 212 and was handed down from there to the Founders and Framers when they wrote the Constitution and continued to be confirmed in case law of our U.S. Supreme Court and lower court down to even the 1898 seminal case on citizenship, Wong Kim Ark.

2. “He [Vattel] is not even mentioned once in the Federalist Papers, while the common law was mentioned about twenty times.”

The specific issue is the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” not the English common law in some general way. The English common law may be mentioned, but there is no evidence that the Founders and Framers used the English common law to define a “natural born citizen.” On the contrary, and only as one example, we know from his Federalist No. 42 that Madison called the English common law “a dishonorable and illegitimate guide” in defining terms in the Constitution. James Madison sat on the convention committee that drafted Article II presidential eligibility. Hence, he would not have relied upon the English common law to define a “natural born Citizen” or a “Citizen of the United States.” Moreover, the law of nations is not only mentioned many times in the Federalist Papers, but was actually incorporated in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 as part of Article III’s “Laws of the United States.” The English common law cannot make the same claim.

3. “And the Wong Kim Ark decision was AFTER the Minor vs Happersett decision, and hence would have overturned it (if the Minor vs Happersett decision was actually a ruling on the matter, and it isn't. It is merely dicta).”

Minor did confirm through a binding precedent what the American “common-law” meaning of a “natural-born citizen” was, i.e., “[a]t 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.” Second, Wong Kim Ark did not abandon or amend this American “common-law” meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” Rather, it interpreted and construed the Fourteenth Amendment and thereby defined a “citizen of the United States” at birth thereunder. It did not amend the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

4. “And the Wong Kim Ark decision ruled six to two (one not voting) that the meaning of Natural Born comes from the common law (thus NOT from Vattel), and that it refers to the PLACE of birth (not the parents), and that every child born in the USA except for the children of foreign diplomats is Natural Born.”

First, you are confused about what the “common law” means. The “common law” does not only come from the English. It also comes from the law of nations. Second. Wong Kim Ark used the colonial English “common law” as an aid in interpreting, construing, and applying the “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It did not use the English “common law” to define an Article II “natural born Citizen.” From that English “common law,” it concluded that every child that is born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (which at a minimum necessarily excluded children born to diplomats and invading armies), is a “citizen of the United States” at birth. The Court did not hold that such a child is necessarily a “natural born Citizen” also, and it would not have given that Wong Kim Ark also expressly recognized that a person has to satisfy the American “common law” standard of a “natural born Citizen” and not only be a “citizen” in order to be born with that status.

Continued . . .; August 25, 2012 at 2:47 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: III of III

5. “THAT is why Meese had that quotation in his book. It corresponds to a ruling of the US Supreme Court. It does not differ from the ruling of the Supreme Court.”

The quote that Obama supporters like you plaster all over the internet as being made by Edwin Meese was not made by him, but rather by James C. Ho. Ho’s love affair with Wong Kim Ark jus soli puts Ho in a bind. Ho argues that, under English common law jus soli, simply being born in the United States makes one a born citizen of the United States which in turn makes one a “natural born Citizen.” First, he cannot explain if mere birth in the United States is sufficient to make on a “natural born Citizen,” why did the Founders and Framers in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 say “natural born Citizen” rather than “born Citizen.” Second, Ho cannot explaint why if just being born a citizen makes one a “natural born Citizen,” why should Wong Kim Ark have concluded that persons born abroad to citizen parents who are also born “citizens of the United States” are not “natural born Citizens.” Ho offers no explanation why Wong Kim Ark gave birth on a soil so much more power than birth to parents? Not having an answer, Ho simply suggests that we not paying attention to Wong Kim Ark when it comes to the question of whether our citizens born abroad to citizen parents are “natural born Citizens.” He submits that they are. So Ho uses Wong Kim Ark anyway he wants, given the particular needs of the moment. He takes from the decision what he needs and throws away what he does not.

So, as we can readily see, there is no merit to any of your assertions.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.; August 25, 2012 at 2:47 PM
thalightguy said...: A person naturalizes to the United States, Marries a naturalized U.S. citizen and while visiting relatives in their country of origin has a child, the child is a dual national because of this; the child is now an adult marries a U.S. citizen and has a child born in the U.S. .

Is this third generation U.S. citizen a natural born citizen?; August 26, 2012 at 12:43 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of II

Thatlightguy,

You ask:

“A person naturalizes to the United States, Marries a naturalized U.S. citizen and while visiting relatives in their country of origin has a child, the child is a dual national because of this; the child is now an adult marries a U.S. citizen and has a child born in the U.S.

Is this third generation U.S. citizen a natural born citizen?

The issue is whether the child (let’s call him Bitt) born in the U.S. to U.S. “citizen” parents is an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Where may we find the “natural born Citizen” clause? In the original Constitution, the clause “natural born Citizen” is found only in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which relates to presidential eligibility. Under our Constitution, only the President, and by extension of the Twelfth Amendment also the Vice-President, must be a “natural born Citizen” to be eligible to be elected to that office. The Offices of President and Commander in Chief of the Military has so much domestic and foreign power that we can understand why Barack Obama would say before the election that the United States was only five days away from “fundamentally transforming” America.

How do we define a “natural born Citizen?” The “common law” with which the Founders and Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution defines a “natural-born citizen” as a child born in the country to parents who were “citizens” of the country when the child was born. Minor v. Happersett (1875); United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Both of these U.S. Supreme Court decisions paraphrased the definition of a “natural-born citizen” provided by Emer de Vattel in Section 212 of his The Law of Nations. Hence, given the definition provided (requiring “citizen” parents), this “common-law” could only be American “common-law,” which on matters of citizenship had its origins in the law of nations, and not in the English common law which made no reference to “citizen” parents when defining a “natural born subject” born within the King’s dominions and under his obedience.

What type of “citizens” do the parents of a “natural born Citizen” child have to be? That same American “common law” does not make any specifications on the nature of the citizenship of the parents, requiring only that they be “citizens.” Congress, since 1790, has been defining who are “citizens,” making persons “citizens of the United States” both at birth and after birth. The Fourteenth Amendment also creates “citizens of the United States” at birth and recognizes and protects as “citizens of the United States” after birth those persons who are naturalized as such under Acts of Congress or otherwise. Hence, a parent can be a “citizen” from the moment of birth or even after birth. If a “citizen” from the moment of birth, the parent can be either a “natural born Citizen” under Article II or a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment or an Act of Congress. If a “citizen” after birth, the parent can be a “citizen of the United States” after birth under an Act of Congress or treaty.

Bitt was born within the physical territory known as the U.S. Hence, he satisfies the “natural born Citizen” place of birth requirement.

Both of Bitt’s parents were U.S. “citizens” when he was born. Hence, Bitt was born to U.S. “citizen” parents. It does not matter whether his parents were “natural born Citizens,” “citizens of the United States” at birth, or “citizens of the United States” after birth. They were U.S. “citizens” when Bitt was born and that is all that is required by Article II.

Continued . . .; August 26, 2012 at 3:06 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

Does the fact that Bitt’s father was a dual national when Bitt was born disqualify Bitt from being a “natural born Citizen?” No, because Bitt’s father was still a U.S. “citizen” at the time of Bitt’s birth. While the same cannot be said about Bitt’s grandparents, the fact that Bitt’s father and mother were both U.S. “citizens” is probably the motivating factor which caused Bitt to be born in the U.S. So, being U.S. “citizens” motivated the parents to have a son born in the U.S., which caused their child to have an even greater attachment to the U.S. That Bitt is born in the U.S. to U.S. “citizen” parents is enough to meet the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Having met that definition, it becomes irrelevant for Article II purposes that Bitt’s father was a dual national at the time of Bitt’s birth. So, Bitt also satisfies the two-U.S. “citizen” parent requirement.

Under current law, Bitt’s grandfather and grandmother, acquiring U.S. citizenship after birth through Congress’s naturalization acts, were “citizens of the United States” after birth, and not “natural born Citizens.” Bitt’s father, born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents, was under naturalization Acts of Congress, a “citizen of the United States” at birth, but not a “natural born Citizen.” Bitt’s mother was either a “natural born Citizen” or a “citizen of the United States” at birth or after birth (the facts do not give us enough information to make a determination as to her exact national character). Since Bitt satisfies both the requirements of place of birth and “citizen” parents, Bitt is an Article II “natural born Citizen.”; August 26, 2012 at 3:06 PM
thalightguy said...: Mario,

Bitt’s mother is a natural born citizen; she was born to two U.S. citizen parents whose parents did not owe allegiance to any foreign sovereignty.

As for Bitt, at birth he inherited his father’s dual nationality. If he is as you say a natural born citizen, does this not go against the original intent of why the clause was inserted in the first place which is to prevent a person with divided allegiance from becoming President?; August 26, 2012 at 3:57 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Over at the huffingtonpost.com, Michael Russnow wrote an article in which he argues that the “birthers” are full of “nonsense.” He says that even if Obama was born in Kenya, he is a “natural born Citizen” because his U.S. citizen mother makes him so. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-russnow/obama-birthers_b_1830644.html?show_comment_id=180861160#comment_180861160 Here is what I posted to Mr. Russnow:

******************

Michael Russnow,

You have applied the wrong statute to Obama.

A child born in wedlock and abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) INA, provided the citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen are required for physical presence in the U.S. to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child). http://travel.state.gov/law/info/info_609.html.

Obama’s mother, born on November 29, 1942, was 18 years old when she gave birth to Obama on August 4, 1961. She was 117 days short from being 19 years old. But she had to be at least 19 years old (14 years old plus 5 years of U.S. physical presence) to satisfy Section 301(g). Hence, if Obama was born in Kenya, under the Fourteenth Amendment, he is neither a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil nor one by naturalization. Nor would he qualify to be a U.S. citizen by any Act of Congress by being born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent. If this scenario is accurate, it can be reasonably argued that Obama is an illegal alien.; August 26, 2012 at 7:46 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: thalightguy,

Bitt is a “natural born Citizen” because he meets the textual requirement of the “natural born Citizen” clause which is what alone controls. Bitt was born in the United States to a father and mother who were U.S. “citizens” at the time of his birth. He satisfies the American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen” which is what controls. Minor v. Happersett (1875); United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Having met that textual requirement, it is not necessary to go any further.

But Bitt also has no problem meeting the purpose of the “natural born Citizen” clause. Bitt was born in the U.S. to U.S. “citizen” parents. Bitt’s father and mother were also born to U.S. “citizen” parents. Being born in the U.S. to U.S. “citizen” parents and having parents who were both born to U.S. “citizen” parents, Bitt also satisfies the purpose of the “natural born Citizen” clause.

On the other hand, assuming Obama was born in the U.S., he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father. He satisfies neither the textual requirements of the American “common-law” definition of the “natural born Citizen” clause nor the purpose of the clause.; August 26, 2012 at 8:25 PM
js said...: The fiduciary duty of the SoS is to act in the best interest of the citizens of the State, not to ignore their petitions objecting to Obama's uncertified qualifications. This can be said of the ALJ as well.

The failure to raise this point in this case would affirm that they fulfilled or attempted to fulfill the responsibility of the office they hold. The oath of office they took was to the people they represent, and the protections provided to the people in the States Constitution is a fundamental right that each citizen of the state assumes as Citizens of the State itself, drawing an expectation of performance toward the offices which hold that fiduciary duty to protect the People of the State and not party and political affiliations. Whenever there is any question of this nature, it is the responsibility of State employee’s/representatives to insure that the interest of the People are preserved, instead of those holding such positions ignoring the interests of the People and failing to guarantee the people’s right to a fair election for all citizens equally and without reservation.

There is such a huge, glaring hole in that obligation in this case. The ALJ failed to address any points raised about documenting the qualifications of BHO. The forged BC and SSN irregularities is enough for the State to get an indictment for forgery and fraud against any person in the State of New Jersey, yet every office with constitutional authority (and duty) to protect the States Citizens refuse to address the issue because BHO is a sitting POTUS and/or political affiliation. It comes down to a point that the failure and refusal to litigate the points brought in this case is a breach of fiduciary duty and cause for dismissal of any State representative that refuses to apply the full effect of the law to resolve this issue.

The real fact is that those who are acting on behalf of the State are doing so based on a personal political agenda and every last one of them are unfit to hold the offices that they sit in. The fiduciary duty these people hold cannot be breached, and this issue should become a part and parcel of every suit to win these types of cases. This can be affirmed by the lack of attention to the merits in the case.; August 27, 2012 at 10:53 AM
MichaelN said...: @ the mob of traitors i.e. John Woodman, Realty Check, Ballantine et al.

English common law holds that one can be alien born by foreign allegiance.

Lord Coke (Calvin's case)

"An Alien is a subject that is born out of the ligeance of the king, and under the ligeance of another, and can have no real or personal action for or concerning land; but in every such action the tenant or defendant may plead that he was born in such a Country which is not within ligeance of the king, and demand judgment if he shall be answered. And this is in effect the description which Littleton himself maketh, lib. 2. cap. 14. Villen. fol. 43. Alienigena est alienae gentis seu alience ligeantiae, qui etiam |[16 b] dicitur peregrinus, alienus, exoticus, extraneus, &c. Extraneus est subditus, qui extra terram, i.e. potestatem regis natus est"

[151. ][Ed.: An alien born is of foreign birth OR foreign allegiance, and is also called peregrinus (foreigner), alien, exotic, stranger, etc. A stranger is a subject who is born outside the land, that is, outside the king’s power.]

just sayin'...; August 29, 2012 at 12:43 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Here is another article by a commentator incorrectly arguing that even if Obama was not born in the United States, he still would be a “natural born Citizen.” This one is by David Houghton, an associate professor of political science at the University of Central Florida, accessed at http://today.ucf.edu/president-must-be-natural-born-citizen-but-what-is-that/#comment-236153 . Here is my response which I posted at his web site:

++++++++++++

Mr. Houghton,

I am sorry to inform you that you have applied the wrong statute to Obama, given his birth on August 4, 1961. If Obama was not born in the United States, he would be an illegal alien. This means that not only would he not be a “natural born Citizen,” but he would not even be a “citizen of the United States.” If Obama was born out of the United States, he would not qualify to obtain U.S. citizenship from his U.S. citizen mother under the Congressional statute that applied to him when he was born on August 4, 1961, because she was too young to allow his to inherit her U.S. citizenship.

Here is our U.S. State Department explaining which statute would apply to Obama birth circumstances:

“Birth Abroad to One Citizen and One Alien Parent in Wedlock

A child born abroad to one U.S. citizen parent and one alien parent acquires U.S. citizenship at birth under Section 301(g) of the INA provided the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the United States or one of its outlying possessions for the time period required by the law applicable at the time of the child's birth. (For birth on or after November 14, 1986, a period of five years physical presence, two after the age of fourteen, is required. For birth between December 24, 1952 and November 13, 1986, a period of ten years, five after the age of fourteen, is required for physical presence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions to transmit U.S. citizenship to the child.) The U.S. citizen parent must be genetically related to the child to transmit U.S. citizenship.” http://travel.state.gov/law/citizenship/citizenship_5199.html

According to public information provided by Obama, he was born to Barack Hussein Obama and Stanley Ann Dunham after they were married. Hence, he was born in wedlock. Obama’s mother, born on November 29, 1942, was 18 years old when she gave birth to Obama on August 4, 1961. She was 117 days short from being 19 years old. But she had to be at least 19 years old (14 years old plus 5 years of U.S. physical presence) to satisfy Section 301(g). Hence, if Obama was born in Kenya, under the Fourteenth Amendment, he is neither a U.S. citizen by birth on U.S. soil nor one by naturalization. Nor would he qualify to be a U.S. citizen by any Act of Congress by being born abroad to a U.S. citizen parent. There is no evidence that Obama ever naturalized as a U.S. “citizen” after he was born. Hence, if Obama was not born in the United States, it can be reasonably argued that Obama is an illegal alien.

Please note that there is an additional reason that Obama cannot be an Article II "natural born Citizen," which is that he was not born to a father and mother who were U.S. "citizens" at the time of his birth.; August 29, 2012 at 1:43 PM
Carlyle said...: Yes, we we do indeed love to ponder the details - and maybe that will turn out to be the only way to get at the truth.

But in the spirit of looking at the forest rather than the trees, I have much more fundamental questions. Furthermore, they should be non-controversial and should elicit strong support from 'both sides of the aisle'.

1. Constitutionally (or alternatively, by legislation or tradition) whose job exactly is it to vet presidential candidates for eligibility?

2. Suppose there is reasonable suspicion that this entity did not do their job properly or thoroughly - then what redress (i.e. due process) is available to We The People (the sovereigns of the Republic)?

These ought to have simple and direct answers. Why don't they and how do we get them?; August 30, 2012 at 11:45 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Apuzzo,

What is your reaction to the recent Maryland court ruling in Fair v. Obama? After citing from Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana, Judge Stansfield ruled that President Obama was eligible to be on the Maryland ballot. He wrote,

"The issue of the definition of “natural born citizen” is firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion, and as this Court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case. While Ms Fair and Ms. Miltenberger may disagree with the holding of the Supreme Court, from a perspective of stare decises, the only means by which an opinion of the Supreme Court concerning substantive law can be overturned is either by a subsequent holding of the Supreme Court or an Amendment to the U. S. Constitution. Both have occurred in the past on very rare occasions, but this Court does not believe that it has the discretion to simply disregard a holding which clearly applies to the definition of “natural born citizen” as it applies to President Obama.” Judge Thomas F. Stansfield, Fair v. Obama

His ruling is available at ORYR.; August 30, 2012 at 1:18 PM
bdwilcox said...: Ankeny, Footnote 14:

“We note the fact that the Court in Wong Kim Ark did not actually pronounce the plaintiff a “natural born Citizen” using the Constitution’s Article II language is immaterial. For all but forty-four people in our nation’s history (the forty-four Presidents), the dichotomy between who is a natural born citizen and who is a naturalized citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment is irrelevant. The issue addressed in Wong Kim Ark was whether Mr. Wong Kim Ark was a citizen of the United States on the basis that he was born in the United States. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. at 705, 18 S. Ct. at 478.”

The Obots...building their houses on shifting sand since 2007.; August 30, 2012 at 5:50 PM
Anonymous said...: Bdwilcox,

And yet there are now eight cases that declare President Obama to be a "natural born Citizen".

Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008),
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court), Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia Federal Court 2012),
Purpura v. Obama(New Jersey 2012), Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012), Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012),
Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012)
Fair v. Obama (Maryland, 2012)

The sands may be shifting but the foundation piers go down into bedrock.; August 30, 2012 at 7:56 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of II

4zoltan,

There are several problems with Judge Thomas F. Stansfield’s decision in Tracy Fair v. Barack Hussein Obama. These are:

1. He relies on a state case (Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana) to determine what the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is. The definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a very important constitutional issue and one would think that Judge Stansfield would do his own research and analysis of historical evidence and U.S. Supreme Court decisions on the matter. So the soundness of his decision is only as good as the Ankeny case can be.

2. He relies on Ankeny which did not correctly interpret U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark. Here are the errors committed by Ankeny regarding Wong Kim Ark:

a. Article II, Section 1, Clause 5says “natural born Citizen,” not “born Citizen.” It also distinguishes between a “natural born Citizen” and “citizen of the United States.” Wong Kim Ark did not hold that Wong was a “natural born Citizen.” Rather, it held that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” at birth. Even Ankeny confirmed that. Ankeny said that the Court’s language choice was immaterial. But a simple reading of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 shows that there is a critical difference between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States,” with only the former being eligible to be President today. Hence, when it comes to interpreting and construing the Constitution, word choice is not “immaterial.”

b. Ankeny erroneously interpreted Wong Kim Ark by erroneously reading the Fourteenth Amendment. It read the amendment to include the clause “natural born” when it only says “born.”

c. It inserted the “natural born Citizen” clause into the amendment when it does not contain the clause, but only says “citizen of the United States.”

d. It also erroneously concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment includes a definition of a “natural born Citizen” when it does not and only includes a definition of a “citizen of the United States.”

Because of these errors, Ankeny said that it was “immaterial” that in its language Wong Kim Ark said that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” rather than a “natural born Citizen.”

3. Since Judge Stansfield decision is only as good as the Ankeny case and having shown the errors contained in the Ankeny case, Judge Stansfield’s decision is not sound.

4. Judge Stansfield said: “The issue of the definition of a ‘natural born citizen’ is thus firmly resolved by the United States Supreme Court in a prior opinion and as this Court sees it, that holding is binding on the ultimate issue in this case.” He then says that because of “stare decises,” a court can chose not to follow that holding only if a “subsequent holding of the Supreme Court or an amendment to the U.S. Constitution” were to allow it. Judge Stansfield then says: “this Court does not believe that it has the discretion to simply disregard a holding which clearly applies to the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ as it applies to President Obama.” But if Judge Stansfield were to adhere to what he wrote, his decision would be precluded by Minor v. Happersett (1875) which “firmly resolved” what the definition of a “natural-born citizen” was. Minor confirmed the American “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen” which the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court said was a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country when the child was born. Minor shows that the Fourteenth Amendment did not repeal or amend this definition and Wong Kim Ark also confirmed that when it distinguished a “natural born Citizen” from a “citizen of the United States” at birth. With no subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decision or constitutional amendment altering the Minor holding, Minor and its definition of a “natural-born citizen” is binding upon Judge Stansfield. But he completely ignores this U.S. Supreme Court case.

Continued . . .; August 30, 2012 at 11:58 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

5. Judge Stansfield also rules that the states have no role in presidential vetting, leaving it all up to the Electoral College to determine whether a presidential candidate is eligible for the office he or she seeks. But this is not what our Constitution envisages. Judge Stansfield conflates and confounds voting for the President with vetting of the President. The issue raised by plaintiff is one of vetting Obama, not voting for him. Also, our national election of our President is really 51 different elections which occur in 50 different states and the District of Columbia. Each election is controlled by each state. Each one of these states has a constitutional duty to protect the life, liberty, and property of its people and to make sure that its people vote for constitutionally eligible presidential candidates. Such checking by the states is part and parcel of the national presidential vetting process. Presidential eligibility should be resolved as early as possible, and not when it is too late because of politics to do anything about it. The Electoral College does play a role later in directly voting for and electing the President. But that the Electoral College ultimately votes for the President does not mean that they can better than the states vet presidential candidates or negate the important role that states play early in the process to make sure that presidential candidates are eligible for the office they seek.

6. Judge Stansfield raises the possibility that plaintiff’s claim is barred because Obama was already elected once by the Electoral College and inaugurated. But he simply raises the question without offering any legal authority or argument to support the question he asks.

7. Regarding plaintiff’s claim that Obama’s birth certificate is not genuine, Judge Stansfield says that plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action because she does not have “verified proof” that the birth certificate produced by Obama is not genuine. What the judge did is completely inappropriate, given that plaintiff should be given an opportunity to present such evidence to the court. The judge did not give plaintiff any opportunity to conduct any discovery, produce any expert testimony, and present her evidence to the court in a plenary hearing. He simply dismissed her claim on motion papers and with no plenary hearing when those papers do not show that there is no genuine issue of material fact as to that birth certificate.

8. Judge Stansfield dismissed plaintiff’s complaint even though he recognized that plaintiff’s pleading and exhibits could raise an issue of fact as to whether Obama’s birth certificate is genuine, because as he says, birth certificates are not relevant to the question of whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen.” He said that what is relevant is where he was born, not whether he has a birth certificate. He adds that “it is possible, through some error or any number of explanations, why a birth certificate would not reflect precisely the location of a person’s birth.” This is some fantastic reasoning. The only evidence that Obama has presented to the public regarding where he was born is the short form and the long form birth certificates that he posted on the internet. This is the only evidence that we have as to where he was born. If this evidence is not relevant, than what evidence do we have of where Obama was born? There simply is no other evidence. So is Judge Stansfield telling us that Obama has absolutely no constitutional obligation to provide any evidence whatsoever of where he was born in order to show that he is a “natural born Citizen?” With birth certificates not having any relevance, do we even know where Obama was born and who Obama’s parents were? What Judge Stansfield has ruled simply makes no sense when it comes to our need to enforce Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause.

So, here again, we have another poorly reasoned and written decision from our courts regarding the definition of a "natural born Citizen."; August 31, 2012 at 12:01 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: 4zoltan,

You cite:

Hollander v. McCain (New Hampshire 2008),
Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (Indiana 2008 – Appellate Court), Tisdale v. Obama (Virginia Federal Court 2012),
Purpura v. Obama(New Jersey 2012), Voeltz v. Obama (Florida 2012), Allen v. Obama (Arizona 2012),
Farrar (et al.) v. Obama (Georgia 2012)
Fair v. Obama (Maryland, 2012)

Then you say: “The sands may be shifting but the foundation piers go down into bedrock.”

There is no bedrock in any of these cases. These cases are all based upon an erroneous interpretation and application of U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). The courts’ decisions in these cases all rest on the presumption that Wong Kim Ark changed Minor’s American “common law” definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” when it did not do any such thing. Rather, Wong Kim Ark first confirmed that American “common-law” definition which was a child born in a country to “citizen” parents and then defined a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark also distinguished between these two classes of citizens, saying that while both a child born in the country to “citizen” parents and the child born in the country to alien parents are both “citizens” by virtue of being born in the country, only the former is a “natural born Citizen.” So, Wong Kim Ark left intact Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” and gave us a new definition of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth.

So, as we can see, these cases rest on an erroneous premise. Hence, like bdwilcox said, “the Obots [are] building their houses on shifting sand since 2007.; August 31, 2012 at 12:31 AM
Anonymous said...: Mr Apuzzo,

"The courts’ decisions in these cases all rest on the presumption that Wong Kim Ark changed Minor’s American “common law” definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” when it did not do any such thing."

Do you ever regret not offering your assistance to the plaintiffs in the Ankeny case?

Will you be offering your assistance to Ms. Fair should she decide to appeal?

Are you making this argument to the New Jersey Supreme Court and will you make it to the US Supreme Court later?

If the US Supreme Court refuses to accept your future appeal of the New Jersey case will you assume they disagree with your arguments?; August 31, 2012 at 11:18 AM
Robert said...: Of course Mr. Obama is not even close to being eligible for office.

Additionally, he did not provide any documentation of his "qualification" prior to the time set for his term of office to begin. This is in violation of Amendment XX and is arguably a de facto resignation or declination of the offer.

Everyone who's ever applied for a job requiring credentials knows that the offer is null and void if the appropriate and necessary credentials are not produced in a timely manner.

Also, in the case of Mr. Obama, we have to consider the disqualifying nature of his childish forgeries (felonies).

Apparently, the job isn't important enough for Mr. Obama to take it very seriously.; August 31, 2012 at 7:05 PM
cfkerchner said...: Hi Mario: As included in our Jan 2009 lawsuit against Obama and Congress, the Commission on Presidential Debates did not fulfill its fiduciary responsibility to properly vet Obama. They're being put them on notice this time.

Article II Super PAC Letter: Demands the Commission On Presidential Debates Enforce the “natural born Citizen” Eligibility Requirements Listed in Their Own Debate Regs and Their Webpage and of course the U.S. Constitution.
Obama skated by them in 2008 but Candidate Obama should not be allowed to skate by this time in 2012, given all the new evidence against Obama, in violation of our U.S. Constitution and the commission’s own rules! Make Obama show his papers, not internet images. Obama was born a dual-Citizen, and thus can never be a “natural born Citizen” of the United States to constitutional standards. Make Obama justify in writing and subject to review and critique by constitutional scholars on both sides of this issue how he can be considered to be a “natural born Citizen” to Article II constitutional standards when his father was a foreign national, non-immigrant, non-U.S. Citizen. This matter should also be referred to Congress for an investigation too.

See my blog post for the details and how to get a copy of the letter:
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/article-ii-super-pac-letter-demands-the-commission-on-presidential-debates-enforce-the-natural-born-citizen-eligibility-requirements/

All: Click on the Article II Super PAC image at the above link for the history and true legal meaning of the constitutional presidential eligibility clause, natural born Citizen, and the U.S. Supreme Court cases and holdings which say that it means born in the country to two U.S. Citizen parents. Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen. It is not that a father or mother is foreign born it is whether they both immigrated to the USA and both became a U.S. Citizen and renounced their foreign allegiances before their child was born in the USA. Rarely made obvious to the public is that Obama’s father was not even an immigrant to this country. We are a nation of immigrants but Obama’s father was not one. He was never a U.S. Citizen and never wanted to be. Obama Sr. was a British Subject foreign national simply visiting our country to attend college. No other elected President in our history ever had a father who was not an immigrant to our country. Obama II is not constitutionally eligible to be President. Let us not repeat the lack of vetting debacle of the 2008 election and suffer another 4 years under an ineligible, illegal person in the Oval Office.

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
ProtectOurLiberty.org; August 31, 2012 at 7:57 PM
cfkerchner said...: Justice Scalia flummoxed about natural born citizenship! — Exclusive: Attorney Larry Klayman asks Justice Scalia for definition of term used in Constitution « CDR Kerchner (Ret)'s Blog
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/justice-scalia-flummoxed-about-natural-born-citizenship-exclusive-larry-klayman-asks-justice-for-definition-of-term-used-in-constitution/

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret)
Lehigh Valley PA USA
http://www.protectourliberty.org; August 31, 2012 at 10:18 PM
thalightguy said...: Mario,

1. Has the definition of a “natural born citizen” changed with time or does it mean the same today as it did at ratification?

2. Are there any circumstances that would allow a person born on U.S. soil shortly after ratification who did not meet the definition of a “natural born citizen” to be defined as such if born at a later date?; September 1, 2012 at 12:23 AM
Robert said...: In court, never ask a question to which you don't know the answer. Avoid like the plague all questions whose answers you don't want anyone to hear.

There is absolutely no question that Mr. Obama is NOT constitutionally qualified to be POTUS and needs to be removed from office. "Wishful Thinking" says that the Democrat party should actually take the lead on this so they could choose a legal candidate in time for the November elections. Of course they won't. They've never really been overly concerned about the people or our constitution other than how they can manipulate them to their own benefit. However, if for some miraculous reason they did act honorably, it would give us a leg up on cleaning up the massive Obama's mess.

One can only imagine the humiliation, embarrassment and compromise of every honorable State Secretary of State who is being pressured to commit treason by putting the name of a man known to be ineligible on their state ballots. Not one of them has ever received a document establishing truthfully that Mr. Obama is eligible to be President. Apparently, none of them has even questioned the availability or legitimacy of Obama's credentials. Considering the firestorm surrounding this issue we must consider this a clear and intentional dereliction of duty and willful participation in fraud.

What a terrible legacy to leave to their kids!

"Hey Kids, Mom/Dad, Grandma/Grandpa is just as famous as Benedict Arnold!"

I guess we'll see who among them has the honor and integrity to keep their oath of office and refuse Obama or resign, won't we? The truth will either bless them or haunt them the rest of their lives.

If Mr. Obama's forgeries have any accuracy at all, he has admitted that he was born under British jurisdiction to a British/Kenyan subject father. So, even if he was born in Hawaii, he is not a natural born citizen - one born in the country to citizen parents. He's a British subject under the British Nationality Act.

If Mr. Obama was born in Kenya, as previously claimed by himself, his wife, his grandmother, local Kenyan officials, and the Kenyan government, he is not even a citizen.

Our courts and law enforcement agencies, with few exceptions, have no desire to analyze a Kenyan birth certificate ostensibly containing Mr. Obama's footprint. Yet, they accept amateurishly forged computer images of mysterious Hawaiian documents while avoiding or denouncing any effort to actually prove the existence of the originals.

All those who have sought the truth have found Obama lacking and his documents to be highly questionable, if not proven forgeries.

Mr. Obama needs to be arrested and removed from office immediately. We need to completely nullify the Obama presidency - every order he's given, bill he's signed, and appointment he's made and get back to our Constitution and the business of building the greatest nation on earth.; September 1, 2012 at 11:10 AM
Anonymous said...: Hi Mario Apuzzo, Esq.!!!

This is just to let you know that little old "perverted, warped, and pretentious minded" artsy-fartsy intellectual me, has just done another very good Internet Article which just tears your legal arguments all to pieces!!!

http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/the-two-citizen-parents-requirement-oh-yeah-the-birthers-built-that/

Squeeky Fromm
Artsy-Fartsy Girl Reporter; September 1, 2012 at 4:43 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of II

Squeeky Fromm
Artsy-Fartsy Girl Reporter,

You err in your essay in refusing to recognize that we have two different standards for U.S. citizens at birth. We have one standard that applies to an Article II “natural born Citizen” and a different standard that applies to a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth. The former is defined under American “common-law” and the latter under the Fourteenth Amendment.

First, let us look at the origins of the American “common-law” standard that applies to defining a “natural born Citizen.” The law of nations mentioned in Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 refers to the general law of nations which was a body of law that had its origins in the law of nature which guided individuals in their personal conduct and when applied to the affairs of nations was called the law of nations. The Romans called this body of law jus gentium. This law was based on “natural reason” and because it was widely used by the peoples of so many nations was accepted as a body of law by all the civilized nations of the world. Not only was it a basis upon which the written law was made, but also continued to be a basis of law whenever the written law did not adequately provide a solution to a legal problem.

Emer de Vattel wrote a treatise in 1758 on the law of nations entitled, The Law of Nations, Or, Principles of the Law of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, with Three Early Essays on the Origin and Nature of Natural Law and on Luxury (1758 French edition, 1759 first English translation). His treatise is commonly called, The Law of Nations.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 provides: “The Congress shall have Power . . . define and punish . . . Offenses against the Law of Nations.” This clause refers to the general law of nations, not Vattel's treatise, The Law of Nations. The Framers capitalized all nouns in the Constitution and so the capitalization does not mean that they were referring to Vattel’s treatise. Nevertheless, the Founders and Framers relied heavily upon Vattel and his treatise, The Law of Nations, to find the law of nations and glean its meaning. They used the law of nations to resolved so many of the national and international problems with which they were faced in the early years of the republic. They cited and quoted Vattel and his treatise many times when they put forth the law of nations as the law applicable to a problem with which they were faced. The use by the Founders and Framers of the law of nations as a body of law upon which they relied to resolve many of the national and international problems with which they were faced and their incorporation of that law into the Constitution also means that the law of nations became part of Article III’s Laws of the United States” and under Article VI the supreme law of the land.

Continued . . .; September 2, 2012 at 1:00 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

Minor v. Happersett (1875) cited the “common-law” with which the Framers of the Constitution were familiar when they wrote the “natural-born citizen” clause into the Constitution. The court gave a definition of a “natural-born citizen” that is a paraphrase of what Vattel wrote in Section 212 of The Law of Nations. This is how Vattel defined a “natural-born citizen:”

“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.” Id. at Section 212.

This is how Minor defined one: “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 167-68.

So, we can see that Minor simply confirmed the law of nations definition of a “natural-born citizen.” This definition became part of our national law or what Minor called “common-law.” This definition, being part of our Constitution, has been the supreme law of the land since the Constitution was adopted and ratified.

Now let us turn to the standard for a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth. The American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen” has not been repealed or amended by any constitutional amendment, including the Fourteenth Amendment. This amendment provides in pertinent part that “[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.” The plain text of this amendment only addresses what is a “citizen of the United States.”

Wong Kim Ark, which interpreted and construed the Fourteenth Amendment, also did not amend the “natural born Citizen” clause. The plain text of the Court’s question presented and holding only address what is a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth. The Court held that a child born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents was included as a “citizen of the United States” at birth. Wong Kim Ark also in its rationale distinguished between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States.” Wong Kim Ark first confirmed Minor’s American “common-law” definition which as we have seen was a child born in a country to “citizen” parents and then defined a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark also distinguished between these two classes of citizens, saying that while both a child born in the country to “citizen” parents and the child born in the country to alien parents are both “citizens” by virtue of being born in the country, only the former is a “natural born Citizen.” So, Wong Kim Ark left intact Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” and gave us a new definition of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth. But a “citizen of the United States” in Article II is distinguished from a “natural born Citizen.” The American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen” therefore still stands as the supreme law of the land today.

So, Artsy-Fartsy Girl Reporter, you will have to try again to prove me wrong.; September 2, 2012 at 1:01 AM
Linda said...: @Mr. Apuzzo

I don't think Squeeks needs to prove you wrong, you do well enough on your own. How many court cases have you won with this argument? Zero? I thought so.

You are right in one respect, the 14th Amendment did not change the Article II definition of natural born citizen, it merely codified it. "Natural born" always meant a citizen at birth, it is no different now. FYI, there was no "American Common Law" at the time the Constitution was written. We had been a colony of England from the time of our founding until the Declartion of Independence, and during those 100+ years, we were under the English common law and the English system. Most of the founders were themselves lawyers in the English system. Yet, you would have us believe, that one morning, after over a 100 years of "natural born" mean one thing, those sage and esteemed founders would use that same term, without definition or footnote, and have it mean something else.

Pop-E-Cock.; September 2, 2012 at 2:03 AM
MichaelN said...: Squeeky got oiled.; September 2, 2012 at 3:27 AM
Anonymous said...: Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

Well, here is my response in pdf form because I don't know if your comment section can hold the whole thing or not.

http://birtherthinktank.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/squeeky-response-to-mario-apuzzo-esq.pdf

I also pdf'd your response and posted it at my website at this link:

http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/the-squeeky-mario-discussions/

Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter; September 2, 2012 at 9:56 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

It never fails. Whenever the Obots get smacked down, they run to the courts for help. They cannot stand their own ground and make their own winning argument and so they run to the courts to be saved.

Linda, why do you not make a legal argument rather than just tell us what the courts have done? Why do you give us just your personal wishful thinking which includes made up history?

Do you think that your little chat on here can replace historical and legal analysis? I think not.

Nice try, Linda, but no cigar. I guess you will have to join the ranks of Artsy-Fartsy Girl Reporter.; September 2, 2012 at 9:57 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: We have this over at nbc web site by nbc, https://nativeborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/fair-confusion/#comment-35337

“The Wong Kim Ark Court did not EXPLICITLY label Wong a “natural born Citizen” (using the complete term all in one place).
They did, however, very CLEARLY find that Wong was BOTH “a citizen” AND “natural born.”
Most of us can put 1 plus 1 together, and find that it equals 2.”

Then nbc makes the following comment:

“Yes, everyone understood except for Mario and a few others who appear to be unable to read a simple ruling/.”

Here is my response which I posted there:

“nbc,

Oh, yes, Mario did not understand the Wong Kim Ark ruling. And I guess I also did not understand your made up fantasy about Wong Kim Ark, that the Court did not hold Wong to be a "natural born Citizen," but it said he was a "citizen" and "natural born." Wow, I wonder why the Court could not just say that he was a "natural born Citizen?" I wonder why the Court could not simply include the unitary phrase, “natural born Citizen” in its holding, but rather as you claim had to break it up into little pieces and throw it about in its opinion?

The truth is that the Court did not hold Wong to be an Article II "natural born Citizen," but rather only a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States" at birth. The truth is that Wong Kim Ark, which interpreted and construed the Fourteenth Amendment, also did not amend the “natural born Citizen” clause. The plain text of the Court’s question presented and holding only addressed what is a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth. The Court held that a child born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents was born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and therefore was included as a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark also in its rationale distinguished between a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen of the United States.” Wong Kim Ark first confirmed Minor’s American “common-law” definition which as we have seen was a child born in a country to “citizen” parents and then defined a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark also distinguished between these two classes of citizens, saying that while both a child born in the country to “citizen” parents and the child born in the country to alien parents are both “citizens” by virtue of being born in the country, only the former is a “natural born Citizen.” So, Wong Kim Ark left intact Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” and gave us a new definition of a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen of the United States” at birth. But a “citizen of the United States” in Article II is distinguished from a “natural born Citizen.” The American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen” therefore still stands as the supreme law of the land today.

You have neither historical nor legal support for your crank legal theory that the Founders and Framers defined a "natural born Citizen" under English common law and you will go to all lengths to just make stuff up to support your position, including giving us your mangled reading of Wong Kim Ark.; September 2, 2012 at 10:36 AM
Robert said...: So, in the beginning of our nation, before the ratification of the Constitution, where were the courts?

The concept that the Obots unwittingly promote would have our founders writing the Constitution relatively in the dark. Then, only after completion, going to the newly established courts to find out what they really meant.

Maybe that's where they got the idea that they have to pass a bill before they can know what's in it.

A natural born citizen is one born in the country to citizen parents. He is one who gains his citizenship by the natural law of nature instead of by some positive act of man. He is one who does not have to officially swear allegiance or sign an oath. The nation of his birth and parents is the only nation that can lay claim to his allegiance. There are no "step mother" or "step father" nations to divide or compete for his allegiance.

It's that simple.; September 2, 2012 at 10:59 AM
bdwilcox said...: Using Obot logic, we can confidently say that Obots like 2Zoltar and Loon-da are pro-slavery. The Supreme Court ruled that Dred Scott was someone's property and that ruling HAS NEVER BEEN OVERTURNED. Sure, parts of it were nullified by the 14th Amendment, but to this day the Supreme Court has never retracted that Dred Scott was another man's property. So much for the Supreme Court's decisions being the sole arbiter of truth.

Mario, knowing what we know, when we hear things like: "FYI, there was no "American Common Law" at the time the Constitution was written." it only reinforces what clueless, classless degenerates these Obot disinformation agents are.

All of the below quotes are from the debates of the Virginia Ratifying Convention of 1788 where the 168 delegates of Virginia, including James Madison (the father of the Constitution), debated on the whether to ratify or reject the Constitution drafted in the Philadelphia Convention the year prior. They, of course, adopted it.

"The common law of England is not the common law of these states." - George Mason.

"When our government was first instituted in Virginia, we declared the common law of England to be in force. That system of law which has been admired, and has protected us and our ancestors, is excluded by that system [i.e. the Constitution they are debating and ultimately adopted -ed]. Added to this, we adopted a bill of rights. By this Constitution, some of the best barriers of human rights are thrown away. Is there not an additional reason to have a bill of rights?...That paper [i.e. the Constitution -ed] ought to have declared the common law in force." - Patrick Henry

"But, sir, this Constitution is defective because the common law is not declared to be in force! What would have been the consequence if it had? It would be immutable. But now it can be changed or modified as the legislative body may find necessary for the community. But the common law is not excluded. There is nothing in that paper to warrant the assertion." -George Nicholas

And these are only the tip of the iceberg concerning how the founders and writers of the Constitution rejected, in whole, the English Common Law as the basis of our national law, i.e. the Constitution. James Madison even went so far as to refer to the English Common Law as a "dishonorable" standard from which to adopt terms into the laws of the United States: "Felony is a word unknown to the law of nations, and is to be found in the British laws, and from thence adopted in the laws of these states. It was thought dishonorable to have recourse to that standard. A technical term of the law of nations is therefore used, that we should find ourselves authorized to introduce it into the laws of the United States."

So, Loon-da, how smart do you feel now? But, yeah, what did those dead, white guys know about our Constitution? They only wrote the damn thing.; September 2, 2012 at 11:09 AM
batazoid said...: Squeeky*,

I am carefully reading both your case in chief as to the meaning of an Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen as well as Mario Apuzzo's case in chief.

Although I have barely scratched the surface between the two arguments, it seems to me the first point brought up between the two is the question of "accquiring US citizenship by birth."

While you and Mario vary as to your conclusions, there does seem to be an agreement as it relates to the case of United States v. Rhodes (1866), Mr. Justice Swayne, sitting in the Circuit Court, said:

"...Birth and allegiance go together."

Isn't this the central point of Mr. Apuzzo's argument?

Ex animo
davidfarrar
*CC: Mario Appuzo; September 2, 2012 at 12:17 PM
Ray said...: Claims that the Colonists were unaware of Vattel's "Law of Nations" are nonsense. Newspapers ran multi-issue serial articles excerpting "The Law of Nations" by "the celebrated" Vattel

"The celebrated M. de Vattel, having very lately published his Law of Nations, originally in French, a Translation of it into English is lately made and published in England; as this Book is reckoned among the first for Learning, Erudition, and sound Reasoning, we hope the following Extract from it will not be disagreeable."

"North Carolina Magazine; or Universal Intelligencer", Vol 1 No 15, September 7, 1764. http://ncecho.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/p15016coll1/id/15598 (accessed September 2, 2012).; September 2, 2012 at 12:26 PM
Linda said...: @Mr. Apuzzo,

Legal cases are built on precedent, the rulings by previous courts. There is no wishful thinking in my post. Just the facts, as held by the SCOTUS.

Do you know of any legal text book that supports your two-citizen parent theory? I have been unable to locate any.; September 2, 2012 at 4:44 PM
cfkerchner said...: Marxists and Progressives wish to forget and erase the influence of Vattel's writings in the birth of our new nation and new form of government. It is part of their revisionist history workings over the last 100 years. But Vattel's Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law writings were of great influence on the founders and framers for it is here in America where his thoughts and logic on a new form of government, to unite the 13 independent and sovereign states into a new republic, a constitutional republic took root and ultimately shook the world. Only the logic of natural law embodied in the body of law known as the law of nations could be used to unite the 13 independent and sovereign states. The founders and framers clearly looked to Vattel's natural law for the new federal government to unite the former colonies and not English Common Law, of which various forms of ECL existed in the various colonies combined with the common law of the various respective states. No, ECL could not and was not used to unite the 13 new sovereign states. It was natural law and the Law of Nations that could only achieve that. And that is what was used, the Bible and the writings of Vattel on natural law, to justify the revolution and to write the new Constitution.

Vattel's Influence on Founders of Our Nation and Framers of Our Constitution:
http://www.scribd.com/collections/3224507/Vattel-s-Influence-on-U-S-Founders-Constitution-s-Framers

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
http://www.protectourliberty.org; September 2, 2012 at 6:51 PM
MichaelN said...: Linda said...

"@Mr. Apuzzo

I don't think Squeeks needs to prove you wrong, you do well enough on your own. How many court cases have you won with this argument? Zero? I thought so.

You are right in one respect, the 14th Amendment did not change the Article II definition of natural born citizen, it merely codified it. "Natural born" always meant a citizen at birth, it is no different now. FYI, there was no "American Common Law" at the time the Constitution was written. We had been a colony of England from the time of our founding until the Declartion of Independence, and during those 100+ years, we were under the English common law and the English system. Most of the founders were themselves lawyers in the English system. Yet, you would have us believe, that one morning, after over a 100 years of "natural born" mean one thing, those sage and esteemed founders would use that same term, without definition or footnote, and have it mean something else.

Pop-E-Cock."

English common law ......

Lord Coke (Calvin's case)

"An Alien is a subject that is born out of the ligeance of the king, and under the ligeance of another, and can have no real or personal action for or concerning land; but in every such action the tenant or defendant may plead that he was born in such a Country which is not within ligeance of the king, and demand judgment if he shall be answered. And this is in effect the description which Littleton himself maketh, lib. 2. cap. 14. Villen. fol. 43. Alienigena est alienae gentis seu alience ligeantiae, qui etiam |[16 b] dicitur peregrinus, alienus, exoticus, extraneus, &c. Extraneus est subditus, qui extra terram, i.e. potestatem regis natus est 151"

[151. ][Ed.: An alien born is of foreign birth OR foreign allegiance, and is also called peregrinus (foreigner), alien, exotic, stranger, etc. A stranger is a subject who is born outside the land, that is, outside the king’s power.]

So there you have it Linda.

Alien born is not necessarily solely attributed to jus soli.

It was the allegiance of the father that determined the alien birth status of a native-born child.

Coke explained it time and again in his report of Calvin's case, which as YOU acknowledge and say the founding fathers and framers were extremely familiar with.

Lord Coke (Calvin's case)....

"And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born: for if enemies should come into the realm, and possess a town or fort, and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King."

Ergo: natural descent is paramount, in determining natural born status.

Also note the distinction that Lord Coke made between ligeance and protection.

i.e. subject to jurisdiction ("protection")is distinctly different from allegiance ("ligeance of a subject")

So what was that you were saying about the English common law?; September 2, 2012 at 9:53 PM
cfkerchner said...: My open letter to Justice Scalia: http://obamareleaseyourrecords.blogspot.com/2012/09/justice-scalia-flummoxed-about-natural.html

CDR Kerchner (Ret); September 2, 2012 at 10:36 PM
Robert said...: We have spent a lot of time discussing post adoption constitutional references. And, although there is not a single court case that denies that a one born in the country to citizen parents is a natural born citizen, it seems to have become quite problematic that not one of these cases has directly mentioned Barack Obama by name.

As a side note, neither have we found a case that establishes the citizenship of one born in places unknown/undocumented to parents unknown/udocumented who stipulates that he was born under British jurisdiction in Hawaii and in Kenya (the only place with witnesses and documents that haven't been proved forgeries) while also claiming to be a citizen of the world with at least four sovereign nations having some sort of specific claim to his allegiance. (Whew! Try saying all that in one breath.)

So, how about a little challenge?

Records show that, along with the age and residence requirements, the founders considered the terms "citizen", "born citizen" and "natural born citizen" for the requirements of President and Commander in Chief.

They wrote that anyone who would be President must meet these requirements and that he must qualify prior to the time set for him to assume office.

We also know from the letter John Jay wrote to George Washington that the term "natural born citizen" was preferred to restrict foreign influence from the office of President and Commander in Chief.

Well, what about these three terms? Who could claim to be a citizen after the revolution? Who could claim to be a "born citizen" or a "natural born citizen"? What difference did the founders see between "born" and "natural born"? Why was it necessary to use the terms "citizen of the United States at the adoption of this Constitution" with "natural born citizen" in the same sentence?

The game is to answer these questions. The rules of the game are that you can only use the information available to the founders.

Hint: There are a lot of places that where you can find the answers. Mario and several of his learned contributors have done so on this blog.

And, of course, the final Jeopardy challenge; a three parter. What evidence of his qualifications did Mr. Obama present prior to the time set for him to take office? To whom did he present this evidence? Where is this evidence now?

For those who come up with the wrong answers, there is another really fun game. Just a slight variation from Minor and we get ...

The Constitution does not say in words whether the age of the President shall be determined in Earth years, Venution years, Martian years, dog years, mayfly years or Giant Sequoia or Joshua tree years...; September 3, 2012 at 2:06 PM
Unknown said...: As I am sure all of you have noted, Sheriff Arpaio's Cold Case Posse's investigation has been left unread by most of the media folk--or at least none of them refer to it. The mere fact that Obama would authorize a forgery to be placed on the WH website should generate a storm of response--but it hasn't. This strongly suggests a new attitude towards law in general. Not only does Obama consider himself above the law (something the USA once condemned Adolf Hitler for) but also other prominent citizens and business persons do likewise so consider themselves. Glenn Greenwald treats this problem thoroughly in his book JUSTICE FOR SOME. I believe in the time of the aristocracy something similar obtained. We obviously have arrived at the point where one is either in the select and elite element or one of the vast rabble. We are in the rabble sector clearly. To them the Constitution is little more than a chess piece to move when it advantages one of their schemes and to ignore when it might interfere with one of their goals. So we have reached a psychological condition where some realize the above, some don't. So far the judges are privately acknowledging this shift in power and playing the New Game. The plaintiffs are left in the dark as the judges add 2 and 2 and always get 5.
The fact that the Supreme Court hesitates to publicly take a stand means they are not yet sure whether the Game will go on or be terminated. They want to be winners--but will it be the Old or the New Game that is played?
A significant part of the New Game is blackmail. Clinton kept her mouth shut in '08, and now Romney is doing the same. Interesting.
Surely lots of the higher ups know the Obama is not qualified. How to interpret this? A real puzzle. Mario Appuzo has perfected the case against Obama's eligibility. Only fools and madmen think otherwise. And paid beggars.; September 3, 2012 at 3:19 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

I have presented numerous legal precedents which show that a "natural born Citizen" is a child born in the country to "citizen" parents. You have no such legal precedents.

I have presented a great amount of historical sources and case law which confirm my two-U.S. parents legal requirement.

You are the one who does not have one U.S. Supreme Court case which supports your position that a person other than a child born in the country to "citizen" parents can be a "natural born Citizen."; September 3, 2012 at 10:28 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Consider that

‘[f]or James Otis, who was as well read as any American in both the English common law and the European theories of natural law, the conflict became especially acute. His frantic attempts to reconcile the two laws—Coke with Vattel—formed the crisis of his life and helped to tear his mind to pieces. Because he knew English history and the common law too well, because he clung too stubbornly to the veracity of seventeenth-century notions of jurisprudence and parliamentary supremacy, he was eventually compelled to sacrifice Vattel for Coke, to deny natural reason for the sake of historical truth, and to miss the Revolution.

Gordon S. Wood, The Creation of the American Republic 1776-1787, at 9 (1998) (citing Bernard Bailyn, ed. Pamphlets of the American Revolution, 1750-1776 (Cambridge, 1965--), I, 100-03, 106-07, 121-123, 409-17, 546-52, and noting that Bailyn’s introductory essay to the Pamphlets, entitled “The Transforming Radicalism of the American Revolution,” has been elaborated and republished separately as “The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution” (Cambridge, Mass., 1967)).

Of course, we know that the Founders and Framers for sure chose natural reason, for they held “these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. The Declaration of Independence para. 2 (U.S. 1776). And we also know that they had a Revolution to “dissolve the Political bands which have connected them with another” [Great Britain] and to fight for those rights. Id. para. 1. So evidently they chose Vattel rather than Coke or Blackstone. Indeed, “It is therefore to be expected that, when terms of municipal law are found in the Constitution, they are to be understood in the sense in which they were used in Blackstone’s Commentaries; and when the law of nations is referred to, that its principles are to be understood in the sense in which Vattel defined them.” James Brown Scott, The United States of America: A Study in International Organization 439 (1920). It was, for sure, as Gordon S. Wood suggests, the writing and thinking of Vattel that was the primary motivation for them to have that Revolution and create the constitutional republic.

From brief to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in Kerchner and Laudenslager v. Barack Hussein Obama II (2012).; September 3, 2012 at 10:40 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: PolitiFact has made the following ruling regarding Liberty Legal Foundation v. National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc:

“Our ruling

The Tennessee Democratic Party wanted to bring attention to Tennessee "birthers" challenging President Obama’s citizenship, and did so by pushing a press release claiming the judge found the claims so ‘frivolous’ that he sanctioned the plaintiffs who brought them. We rule the statement True.”

http://www.politifact.com/tennessee/statements/2012/sep/02/tennessee-democratic-party/birthers-sanctioned-federal-judge-frivolous-lawsui/

What is false about PolitiFact’s conclusion is that it does not tell the whole truth. It makes it look like the Court ruled that the claim regarding the plaintiffs’ definition of a “natural born Citizen,” i.e., a child born in the country to “citizen” parents, was part of the ruling which found “the claims so ‘fivolous’ that the court sanctioned the plaintiffs. What the court found was that plaintiffs’ argument regarding standing was frivolous. It did not find the underlying merits of their claims that dealt with whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen” to be frivolous. But both the Tennessee Democratic Party’s and PolitiFact’s reporting mislead the public into thinking that all of plaintiffs’ claims were frivolous, including the claim that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen.” So maybe we need someone to “fact check” statements made by PolitiFact, for here we have an example of manipulated presentation of information designed to mislead the public on the issue of whether Obama is a “natural born Citizen.”; September 3, 2012 at 11:19 PM
Linda said...: @MichaelN

I have seen you post this particular quote before, but I do not understand why. The first line says "An Alien is a subject that is born out of the ligeance of the king,..."

Born out of the ligeance, I agree, would make one an alien, except for acts passed by Congress which allow for children of US citizens born abroad to be NBCs.

The last part says alien and stranger are synonyms and that a "A stranger is a subject who is born outside the land, that is, outside the king’s power.] Again, we agree on that, except for, as stated above, for acts passed by Congress.

Calvin's case has been held for over 400 years to prove exactly the opposite of what you think it does. I am sure you won't take my word for it. Look it up.; September 4, 2012 at 12:01 AM
Linda said...: Mr. Apuzzo,

You do not have to agree my understanding of WKA, or that of the Justices in dissent in that case, or any of the other 1,000 cases that have sited it accordingly, that it held WKA to be a NBC. What you do have to accept, in my opinion, is that is how it is understood, and that is how other courts follow its precedent. There is no denying that.

I can link you to sources, from the time of WKA or earlier, that agree that born in the US equals NBC, but I am sure you have seen those. Do you have a Supreme Court case or legal textbook after Minor v Happersett that says NBC requires two citizens?; September 4, 2012 at 12:17 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

You are a bit wrong about Congress's power regarding "natural born Citizens."

Our Constitutions creates two classes of U.S. “citizens,” “natural born Citizens,” and “citizens of the United States.”

Minor v. Happersett (1875) confirmed that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” comes from American “common-law” and that it meant a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country when the child was born. That definition was incorporated into the Constitution as part of the supreme law of the land.

Congress has constitutional naturalization power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 to create "citizens of the United States," at birth (made U.S. “citizens” from the moment of birth who do not need any further naturalization after birth) and after birth (become U.S. “citizens” after birth by satisfying Congress’s naturalization laws after birth), but not "natural born Citizens." The last time Congress used the clause "natural born Citizen" was in the Naturalization Act of 1790. The Third Congress, realizing the error made by the First Congress, deleted the clause "natural born citizen" and in its place used "citizen of the United States" when it wrote the new Naturalization Act of 1795. Congress, not having any constitutional power to create a "natural born Citizen," never again used the clause "natural born Citizen," not even in the Fourteenth Amendment.

So, all acts of Congress use the clause “citizen of the United States,” not “natural born citizen.” The Fourteenth Amendment also uses “citizen of the United States,” and not “natural born Citizen.” The definition of a “natural born Citizen” has never been changed by any constitutional amendment, including the Fourteenth Amendment, or U.S. Supreme Court case, including United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Today a “natural born Citizen” is still a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.; September 4, 2012 at 1:05 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

Again, you have your focus wrong. Wong Kim Ark only defined a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. It also confirmed Minor’s American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen” under Article II. That American “common-law” definition of a “natural born Citizen” is a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country when the child was born.; September 4, 2012 at 1:12 AM
MichaelN said...: Linda said...

@MichaelN

"I have seen you post this particular quote before, but I do not understand why. The first line says "An Alien is a subject that is born out of the ligeance of the king,..."
Born out of the ligeance, I agree, would make one an alien, except for acts passed by Congress which allow for children of US citizens born abroad to be NBCs."

Reply:
Linda.
You are mixing it up and you are mistaken.

The English common law (which YOU say was the sole source for the defining qualities that made a US "natural born Citizen")clearly held (in the framing period of the USC), that native-birth alone DID NOT SUFFICE to make an English "natural born subject".

The 17th century English common law held that it was the ALLEGIANCE OF THE FATHER that was PARAMOUNT, NO MATTER WHERE the child was born, except in the case of a child of an alien-born father, in which case the child had to be born in the king's realm, because the alien-born father only had allegiance (although temporary) whilst he was in the king's realm, whereas an existing subject (non-alien-born)had perpetual allegiance, no matter where he was located.

Ergo: the allegiance of the father AS A SUBJECT, is what made an English "natural born subject", NOT native-birth.

Now, IF it was as YOU say, that the founding fathers and framers of the USC followed English common law, then it would REQUIRE THE ALLEGIANCE OF A US CITIZEN FATHER to make a US "natural born Citizen".

Linda said ....

"The last part says alien and stranger are synonyms and that a "A stranger is a subject who is born outside the land, that is, outside the king’s power.] Again, we agree on that, except for, as stated above, for acts passed by Congress."

Reply:
Linda.
It has nothing to do with a "stranger".

It has to do with the FACT that an alien-born does not necessarily mean a person born outside the country.

An alien can be someone who is native-born in the country.

So again, IF the founding fathers and framers of the USC followed English common law as the sole source for the defining qualities that would make a "natural born Citizen", then NATIVE-BIRTH ALONE WOULD NOT SUFFICE to make a "natural born Citizen".

AT THE VERY LEAST it would REQUIRE (as the English common law held) "BORN UNDER THE LIGEANCE OF A SUBJECT" and in the US this would equate to BORN UNDER THE ALLEGIANCE OF A US CITIZEN to make a US "natural born Citizen".

Linda said ....

"Calvin's case has been held for over 400 years to prove exactly the opposite of what you think it does. I am sure you won't take my word for it. Look it up."

Reply:
Linda.

I HAVE looked it up and you are WRONG!

We both know that what you have just said is simply not true and nonsense.

YOU show me where in English common law (which YOU SAY was followed by the founding fathers and framers of the USC)it holds that native-birth alone sufficed to make a "natural born subject".

YOU CAN"T because IT DOESN'T!

Native-birth alone, DID NOT SUFFICE to make an English "natural born subject", nor did/does native-birth alone suffice to make a US "natural born Citizen".

Linda, YOU are in denial of the truth.; September 4, 2012 at 3:37 AM
Mick said...: "Do you know of any legal text book that supports your two-citizen parent theory? I have been unable to locate any".

Sure.
See page xi, and page 12

Alexander Morse, "A Treatise on Citizenship"

http://archive.org/stream/cu31924020027870#page/n7/mode/2up; September 4, 2012 at 8:00 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Here is a little article by the demagogue, Dr. Conspiracy, on his “gospel” web site. He reports on PolitiFact’s finding regarding Liberty Legal Foundation v. National Democratic Party of the USA, Inc:

“Apparently the Tennessee Democratic Party released a press release last week touting the sanctions, and PolitiFact Tennessee thought they would check it out. Their ruling:

‘The Tennessee Democratic Party wanted to bring attention to Tennessee "birthers" challenging President Obama’s citizenship, and did so by pushing a press release claiming the judge found the claims so "frivolous" that he sanctioned the plaintiffs who brought them. We rule the statement True.’”

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/09/fact-checking-the-obots/

Dr. Conspiracy is the first one to argue context against any argument made by the constitutionalists who maintain that Obama is not an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Yet, you will not find one word in Dr. Conspiracy’s fair and balanced reporting that the court’s ruling was only about standing (whether plaintiff has shown he was personally injured by defendant’s action or inaction which injury the court can redress), and had nothing to do with the merits of the constitutional argument regarding what is an Article II “natural born Citizen” and whether Obama meets that definition. What these “truth” tellers are attempting to do with the Tennessee case is try to convey a message to the American people that a federal court has ruled that the whole issue of Obama’s citizenship (whether he is a “natural born Citizen”) has no merit and that the attorney arguing the case even received sanctions from a federal court for filing a case in which he argued that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen.” Clearly, this is not what the federal court ruled, but the unsuspecting reader would not learn that from these deceitful presentations.

Dr. Conspiracy is no friend of the truth. Do not be fooled by his little snooty presentations on how he just loves and suffers for all of mankind.; September 4, 2012 at 11:32 AM
The Stacker said...: Mario,

After all of these (failed) examples and suits, the question remains, "How does one get standing"?

Is the House of Representatives the only way through which the NBC status can be questioned - only elected officials can challenge the qualifications to be president?

Seems so.; September 4, 2012 at 1:17 PM
bdwilcox said...: Butterdezillion's blog claims: Onaka Confirms Obama’s BC is Non-Valid. The link on that webpage opens a PDF file with the analysis.; September 4, 2012 at 3:54 PM
Linda said...: @Mick,

Thanks, but that just quotes Vattell. I was referring to one that specifically references the US, as NBC is used in the Constitution.; September 4, 2012 at 6:12 PM
Linda said...: @MichaelN,

First, I didn't say "sole" and I never said native birth alone was enough for NBC. Obviously, there are exceptions for diplomats, etc. It is possible to be native born and not natural born, and visa versa, but courts have used those terms interchangeably. Even the Court in Minor did so. They did so AFTER they wrote "definition" you claim. "Mrs. Virginia Minor, a native-born free white citizen ..."

They also said "From this it is apparent that from the commencement of the legislation upon this subject, alien women and alien minors could be made citizens by naturalization, and we think it will not be contended that this would have been done if it had not been supposed that native women and native minors were already citizens by birth."

Even you say that the father's allegiance was not necessary for a child be be a NBS, if born within the realm. So where is the disagreement?

You don't have to believe me about Lord Calvin's Case. "The roots of United States conceptions of birthright citizenship lie deep in England's medieval past. This Article explores Calvin's Case (1608) 2 and the early modern common-law mind that first articulated a theoretical basis for territorial birthright citizenship"
https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=9+Yale+J.L.+%26+Human.+73&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=6f7fa7d7d678630d5ab630572c3866d5; September 4, 2012 at 6:30 PM
Anonymous said...: Mick - "Alexander Morse, "A Treatise on Citizenship""

He may not be the best example to use.

On Page 7

In the law of nations, ”citizen” is a term applicable to every member of the civil society, every individual who belongs to the nation.

This character is acquired in various ways, according to the laws of each state. In many states birth is sufficient to confer it; so that the child of an alien is a citizen from the fact of having been born within the territorial limits and the jurisdiction.2″

And in footnote 2, he writes:

”It is so in England and in the United States [but the births must be "within the jurisdiction"'].”

Later in a passage he borrows from a 1868 treatise by George Pascal, he says,

A natural-born citizen is one not made by law or otherwise, but born. And this class is the larger majority, in fact, the mass of our citizens: all others are exceptions specially provided for by law.

And

The Constitution does not make the citizens (it is, in fact, made by them); it only recognizes such of them as are natural, home-born, and provides for the naturalization of such of them as are alien, foreign-born, making the latter, as far as nature will allow, like the former.; September 4, 2012 at 8:41 PM
MichaelN said...: Linda said...

@MichaelN,

"It is possible to be native born and not natural born, and visa versa,"

Reply:

Linda,kindly give an example of the "visa versa", i.e. of a US "natural born Citizen" that is not US native-born.

Linda said....

"Even you say that the father's allegiance was not necessary for a child be be a NBS, if born within the realm. So where is the disagreement?"

I don't "say that the father's allegiance was not necessary".

Maybe I had not made myself clear, or you mis-understand what I said.

According to Lord Coke per Calvin's case, the father's allegiance, as a subject, was THE PARAMOUNT and ESSENTIAL REQUIREMENT in determining an English "natural born subject".

Native-birth was a requirement in England in the case of an alien-born father visiting in friendship, as he was considered to be a "subject" with temporary allegiance, and it was this allegiance that made the child a NBS, for without the allegiance, but still with native-birth, the child would NOT be an English subject of ANY kind.

Such an alien-born father would not have the (temporary) allegiance of a subject when outside of the realm, hence his child could not be an English subject at all if born non-native.

The child of a non-alien-born subject father (i.e.with perpetual allegiance) would be a natural born subject without necessarily being native-born.

Now can you show where, in the 17th century English common law where it was held that a child could be born as an English "natural born subject" to a father who was not a "subject"?

On another matter re: Minor v Happersett.

What English common law would the SCOTUS in the Minor court be referring to, which would give rise to the court introducing and giving merit to "doubts" that a US native-born child to alien parentage, was even a citizen at all, given it was true as you suggest, that the SCOTUS in the minor court was referring to the English common law, when the court said "at common law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar,...." ?????

If it was as you say, that in English common law, native-birth alone was sufficient to make an English "natural born subject", and the US founders and framers adopted this same principle i.e. to make a US "natural born Citizen" by way of native-birth alone, then why did the Minor court, introduce the mention of and give merit to the doubts???; September 4, 2012 at 9:23 PM
MichaelN said...: @ Linda.

You link is to a paper/article by Polly Price, who has a serious problem with her bias toward denial of the truth on the matter of USC Article II "natural born Citizen" origin, intent and meaning.

Polly has no credibility and her article/paper is mis-guiding.; September 4, 2012 at 9:30 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

I do not understand why you believe that talking about the "natives," rather than the "natural-born citizens," helps you. Emer de Vattel and the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) defined the terms the same way, i.e., children born in a country to parents who were "citizens" of that country at the time of the child's birth.

That the term "native-born" (and never the clause “natural born Citizen”) was later used to identify a "citizen of the United States" at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment did not and does not amend the long-time honored American “common-law” definition of a "natural born Citizen" which is the clause used in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. So, the standard is still “natural born Citizen,” and not “native-born,” unless “native-born” is used in the manner that it was intended to be used which was that it would have the same meaning as a “natural born Citizen.”; September 4, 2012 at 11:21 PM
Mick said...: Linda said...
"@Mick,

Thanks, but that just quotes Vattell. I was referring to one that specifically references the US, as NBC is used in the Constitution".

So why wouldn't it be? It says, "a natural born citizen is". and defines it exactly as 88 US 162,167. I know, plain words in front of a liars face mean nothing though.; September 4, 2012 at 11:31 PM
Linda said...: @Mr. Apuzzo,

I was responding to MichaelN, who said native birth alone was not enough. That is all.

Still waiting for any Supreme Court (or other federal court) rulings that say it takes two citizen parents to be an NBC. Also, any legal text book. I have not been able to find any.; September 5, 2012 at 12:26 AM
js said...: Obama was a born a citizen of Britain by descent, thanks to his father. The BNA is specific on this.

Nobody can be a natural born citizen of any country if the were dual citizens by descent at birth. Our Justice system is blind to this due to the fact that when the US Constitution was written they recognized that the wife automatically assumed her husbands citizenship.

The founding fathers would never have fought a war against Britain and then turned around and based our legal system on the same system that we had rebelled against. To claim that common law in the US is and has been the same as Britain is a fallacy. Citizens of the USA are the sovern's in this country. Not so in Britain, as the monarchy was the sole sovereign in that nation for centuries. The King was the Church of England as well, a direct representative of Christ on earth according to the British Common Law. The US Constitution strictly refused to allow that, and for anyone to assume that the US citizenship laws were ever based on the model in British common law, they have no clue about who the founding fathers are or what the revolution was all about.; September 5, 2012 at 12:36 AM
js said...: Current oath of allegiance in Britian;

“ I, (Insert full name), do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God. ”

They dont swear allegiance to the country, no patriotism allowed. They must swear an oath to the Queen. She is the Head of the Church of England, and the sole sovereign of the nation.; September 5, 2012 at 12:47 AM
Linda said...: @Mr. Apuzzo,

I disagree with your points about Doc, but I do agree, in part, about the PolitiFact article. While the article itself says:

"The lawsuit was dismissed by U.S. District Judge S. Thomas Anderson in Memphis on June 20 after he concluded that none of the plaintiffs had established sufficient legal standing to assert their claims.

On Aug. 24, Judge Anderson granted a motion by the defendants, including the Tennessee Democratic Party, to sanction the plaintiffs for bringing a case in which their attorney, Van Irion of Knoxville, "knew or reasonably should have known that the claims in this case had no basis in law," according to the judge’s order."

While I did not take the article that way, I can see how someone unfamiliar with it, who had not read the pleadings, could be mislead.; September 5, 2012 at 12:53 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

You said: “Still waiting for any Supreme Court (or other federal court) rulings that say it takes two citizen parents to be an NBC. Also, any legal text book. I have not been able to find any.”

Here is what the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court said regarding needing two U.S. “citizen” parents to be a “natural born Citizen:”

“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. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875).

Additionally, Ankeny v. Governor of the State of Indiana, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), transfer denied 929 N.E.2d 789 (Ind. 2010), in footnote 12 said : “Note that the Court in Minor contemplates only scenarios where both parents are either citizens or aliens, rather in the case of President Obama, whose mother was a U.S. citizen and father was a citizen of the United Kingdom.”

So, we can see that Minor required, not only birth in the country, but also birth to a father and mother who were both U.S. “citizens” in order for a child to be a “natural-born citizen.”

The unanimous decision of the Minor U.S. Supreme Court is much better than the text book that you are looking for.; September 5, 2012 at 1:27 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

I knew that someone would attempt to defend Dr. Conspiracy and PolitiFact by pointing out the bit about the PolitiFact article mentioning standing in the article. The problem is that the mention of standing (mentioned just once) is buried in the article. Then the article says: “The Tennessee Democratic Party wanted to bring attention to Tennessee ‘birthers’ challenging President Obama’s citizenship, and did so by pushing a press release claiming the judge found the claims so ‘frivolous’ that he sanctioned the plaintiffs who brought them. We rule the statement True.” This statement starts by talking about “Obama’s citizenship,” and then says the judge found “the claims so ‘frivolous’ that he sanctioned plaintiffs who brought them.”

The statement about the suit being frivolous follows the reference to Obama’s citizenship and then mentions the whole action and not just the standing issue being found to be “frivolous,” hence, misleading the reader to think that the court’s decision reached the underlying merits of the question of what is a “natural born Citizen” and whether Obama meets the definition when it did not. While standing is mentioned in the article, the writer does not return to it and connect why the suit was dismissed to standing. Also, Dr. Conspiracy’s article does not mention the word “standing” anywhere in his article. So, Dr. Conspiracy is even worse than the PolitiFact article writer.

This type of writing is downright deceitful and intellectually dishonest. These writers can get away with it with unknowing readers, but not with someone who is onto their little political game.; September 5, 2012 at 1:52 AM
Linda said...: @Mr. Apuzzo,

Yes, I now you hold out the Minor case as supporting your contention that it takes two citizen parents to be an NBC. I am asking if you have anything else, a citizenship case after Minor or WKA that said it takes two citizen parents to be an NBC?

Also, any legal text books that also state that.

Thanks; September 5, 2012 at 2:23 AM
MichaelN said...: Linda, still waiting for an example of a US "natural born Citizen" who was not native-born.

And also still waiting on a citation from English common law, i.e. Lord Coke (Calvin's case) where it was held that native-birth was all that was necessary to make an English natural born subject without any regard to the subject/citizen status of the father of the child.; September 5, 2012 at 2:34 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: The Tenth Circuit in the case of Hassan v. The State of Colorado, No. 12-1190, has affirmed the summary judgment decision of the district court which dismissed Abdul Karim Hassan’s discrimination lawsuit against the Colorado Secretary of State. The decision may be read here: http://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/12/12-1190.pdf

Mr. Hassan argued that even though he is a naturalized citizen after birth, the Fourteenth Amendment has repealed Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause and therefore guarantees his right to be placed on a state’s presidential election ballot and to actually run for and assume the Office of President if he won.

The Court explained:

“The magistrate judge heard the case on consent of the parties and eventually concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment did not affect the validity of Article II’s
distinction between natural-born and naturalized citizens. See Hassan v. Colorado,
___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2012 WL 1560449 (D. Colo. 2012); see also Hassan v. New Hampshire, No. 11-cv-552-JD, 2012 WL 405620 (D.N.H. Feb. 8, 2012) (reaching same conclusion in Hassan’s challenge to exclusion from New Hampshire ballot).” We know that Article II only refers to “natural born Citizen” and “Citizen of the United States.” Hence, according to the Court, a “Citizen of the United States” is a “naturalized citizen.” We also know that the Fourteenth Amendment only uses the clause “citizens of the United States,” both at birth and after birth, and not “natural born Citizens.” So based on the Court statement and given that the Fourteenth Amendment does not include the clause “natural born Citizens,” are we to accept the Fourteenth Amendment as also providing only for “naturalized citizens,” both at birth and after birth?

The Court also said:

“Even if Article II properly holds him ineligible to assume the office of president, Mr. Hassan claims it was still an unlawful act of discrimination for the state to deny him a place on the ballot. But, as the magistrate judge’s opinion makes clear and we expressly reaffirm here, a state’s legitimate interest in protecting the integrity and practical functioning of the political process permits it to exclude from the ballot candidates who are constitutionally prohibited from assuming office. See generally Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189, 193-95 (1986); Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 145 (1972).”

This statement by the Court confirms that states do have the right to keep persons off their presidential election ballots who are not constitutionally eligible for the office. This is the argument that we are making in the Purpura and Moran v. Obama New Jersey Ballot Access Challenge case.; September 5, 2012 at 2:44 AM
Linda said...: The 14th Amendment refers to those born or naturalized. A "Citizen of the United States" is not a naturalized citizen. If that were so, no NBCs could serve in Congress, as the Constitution says they must be a "Citizen of the United States".; September 5, 2012 at 3:00 AM
Linda said...: @MichaelN

Didn't know you were waiting. John McCain.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1401

You said yourself Michael that an alien father's child was was an NBS if born within the realm.; September 5, 2012 at 3:07 AM
Linda said...: @MichaelN

From Calvin's case:

"Whosoever is born within the King's power or protection, is no alien:..."

Blackstone's Commentaries:

“THE children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges.”
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-110.htm; September 5, 2012 at 4:12 AM
Linda said...: @Mick

Since Mr. Apuzzo is adamant that the Court in Minor defined NBC, it follows that if correct, it would be taught in law schools across the country as a pivotal decision on citizenship. I have not been able to find one. When I checked the pages you pointed to in the book, I was expecting something declarative. It neither referenced Minor or Article II, Section I. The book says it is a treatise on citizenship with reference to the Law of Nations, Roman Civil Law and France in addition to the US, and did not say where those passages applied.

After reading your comment, I went back again and looked more closely. The book was written after the Minor case, so I checked, and it does list it in its Table of Cases. I checked all the places where it was footnoted, and it does not say anything about the "definition" or even NBC at all. It is talking about basic elements of citizenship and voting. That is very telling.

You should look at page 7, making sure to read footnote 2. On page 164 it says that citizen is precisely analogous to subject in the common law. Also, look at page 125 where it talks about NBC being born, not by law, no mention of parents. Also, read page 10, says there are two tests of nationality, place of birth and nationality of the father, but that England and the US chiefly stress the place of birth.; September 5, 2012 at 6:11 AM
cfkerchner said...: An example of a post WKA case that affirmed the facts/definition in that case that a natural born Citizen is one born in the USA to two Citizens is Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939). Minor v Happersett (1875) stated what a natural born Citizen is and no Supreme Court case since has overturned it or changed it.
http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html; September 5, 2012 at 11:26 AM
Mick said...: Linda said...
"The 14th Amendment refers to those born or naturalized. A "Citizen of the United States" is not a naturalized citizen. If that were so, no NBCs could serve in Congress, as the Constitution says they must be a "Citizen of the United States".

Seriously? Your relativism extends that far? Citizens can be naturalized or natural born. All nbCs are also "citizens". Anyone needing any congressional act to become a US Citizen, including those naturalized at birth by US Code 1401, 1403 etc. are naturalized. A2S1C4 describes a point in time (1789) where there was no congressional naturalization law, only Constitutional naturalization law ("or a citizen, at the time of the ratification..."). There were ONLY the residents of the newly created states (naturalized), and their children born in the states since 7/4/1776 (natural born). The natural born were at most 13, so the "citizens at the time..." were grandfathered in to eligibility, but only if they were resident by the date of ratification. Those born of British subjects in the States were considered British (see Inglis, pg. 126).

A2S1C4 has never been amended, therefore it means the same today as then. In 1802, a child born to an alien inside the US was an alien until his father had satisfied a 2 yr. residency requirement, and had naturalized (by the proviso of section 4), therefore those born of aliens cannot be natural born Citizens today (because A2S1C4 has never been amended-- if those born of aliens would not even be citizens in 1802, they could not be natural born today).; September 5, 2012 at 11:31 AM
js said...: Natural Born Citizens are always Citizens. Citizens, however, are not always natural born.

Linda, you are clueless.; September 5, 2012 at 11:48 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

You said: “The 14th Amendment refers to those born or naturalized. A ‘Citizen of the United States’ is not a naturalized citizen. If that were so, no NBCs could serve in Congress, as the Constitution says they must be a "Citizen of the United States".

But the Tenth Circuit said:

“The magistrate judge heard the case on consent of the parties and eventually concluded that the Fourteenth Amendment did not affect the validity of Article II’s
distinction between natural-born and naturalized citizens. See Hassan v. Colorado, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, 2012 WL 1560449 (D. Colo. 2012); see also Hassan v. New
Hampshire, No. 11-cv-552-JD, 2012 WL 405620 (D.N.H. Feb. 8, 2012) (reaching same conclusion in Hassan’s challenge to exclusion from New Hampshire ballot). We affirm.”

Article II only contains two classes of “citizens,” “natural born Citizens” and “Citizens of the United States.” Only the “natural born Citizens” can be the “citizens” who are not naturalized. Hence, based on what the Tenth Circuit said, the “naturalized citizens” can only be the “Citizens of the United States” which Article II grandfathered to be eligible to be President provided that that person had that status as of the time of the adoption of the Constitution. The Constitution also gave Congress power to make more citizens by naturalization. Congress first exercised that power in 1790 and has continued to do so to the present, making “naturalized citizens” at birth and after birth and calling them “citizens of the United States.” The Fourteenth Amendment also calls the “citizens” that it defines (born or naturalized in the U.S. and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”) “citizens of the United States.” A simple reading of the plain text of the amendment demonstrates that it does not define an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Today, a “Citizen of the United States” is not eligible to be President. Rather, one must be a “natural born Citizen,” who at “common-law” with which the Founders and Framers were familiar was a child born in a country to parents who were “citizens” of that country at the time of the child’s birth. Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (“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”).

You said: “If that were so, no NBCs could serve in Congress, as the Constitution says they must be a ‘Citizen of the United States.’"

This is a specious argument. It goes without saying that to be a “citizen” for the requisite period of time (Senator 9 years, Representative 7 years) is only a minimum requirement to be eligible to serve in Congress and that all “natural born Citizens” are “citizens.” How absurd to argue that someone’s citizenship qualifies him or her to be President, but not Senator or Representative.; September 5, 2012 at 12:03 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

You keep stating that the new republic defined a “natural born Citizen” under the English common law. This is simply incorrect. After the revolution and the new American society was created, we no longer used the English common law to define our national citizenship. The U.S. Supreme Court clearly informed us of this change in 1830 in Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830), where the Court started its decision by saying:

“This question as here presented, does not call upon the court for an opinion upon the broad doctrine of allegiance and the right of expatriation, under a settled and unchanged state of society and government. But to decide what are the rights of the individuals composing that society, and living under the protection of that government, when a revolution occurs; a dismemberment takes place; new governments are formed; and new relations between the government and the people are established.”

Id. at 120.

The Court then held that a child born in New York after July 4, 1776 to British subject parents was a British subject, and not a “citizen of the United States.” Justice Story had argued in the minority that that child was a “citizen of the United States” under the English common law jus soli rule. He was in the minority and his position was rejected by the majority which also included Chief Justice John Marshall.

Justice Story changed his position in Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830). Justice Story, who is considered a very influential jurist in American history, wrote the opinion in Shanks. When he wrote that opinion, he had already written his minority opinion in Inglis. Given what he wrote in his majority opinion in Shanks, he no longer followed his minority view that he expressed in Inglis. In Shanks he used the rule of citizenship that the majority in Inglis had accepted. He found that Ann Scott was a citizen of the South Carolina, for she inherited “the citizenship of her father; for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character, as a citizen of that country. . . .” This rule for citizenship is exactly what Vattel wrote in The Law of Nations. Here is what Justice Story said:

“Whether she was of age during this time does not appear. If she was, then her birth and residence might be deemed to constitute her by election a citizen of South Carolina. If she was not of age, then she might well be deemed under the circumstances of this case to hold the citizenship of her father; for children born in a country, continuing while under age in the family of the father, partake of his national character, as a citizen of that country.” Id. at 245.

Here, Justice Story actually provided the same rule for citizenship as did Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations but did not cite him. Note that Justice Story speaking for the Court in stating the citizenship rule that applied to children did not distinguish whether the child was born in the United States or out of it. Rather, he said that “children born in a country” simply followed the nationality of the father. “[A] country” signifies the universality of the rule and that it did not matter what country it was. Rather, what controlled was the citizenship of the father, which at that time under the prevailing rule that the wife acquired the citizenship of her husband upon marriage, meant both that of the father and mother. We can see that this statement of what constitutes citizenship followed what Jefferson had written in his Virginia citizenship statutes. There is absolutely no connection to the English common law in his rule for determining citizenship. This American “common-law” rule was also followed by early Congress when it wrote the early naturalization acts which treated children born in the U.S. to alien parents as aliens (children followed the condition of their parents).; September 5, 2012 at 12:29 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

You said: “Since Mr. Apuzzo is adamant that the Court in Minor defined NBC, it follows that if correct, it would be taught in law schools across the country as a pivotal decision on citizenship.”

I am happy to see that you concede that what our nation’s law schools taught regarding citizenship is a significant factor in discovering what our nation considered to be our national law and how our nation defined our national citizenship under that law.

Well, I hate to break the bad news to you but our law schools (e.g. College of William and Mary which was our nations first law school) taught Vattel and the law of nations as being part of our “national law” and even lectured and explained Vattel’s concepts on citizenship. Professor and Judge Beverly Tucker was Professor of Law at the prestigious College of William and Mary in Virginia from 1833 to 1851. In her law lectures on “National Law” at William and Mary College, she explained the meaning of Vattel’s Chapter 19 and specifically Section 212 of his The Law of Nations, which covered the definitions of “citizen” and “natural-born citizen.” Our law schools did not teach that the English common law defined our national citizenship. See my brief to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in Kerchner and Laudenslager v. Obama for greater details on these early American law school teachings of Vattel and is rules on citizenship.; September 5, 2012 at 1:04 PM
Mick said...: Linda said,
"The book says it is a treatise on citizenship with reference to the Law of Nations, Roman Civil Law and France in addition to the US, and did not say where those passages applied."

I am always amazed how the Obama Internet Protection Team can deny reality and plain words before their eyes. It is a special talent to tell someone that what is right before their eyes is not true.

Pg. xi says----"the natural born or natives are those born in the country of citizen parents".
FOOTNOTE 4: Droit De Gens...

Page 12 says-----"Under view of the law of nations, natives, or natural born citizens are those born in a country of parents who are citizens"
FOOTNOTE 7: Vattel Book 1 pg 101

Minor said that it was never doubted that nbCs are born in the US of Citizen parents, and that one must look elswhere to find that definition (law of nations). It was (and still is except for the deniers of reality)common knowledge what a nbC was. Morse' treatise would not denote Minor relating to nbC since nbC is a municipal status that only relates to whom can be president, not who is a citizen. It just says what is already known, and already defined by Droit De Gens.; September 5, 2012 at 1:22 PM
Mick said...: To all of the Obama Internet Protection Team (OIPT):

If A2S1C4 was never amended, and one born to an alien non resident father in 1802 was an alien (Proviso of NA 1802 sec. 4-- "citizenship shall not descend to one who's father was never a resident of the US")then how is it possible that Obama, born to a non resident alien father, is a natural born Citizen today?; September 5, 2012 at 1:28 PM
cfkerchner said...: Attorney Apuzzo's brief in the PA ballot access challenge can be downloaded and read here. It's a tour de force on the history, original intent, case law, of the true meaning of "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of our U.S. Consitution:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/83104811/Kerchner-Laudenslager-v-Obama-Ballot-Challenge-Brief-on-Behalf-of-Objectors-Filed-28Feb2012

CDR Kerchner (Ret)
ProtectOurLiberty.org; September 5, 2012 at 1:57 PM
cfkerchner said...: Linda: Please identify yourself, your real identity, so we can judge the credibility of your arguments knowing your real ID and profession AND so that you can live up and own up to your arguments and position in real life for now and for history. You know who Attorney Apuzzo is. You know who I am. Who are you? Really? Come out from the shadows of the internet first name only and/or pseudonyms and tell us who you are and your credentials.

CDR Charles Kerchner (Ret); September 5, 2012 at 2:03 PM
Linda said...: @js

I understand that. I was referring to Mr. Apuzzo's statement "Hence, according to the Court, a “Citizen of the United States” is a “naturalized citizen.”; September 5, 2012 at 4:47 PM
MichaelN said...: Linda said...

"@MichaelN

From Calvin's case:

"Whosoever is born within the King's power or protection, is no alien:..." "

Reply:

To be born "within the King's power or protection" is to be born "under the ligeance of a subject"

Ergo: the father MUST be a subject or the child cannot be a subject of ANY type.

From Calvin's case:

"...that issue is no subject to the King of England, though he be born upon his soyl, and under his meridian, for that he was not born under the ligeance of a subject, nor under the protection of the King."

Linda said ..........

"Blackstone's Commentaries:

“THE children of aliens, born here in England, are, generally speaking, natural-born subjects, and entitled to all the privileges.”
http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/blackstone/bla-110.htm" "

The operative passage on Blackstone's part = "generally speaking".

Blackstone fails to explain that "generally speaking" just about EVERYONE in the English realm is a "subject", save diplomats, enemies and foreign royalty.

In England, ONLY when the alien father is a subject, can the child be an English NBS.

This is THE MOST IMPORTANT QUALITY that makes an English NBS, i.e. to be born "under the ligeance of a subject" and this MOST IMPORTANT POINT has conveniently been side-stepped by Polly (want's a cracker) Price and those others who parrot her intellectually dishonest ravings.

Calvin's case:

"And it is to be observed, that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born"

Ergo: a child born in England to an alien-born father, can ONLY be a NBS, if the father is a "subject".

Given it were true that the founding fathers and framers followed the 17th century English common law with regard to what constitutes a US "natural born Citizen", then it would be necessary for a US native-born child to be born to a US citizen, to be a NBC.

Still waiting for an example of a "visa versa", US "natural born Citizen" that is not native-born.

Also still waiting for where, in 17th century Calvin's case, it is held that native-birth alone sufficed to make a NBS.

Polly wants a cracker Price and Blackstone won't save you.; September 5, 2012 at 6:12 PM
Linda said...: @Mick,

I was responding to Mr. Apuzzo who said above "Hence, according to the Court, a “Citizen of the United States” is a “naturalized citizen.”

We do agree that A2S1C4 has never been amended and that citizens may be born or naturalized, but I think our agreement ends there.

The book you linked to is a "Treatise on Citizenship by birth and naturalization, with reference to the Law of Nations, Roman Civil Law, The Law of the United States of America, and the Law of France". Since it covers the Law of Nations, it is expected that the phrase you quote is included. However, where the Treatise specifically references citizenship in the US, it cites place of birth, not citizenship of parents.

The Treatise does refer to natural born citizens in many places. It also cites Minor. Why would a treatise on citizenship include a case which supposedly defined NBC in the US, and not state that it was such landmark case? That does not make sense to me.

If you have a link to NA of 1802, I would appreciate it. I found what I believe to be it, and it has a section 4, but it does not reference citizenship for children. I want to make sure I am looking at the right act. The only place I have seen a residency requirement for fathers has been in order for them to pass US citizenship to their children born abroad.

In An Exposition of the Constitution of the United States: designated for use teachers and advanced classes in schools, and citizens generally, 7th ed., 1883, at page 86 says "Citizens of the United States, then, may be either natural born citizens or naturalized citizens." It also uses "doubtful" (as the Court used "doubts" in Minor) when referring to children of US fathers born abroad and of alien fathers born in the US. The doubt revolves around the choice of the child. It says both the children of US fathers born abroad and children of foreign fathers born in the US are NBC, if they so choose.

That is how I learned it and I can find texts confirming that understanding. Again, what I have been unable to find is a text that says Minor defined NBC in the US.; September 5, 2012 at 7:08 PM
Linda said...: @cfkerchner

I respectfully decline. I have heard of those who use their actual full names online being taunted and vandalized in their "real" lives. I am not an attorney. I am a private, not public, person, unknown outside my circle of friends, family and acquaintances, and I would like to keep it that way.; September 5, 2012 at 7:15 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

You said: "Again, what I have been unable to find is a text that says Minor defined NBC in the US."

What I do not understand is that you need some text book to help you read and understand the Minor decision. You seem to be capable of reading everything else without the help of any text book, but you are having trouble reading and comprehending Minor without such a text book.

Well, the problem for you is that the average American is not having the same trouble as you are reading and understanding Minor. Maybe you need some type of adjustment.; September 5, 2012 at 7:50 PM
cfkerchner said...: @Linda:

So you can spout and pontificate whatever you want and never be held accountable now or in the future for what you are saying in this, a legal blog. How nice of you to spend so much time here and hiding behind anonymity and citing fear as your excuse. Somehow I do not believe you and your excuse. You are here on a mission to cause deception and spread disinformation and misinformation. You go in circles with Attorney Apuzzo and don't learn and thing from his excellent writings and postings on the history and case law regarding Article II Section 1 in our Constitution. No I don't think it is fear of vandalizing but instead fear of it being discovered your true connections by 1-3 or so steps to the Obama campaign operatives in Chicago IL. I hope you earn your "wages", whether it is cash or in kind for you or relatives or business connections to the bigger and bigger and more socialist government your sides touted messiah, Mr. Obama, advocates. You are working hard at it. Keep on hiding behind you first name only ... Linda. Linda is your real first name, is it ... Y/N?; September 5, 2012 at 10:13 PM
cfkerchner said...: All: I saw a list on the internet somewhere which listed the signs and symptoms of an Obama OBOT disinformation and misinformation troll working over your blog and their tactics. Does anyone know a link to it. Things such as argues in circles the same point over and over. Never reads seriously or learns anything from the target. My God how many times has Attorney Apuzzo explained the history and case law to her. If it really is a her and the female name is just another part of the Obot troll cover. More signs -- the Obot troll spends hours and hours on the target blog in nothing else is accomplished simply scrolls the blog with misinformation and disinformation. Secretly paid to do it in some way but constantly denies their an Obama operative. Always posts anonymously with no intent to be held accountable for what they say as they move in circular arguments over hours or days. I wanted to check off all said signs with the name Linda on top of the print out and see how many match. If anyone remembers that check list and where the link is, let me know. I think Linda has all the signs of an Obot internet troll here on a mission and when confronted denies it and feigns innocence. People reading Linda over the days see the signs and symptoms too of a person not being honest in this blog and not really trying to learn, but is here to confuse and scroll the blog. Thanks in advance.; September 5, 2012 at 10:37 PM
cfkerchner said...: Poor Linda says I'm just an ordinary person here to learn from Mario and I don't really want to say who I am because someone might come and vandalize my place. No one ask her for her address, just a name and what makes her an expert to be constantly quoting legal matters and challenging Mario here in circular arguments and never learning from Mario. Poor Linda, just here to learn about Article II but somehow she never does. I got a bridge to sell some folks in Brooklyn too as the old story goes. Poor Linda ... an Obot fake as I see her.; September 5, 2012 at 10:59 PM
MichaelN said...: @ Linda, who said .....

"If you have a link to NA of 1802, I would appreciate it. I found what I believe to be it, and it has a section 4, but it does not reference citizenship for children. I want to make sure I am looking at the right act. The only place I have seen a residency requirement for fathers has been in order for them to pass US citizenship to their children born abroad."

Linda,
Children under 21 years of age, of naturalized parents are considered US citizens at the same time there parents becoming US citizens, provided they are living in the US when the naturalization takes place.

https://sites.google.com/site/kmaclubofamerica/1802-naturalization-act

The child....

"SEC 4 And be it further enacted That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States or who previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United States be considered as citizens of the United States and the children of persons who now are or have been citizens of the United States shall though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States be considered as citizens of the United States provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States Provided also that no person heretofore proscribed by any state or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed"

The parent.....

"That any alien being a free white person may be admitted to become a citizen of the United States or any of them on the following conditions and not otherwise

First That he shall have declared on oath or affirmation before the supreme superior district or circuit court of some one of the states or of the territorial districts of the United States or a circuit or district court of the United States three years at least before his admission that it was bona fide his intention to become a citizen of the United States and to renounce for ever all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince potentate state or sovereignty whatever and particularly by name the prince potentate state or sovereignty whereof such alien may at the time be a citizen or subject

Secondly That he shall at the time of his application to be admitted declare on oath or affirmation before some one of the courts aforesaid that he will support the constitution of the United States and that he doth absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince potentate state or sovereignty whatever and particularly by name the prince or potentate state or sovereignty whereof he was before a citizen or subject which proceedings shall be recorded by the clerk of the court

Thirdly That the court admitting such alien shall be satisfied that he has resided within the United States five years at least and within the state or territory where such court is at the time held one year at least and it shall further appear to their satisfaction that during that time he has behaved as a man of a good moral character attached to the principles of the constitution of the United States and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the same Provided that the oath of the applicant shall in no case be allowed to prove his residence"; September 5, 2012 at 11:02 PM
cfkerchner said...: @Linda: Is Article II Section 1 Clause 5, the presidential eligibility clause of our U.S. Constitution, a restrictive or inclusive legal term of art?

CDR Kerchner (Ret); September 5, 2012 at 11:18 PM
js said...: @Linda

Omission?

In the context of the 14th Amendment awarding citizenship to any individual, Mario is absolutely correct. Congress was not give the power to create natural born citizens. The one time they tried to do so was repealed (1790).

Congress has authority over naturalization. The term natural born citizen is citizenship that does not come from the laws of men, it is a natural condition under the laws of nature, hence, 2 parents who are citizens of the same nation are able to give natural born citizenship to thier child. Any divided citizenship issue precludes any possibility of natural born citizenship.

Obama can not be a natural born citizen of any nation because he was born a dual citizen of 2 nations. He was born the child of a British Father, and inherited that citizenship in all natural rights, just like his US Citizenship. But he is not a natural born citizen of either country, and can only be a naturalized citizen in light of the need for man made laws to determine his status.; September 5, 2012 at 11:56 PM
Linda said...: @cfkerchner

I did not say I was here to learn from Mr. Apuzzo. My understanding, what I have been taught, about citizenship and, thereby, presidential eligibility differs from that of Mr. Apuzzo. As I have said, repeatedly, I can find sources for what I believe. I am willing to consider another point of view, but I have not found sources for that, other than people telling me what a case says. Given that my take is different, that alone is not convincing. I want to know if there are legal texts, etc., in support.; September 6, 2012 at 12:35 AM
Linda said...: @Mr. Apuzzo,

I can read the Minor case, but as I have said, I have a different understanding of it than you do. Therefore, I am looking for a text, a legal resource, that confirms either Minor was a pivotal case, defining NBC in the US or I will retain my impression, which I can find texts to support.; September 6, 2012 at 12:43 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

Please tell us what your definition of a "natural born Citizen" is and provide the sources which support your definition.; September 6, 2012 at 1:15 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

So give us what you think the Minor case says and also the text books which support you.; September 6, 2012 at 1:28 AM
cfkerchner said...: @Linda: Is the "natural born Citizen" clause in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the presidential eligibility clause of our U.S. Constitution, a restrictive or inclusive legal term of art?; September 6, 2012 at 1:35 AM
MichaelN said...: Linda said...

@cfkerchner

"As I have said, repeatedly, I can find sources for what I believe. I am willing to consider another point of view, but I have not found sources for that, other than people telling me what a case says. Given that my take is different, that alone is not convincing. I want to know if there are legal texts, etc., in support."

Reply:

@ Linda
You said earlier, and you were adamant, that the founding fathers and framers followed 17th century English common law.

I have shown you "legal texts, etc" which make it abundantly clear that 17th century English common law held that for a child to be an English "natural born subject", that child (according to Lord Coke in Calvin's case - of Wong Kim Ark fame) MUST be "born under the ligeance of a subject".

There is no ambiguity, it is absolutely without doubt, a proven fact.

Now whilst still focusing on the 17th century English common law, are you able to show that I am wrong, and show where in Calvin's case, that it is held that the status of the father as a "subject" is not necessary to make an English NBS?

And, I am still waiting for your "visa versa" example of a US NBC who is not native-born.

Can't you find one?; September 6, 2012 at 2:01 AM
MichaelN said...: Oh, and I am still waiting for an explanation as to what "common law" the SCOTUS in the Minor V Happersett case was referring to which gave the Minor court good reason to recognized a US "natural born Citizen" as one born US native to US citizen parents, but also gave the Minor court reason to introduce the mention of and give merit to "doubts" as to whether a US native-born child, to alien parents was even a US citizen at all?

So what's your explanation for this Linda?

What English common law ("generally speaking")would hold doubts that native birth, to alien parents, might not make an English subject?

Calling.....
"Honest" John Woodman? RealityCheck?
NBC?
Ballantine?
Dr Conspiracy?

Whare are you all hiding?; September 6, 2012 at 2:35 AM
Linda said...: In the US, an NBC is one born within the jurisdiction, with the exception of diplomats and invading armies. Congress has extended it to certain individuals born to US citizens, outside the jurisdiction.

A View of the Constitution of the United States, by William Rawle

An Exposition of the Constitution of the United States, by A.O. Wright

The Constitution of the United States Defined and Carefully Annotated, by George W. Paschal

Cyclopedia of American Government, , by McLaughlin and Hart

Blackstone's Commentaries; September 6, 2012 at 3:33 AM
Linda said...: @MichaelN

Calvin was born to an alien father and was held to be a NBS. An foreign father could have a NBS child, if born within the realm.

The common law referred to in Minor, with which the founders were familiar, was the English common law. Most of the founders were lawyers in the English system. See the "doubts" listed above, in my response to Mick at 7:18PM.

I answered you on the NBC who was not native born. John McCain.; September 6, 2012 at 3:47 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

What evidence do you have that the Founders and Framers defined an Article II "natural born Citizen" the same way that the English defined a "natural born subject?"; September 6, 2012 at 7:52 AM
Anonymous said...: Under the 1772 British Nationality Act and the 1790 Uniform Naturalization Act (U.S.) Obama would not be a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen.

British law relied on the place of birth (more a feudal concept) but more often the allegiance and nationality of the father.

Calvin's case from the 1600's is ancient and feudal, connected with the addition of Scotland to the British Kingdom. It is not dispositive to Article II natural born citizenship.; September 6, 2012 at 8:50 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: There are only two classes of “citizens” in our Constitution. There are “natural born Citizens” and “citizens of the United States.” A “natural born Citizen” is not naturalized in any manner. He or she depends upon no positive law for his or her status. On the other hand, a “citizen of the United States” is either naturalized at birth or after birth.

Starting with the Naturalization Act of 1790 and confirmed in the Naturalization Acts of 1795, 1802, and 1855, Congress considered any child born in the United States to alien parents to be an alien. Under unity of citizenship between husband and wife, that means that both parents had to be “citizens” in order for any child born in the United States to be born a “citizen.” When the husband naturalized, his wife also became a U.S. “citizen.” If their child was still a minor (not over 21), he or she also automatically became a “citizen” (called derivative citizenship). If the husband did not naturalize by that time, the son or daughter had to naturalize on his or her own right. So under the original scheme of things, Obama was born an alien.

In fact, in U.S. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the United States argued that Wong, even though he was born in the United States, was still an alien because he was born to alien parents. Justice Gray changed things as did Lord Coke in Calvin’s Case by relying on the principle of jus soli and naturalized Wong “at birth” and declared Wong a “citizen of the United States” at birth. But the fact still remains that both Calvin (Calvin’s parents were antenati and therefore aliens in England) and Wong were naturalized “at birth.” Vattel in Section 214 of The Law of Nations on “naturalisation” confirms the fact that England naturalized its subjects at birth by the mere fact of being born in its territory. Being so naturalized at birth, both Calvin (if born in the U.S.) and Wong were not “natural born Citizen[s].” Lord Coke called Calvin a “natural born subject” because the British gave that clause a different definition than the Founders and Framers gave to an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The British gave their clause a much broader scope, considering all their subjects to be “natural born subjects,” whether they acquired that status by birth or naturalization. But as the U.S. Supreme Court explained in Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830) (holding that a child inherits the citizenship of his parents), after July 4, 1776, the United States, no longer followed citizenship concepts based on the English notion of broad allegiance.

“This question as here presented, does not call upon the court for an opinion upon the broad doctrine of allegiance and the right of expatriation, under a settled and unchanged state of society and government. But to decide what are the rights of the individuals composing that society, and living under the protection of that government, when a revolution occurs; a dismemberment takes place; new governments are formed; and new relations between the government and the people are established.”

Id. at 120.

So, relying on natural law and the law of nations, the Founders and Framers considered only the children born to citizen parents to be “natural born Citizens,” for these were the only children who by and from birth became U.S. citizens by nature and not by positive law and therefore did not need any naturalization “at birth” to be declared “citizens” at birth. This is the reason the Founders and Framers in Article II chose “natural born” and not just “born.” By using the qualifier “born,” the Founders and Framers tied the clause to a very specific meaning which was born in a country to “citizen” parents. Hence, being a citizen from birth or at birth was not sufficient. Neither was just “born on U.S soil” nor even just “born to U.S. citizen parents” sufficient to be President. Rather, one had to be a “natural born Citizen” which under natural law and the law of nations meant both born in the country and born to citizen parents.; September 6, 2012 at 10:51 AM
Carlyle said...: @cfkerchner said...

September 5, 2012 11:18 PM

===========================

Thanks again for bring this up. This is THE CRUX of the issue. The constitution was not the great original and prototype Multi Culti document. Contrarily, it is almost entirely restrictive. It was written out of the primary concerns of States Rights and National Security.

The ONLY POSSIBLE meaning of NBC is the most restrictive that logic can bear.

All of the research, all of the details, all of the court records, all of the decisions, and all of the legal briefs are Nice and Necessary -

BUT

Let us, while caring for the important trees, not lose sight of the forest. To an engineer, scientist, and logician such as myself - that this point seems to continue to be debatable borders on the ludicrous and even INSANE!

What else could NBC possibly mean?; September 6, 2012 at 12:26 PM
js said...: The issue of Citizen vs Subject is pretty much settled.

Citizens in the US are sovereign while Citizens in Britian are only Subjects of the Soverign Monarch. You're confusion is amusing, your ignorance is a brick wall.

You keep beating around the bush Linda, intentionally obfuscating the issue. Without any foundation, all you are giving us is double talk and proving one thing.

You really dont have a clue what you think you know. You just rehash the same rhetoric you picked up from other BS artists, clinging to that ignorance like a coma.

All you have is the same BS as the last 2 dozen communists that have waltzed thier ignorance through this blog without once documenting all the facts conclusively to win the debate. This is about protecting and defending the Constitution of the United States of America, something that you ultimately fail to demonstrate any interest in whatsoever.

Once again, a natural born citizen cannot be born with 2 citizenships from 2 separate nations. Its impossible.; September 6, 2012 at 1:24 PM
Anonymous said...: Mr. Apuzzo, - "A “natural born Citizen” is not naturalized in any manner. He or she depends upon no positive law for his or her status. On the other hand, a “citizen of the United States” is either naturalized at birth or after birth."

By your logic, natural born Citizens are not eligible to be a member of Congress.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.Art 1 Sect 2 Cl. 2

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen. Art. 1 Sect. 3 Cl. 3

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; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.Art. 2 Sec. 1 Cl. 5; September 6, 2012 at 2:55 PM
MichaelN said...: Linda said...

@MichaelN

"Calvin was born to an alien father and was held to be a NBS. An foreign father could have a NBS child, if born within the realm."

Reply:

Partly true, and very simplistic.

Why Linda?

Why was Calvin "held to be a NBS"?

I already know that Calvin was held to be a NBS, born to an alien-born father.

I already know that about the "foreign father" stuff, but UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES?

It seems as if your eyes have glazed over and you are chanting some type of hypnotic mantra like a zombie.

Still you are in denial, stating only part truths, as you persist in avoidance of acknowledging the FACT that it is the status, as a SUBJECT, of the alien father which makes the "subject born" (aka NBS)and "neither the climate, nor the soyl", which "makes the subject born"

Not "any foreign father" though, because if the "foreign father" was an enemy, diplomat, foreign royalty, i.e. not a "subject"

ANY alien-born father, in the king's realm, was considered a "subject", whilst in the realm.

It was ONLY because of this status as a "subject", that his child, if born in the SAME realm, could be an English NBS, by being (as per Calvin's case)"born under the ligeance of a subject".

As Lord Coke stated in Calvin's case, "that it is nec coelum, nec solum,54 neither the climate nor the soyl, but ligeantia and obedientia that make the subject born"

Now how about you snap out of your hypnotic mantra chanting state and ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT that in English common law the "foreign father" was considered a "subject", and ONLY then could his native-born child be an English NBS?

Time to be honest Linda.

Linda said.....

"The common law referred to in Minor, with which the founders were familiar, was the English common law. Most of the founders were lawyers in the English system. See the "doubts" listed above, in my response to Mick at 7:18PM."

But you say that the English common law holds no doubts that a child of native-birth, to alien parents (who are not enemy, diplomats, etc)is a "natural born subject", but the Minor court introduced the mention of the doubts, whether a child native born in US, to alien parents, would even be a US citizen at all, then the Minor court went on to recognize that the doubts had merit, by saying they were yet to be solved.

So Linda, how then could it be the English common law that the Minor court was referring to which would hold doubts as to eligibility as a "subject" of an English native-born?

The only way it will work for you is for you to accept what I have pointed-out, i.e. that the English common law, REQUIRED the father to be a "subject" for the child to be a "natural born subject", then, if the Minor court was really referring to the English common law, it would make sense, that the Minor court would REQUIRE the father to be a US "citizen", for his US native-born child to be (without doubt) a US "citizen".

Or do you suppose it might have been a mix of English common law and the law of nations which was how the framers arrived at the concept of a US "natural born Citizen", being one born native to US soil, to US citizen parents, and this is what the Minor court was referring to as "common law"?

Linda said ....
"I answered you on the NBC who was not native born. John McCain."

You will need to give me more than that Linda.

How about you back-up what you say with some evidence and cite some legislation, codes or regulations, etc, just some committee passing a non-binding resolution is not the law.; September 6, 2012 at 3:03 PM
cfkerchner said...: The Obots here deliberate confuse and misstate things. They know basic logic and set theory but do this on purpose for propaganda reasons for their messiah Obama. A "natural born Citizen" is a Citizen at birth but not all Citizens at birth are natural born Citizens. For all who they may be confusing, read this essay I wrote On Plants and Trees and Basic Logic:
http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/tag/citizen-at-birth/; September 6, 2012 at 3:12 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: 4zoltan,

Your argument is really silly. Any “natural born Citizen” has all the privileges, immunities, and rights that a “citizen of the United States” has. They are both "citizens."; September 6, 2012 at 4:33 PM
cfkerchner said...: All: Linda must be working the night shift for the Obama machine. Wonder what time her shift starts? :-); September 6, 2012 at 5:19 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: All dogs and cats are animals.

Not all animals are dogs.

A cat is not a dog.

All "natural born Citizens" and "citizens of the United States" are "citizens."

Not all "citizens" are "natural born Citizens."

A “citizen of the United States” is not a “natural born Citizen.”; September 6, 2012 at 5:23 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Commander Kerchner,

I, like you, have no doubt that the Obots have shift work.; September 6, 2012 at 5:36 PM
Linda said...: The Court did not rule that the child inherited the citizenship of the father. The Court went to great lengths to explain that the citizenship of Inglis rested on when he was born and which government was in control of NY at the time. Read No. 2 closely, if Inglis was born between July 4-Sept. 15, 1776, when the US was in control, he had a right to disaffirm the decision made by his father within a reasonable time after reaching his majority.

"From the view of the general question referred to in this Court, the answers to the specific inquiries will, in my judgment, be as follows.
1. If the demandant was born before 4 July, 1776, he was born a British subject, and no subsequent act on his part or on the part of the State of New York has occurred to change that character; he of course continued an alien, and disabled from taking the land in question by inheritance.
2. If born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September of the same year, when the British took possession of New York, his infancy incapacitated him from making any election for himself, and his election and character followed that of his father, subject to the right of disaffirmance in a reasonable time after the termination of his minority, which never having been done, he remains a British subject and disabled from inheriting the land in question.
3. If born after the British took possession of New York and before the evacuation on 25 November, 1783, he was, under the circumstances stated in the case, born a British subject, under the protection of the British government, and not under that of the State of New York, and of course owing no allegiance to the State of New York. And even if the resolutions of the convention of 16 July, 1776 should be considered as asserting a rightful claim to the allegiance of the demandant and his father, this claim was revoked by the act of 1779, and would be deemed a release and discharge of such allegiance, on the part of the state, and which laving been impliedly assented to, by the demandant, by withdrawing with his father from the State of New York to the British dominions and remaining there ever since worked a voluntary dissolution, by the assent of the government and the demandant, of whatever allegiance antecedently existed, and the demandant at the time of the descent cast was an alien and incapable of taking lands in New York by inheritance.
4. When Charles Inglis, the father, and John Inglis, his son, withdrew from New York to the British dominions, they had the right of electing to become and remain British subjects. And if the grand assize shall find that in point of
Page 28 U. S. 127
fact they had made such election, then the demandant at the time of the descent cast was an alien, and could not inherit real estate in New York."

NY also adopted the English common law so there is no doubt that Inglis would be a US citizen if born during the time the US was in possession of NY.

"By the twenty-fifth
Page 28 U. S. 136
article of the Constitution of New York of 1777, the common law of England is adopted into the jurisprudence of the state."

The Naturalization acts saying nothing about a child who was born in the US.

The Court in WKA did not say he was naturalized at birth.; September 6, 2012 at 5:41 PM
MichaelN said...: @ Linda who said ....

"The Court in WKA did not say he was naturalized at birth."

Reply: The court in WKA via Horace Gray, resorted to the English common law to find the jus soli principle to give WKA birth-right US citizenship under the 14th Amendment and the person is termed, as in the original unamended USC, a "citizen of the united states".

There is NOTHING in USC or US statutes that gives "natural born Citizen" status.

Such an entity is clearly no merely a "citizen of the United States, but something more.

If a "citizen of the United States" gets their citizenship via native-birth alone, and a "natural born Citizen" is a "citizen of the United States with something EXTRA, then what do you suppose would be that EXTRA thing that a "natural born Citizen" has?

Did you know that the English common law via Lord Coke in Calvin's case, holds that Calvins was naturalized?

Here, read....

"Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right..."

US law doesn't allow for naturalized people to be natural born citizens, but the English common law DID!

What do you think of that Linda?; September 6, 2012 at 6:21 PM
Robert said...: Linda, Zoltan, et al,

So how do you determine the US citizenship of a person

1) Whose entire body of US identification has been determined to be either invalid or forgeries?

2) Who has no witnesses to his birth other than alleged family members who claim he was born in a hospital in a foreign country?

3) Who has no US hospital records of either himself or his mother ever having been a patient?

Mario and numerous of his highly researched bloggers have clearly demonstrated that a natural born citizen is one born in the country to citizen parents. Obama and the Senate have agreed with this.

But, before we even go there, where is the evidence that Obama can even enter the conversation? We're arguing over what race the jockey is qualified to ride, but we don't even know if he has a horse!; September 6, 2012 at 6:58 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: 4zoltan posts here and takes my response and his reply to nbc’s Obot blog so he can hear from an Obot cell pool how great his response to me was. This is what a typical louse Obot does. Here it is:

4zoltan post at nbc: mario's response: "All "natural born Citizens" and "citizens of the United States" are "citizens." " Yikes.”

Mario’s response here:

4zoltan,

What's the matter 4zoltan, your brain can't get you past “All “natural born Citizens” and “citizens of the United States” are “citizens.”; September 6, 2012 at 7:10 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: By ballantine at nbc's blog in response to my dog and cat comment:

"Yes, so while a "natural born citizen" is a "citizen," he isn't a "citizen of the the United States." That is actually what the idiot is saying. So when Justice Waite tells us there are two kinds of "citizens," i.e., "natural born" and "naturalized," under the original Constitution, he wasn't talking about citizens of the United States but some other entiry. And when the framers and Congress wanted a provision to apply to both natural born and naturalized citizens, they just stated that it would apply to naturalized citizens thinking that no one would think what they said was what they intended. It is hard to imagine a higher level of stupidity than this."

My response: Poor ballantine. His small mental capacity just can’t handle all this logical stuff.; September 6, 2012 at 7:23 PM
Linda said...: @MichaelN

Thanks for the link to the Naturalization Act of 1802.; September 6, 2012 at 8:14 PM
MichaelN said...: Linda said ....

"The Naturalization acts saying nothing about a child who was born in the US."

It doesn't need to.

USC Article II says nothing about a child who was born in the US.

It was common knowledge to the US founding fathers, the framers and the legislators in the 17th & 18th century that (as Lord Coke per Calvin's case said).....

"Alienigena est alienae gentis seu alience ligeantiae, qui etiam |[16 b] dicitur peregrinus, alienus, exoticus, extraneus, &c. Extraneus est subditus, qui extra terram, i.e. potestatem regis natus est.151"

[151. ][Ed.: An alien born is of foreign birth or foreign allegiance, and is also called peregrinus (foreigner), alien, exotic, stranger, etc. A stranger is a subject who is born outside the land, that is, outside the king’s power.]

Ergo: if the US did actually follow English common law in such matters, then children native-born in US to alien parents, who had foreign allegiance, would be alien-born and would need to naturalize, even though native-born, either via automated process, if a minor at the time of the parents' naturalization, or by election when of legal age.

Lord Coke - Calvin's case:

"Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by procreation and birth right,...."

(Calvin was native-born to the king's realm and yet was naturalized)

Bottom-line = native-born, but alien-born if born to parents with foreign allegiance.

Such children would come under this...

"1802 – An Act To establish an uniform rule of Naturalization and to repeal the acts heretofore passed on that subject
SEC 4 And be it further enacted That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States or who previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United States be considered as citizens of the United States and the children of persons who now are or have been citizens of the United States shall though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States be considered as citizens of the United States provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States Provided also that no person heretofore proscribed by any state or who has been legally convicted of having joined the army of Great Britain during the late war shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid without the consent of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed"; September 6, 2012 at 10:05 PM
Linda said...: Today's decision in Voeltz v Obama:

"Accordingly, there is no bona fide, actual, present practical need for a declaration concerning whether persons born in the United States are 'natural born citizens," as this matter is well settled."; September 6, 2012 at 11:23 PM
Linda said...: @paraleaglenm

Naturalization Acts do not apply to those born in the US.; September 7, 2012 at 12:06 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

The James McClure case of 1811 proves that early Congress did not consider a child born in the United States to alien parents to be a “citizen of the United States,” let alone a “natural born Citizen.” The 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 Naturalization acts provided: "And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as a Citizen of the United States." Simply, children followed the citizenship of the father (and mother by unification). What you do not understand is that the Founders and Framers did not see infants as having the capacity to have a citizenship that was different from the parents. They “infant” years prevented them from such a capacity. Rather, they just followed the condition of their parents until their years of majority at which time they could decide what citizenship they wanted either by tacitly accepting the one they inherited from their parents or chosing another one by naturalization.

The John McClure case is solid evidence on what Congress meant when they wrote the early naturalizaation acts. Publius and then Secretary of State James Monroe (under President James Madison) and their administration confirm that one could not simply be born in the United States to be a “citizen of the United States.” Rather, the historical record of the McClure case without doubt shows that one needed a “citizen” father to be himself/herself a citizen and with an alien father, when the father naturalized so did the minor children.; September 7, 2012 at 12:12 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

You said: "Naturalization Acts do not apply to those born in the US."

This is a ridiculous statement in light of the clear and plain text of the early naturalization acts, the James McClure 1811 citizenship case, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866, to mention a few of the evidence showing you are wrong.; September 7, 2012 at 12:30 AM
Linda said...: @Mick

You said "...and one born to an alien non resident father in 1802 was an alien (Proviso of NA 1802 sec. 4-- "citizenship shall not descend to one who's father was never a resident of the US")then how is it possible that Obama, born to a non resident alien father, is a natural born Citizen today?

You left off the part where it is talking about children born out of the US.
"... the children of persons who now are or have been citizens of the United States shall though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States be considered as citizens of the United States provided That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States."; September 7, 2012 at 12:31 AM
Linda said...: @Mr. Apuzzo,

I understand that children were naturalized along with their parents, the same way that wives were naturalized with their husbands. My point is that immigrants wanting to naturalize could arrive with families. Nothing in the Naturalization Acts says it applies to children born in the US.

I have read them. If I missed where it says they naturalize children in the US, please point it out to me.; September 7, 2012 at 12:37 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

The James Madison Administration found James McClure to be a "Citizen of the United States" under the Naturalization Act of 1802. While he was born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785, he was given the status of a "Citizen of the United States" (not "natural born Citizen") when his British subject father naturalized on February 20, 1786 (after his birth). McClure, born in the United States on 1785, was ruled to be born an alien who was naturalized after birth under the 1802 Naturalization Act.; September 7, 2012 at 12:48 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

I am now going to waste my time on your sweet talk.

Read the acts and be educated.; September 7, 2012 at 1:10 AM
MichaelN said...: Linda said...

@MichaelN

Thanks for the link to the Naturalization Act of 1802.

I just knew you would like it Linda.

I would bet it is one of your favorite sites, where a lot of your fellow amend-the-constitution-by-stealth mob hang-out.; September 7, 2012 at 1:38 AM
Linda said...: @Mr. Apuzzo,

Monroe's letter to Barlow said that McClure was born in Charlston after the Revolution. He didn't say he was a naturalized citizen. He did not say he was including his certification of naturalization. He didn't mention his father at all.

Are you are referring to information from the newspaper article? If there was a court case, I am not familiar with it. Who/how was he ruled to be an alien, etc?; September 7, 2012 at 2:04 AM
Linda said...: @Mr. Apuzzo,

I have read the Naturalization Acts, they do not say anything about children born in the US.; September 7, 2012 at 2:53 AM
js said...: 3 questions Linda:

What are the first 3 words of the 14th Amendment?

Does the 14th amendment remove the citizenship of children born in the US to non citizen fathers?

Does that child qualify to become POTUS if he/she were born holding citizenship of a foreign nation?; September 7, 2012 at 7:40 AM
MichaelN said...: Linda said...

"@Mr. Apuzzo,

I understand that children were naturalized along with their parents, the same way that wives were naturalized with their husbands. My point is that immigrants wanting to naturalize could arrive with families. Nothing in the Naturalization Acts says it applies to children born in the US."

Reply:

@Linda.

Nothing in Naturalization Acts says it doesn't apply to children born in the US in foreign allegiance of an alien parent.

"Sec 4 SEC 4 And be it further enacted That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States or who previous to the passing of any law on that subject by the government of the United States may have become citizens of any one of the said states under the laws thereof being under the age of twenty one years at the time of their parents being so naturalized or admitted to the rights of citizenship shall if dwelling in the United States be considered as citizens of the United States...."

Linda, let's say an alien male immigrates to US, and must be resident for 5 years before naturalization can be effected and oaths and renunciations of foreign allegiances taken.

During that time of residency, and before the naturalization of the aliens, the alien and his alien wife produce a US native-born child.

I say the child is, as per the English common law (which you say and agree was followed by the US law-makers) an "alien born" due by "foreign allegiance".

The alien parents DO have foreign allegiance until such time as their application for US citizenship, i.e. when their naturalization is accepted, and when they swear the required oath of allegiance and renunciation of other allegiances as per all the the requirements of The Act of 1802.

You see, if a child is born off-shore and not within his father's country, say, born to a US citizen, that child is a US citizen, because of his father's nationality, then equally if a child is born in US, i.e. off-shore from his father's country, that child is a citizen of the country his father is a citizen of...... right?

At best the child might be a dual national, but it would be a stretch for the child to be considered a US "natural born Citizen", don't you think?; September 7, 2012 at 8:24 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

A 1811 Publius article states that James McClure was born in the United States on April 21, 1785. His father was a British subject at the time of his birth. On February 20, 1786, his father naturalized to be a citizen under the laws of South Carolina. McClure remained in the United States until 1795 when he was sent to England for his education. He never returned to the United States. His father also returned to his country, Great Britain.

Publius on October 7, 1811, in The Alexandria Herald, concerning the “Case of James McClure,” published:

“Mr. Rodman hints, that it would have been sufficient for James McClure to have been born in the United States—he is mistaken. The law of the United States recognizes no such claim. The law of Virginia, of 1792, does—for, “all free persons born within the territory of this commonwealth,” is deemed a citizen. The law of Virginia considers him as a son of the soil. An alien, as well as a citizen, may beget a citizen, but the U. States’ act does not go so far. A man must be naturalized to make his children such.”

See Leo Donofrio’s article at http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/alexandria-herald.pdf which explains this find by internet researcher, rxsid.; September 7, 2012 at 11:35 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

The early naturalization acts said that when the father naturalized and if the child was dwelling in the United States and still not an adult, the children become "citizens of the United States." The acts do not have to say that the child had to be born in or out of the United States, for it did not matter. If a child's father was an alien, it did not matter where the child was born.

Note that the acts also did not say that the act applied only if the father's name was Harry.; September 7, 2012 at 11:40 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Congress did have the opportunity to abandon the American “common law” meaning of a “natural born Citizen” when it passed the Fourteenth Amendment. But since it only defined a “citizen of the United States” in the amendment, it chose not to alter that original meaning, but rather to limit the amendment to declaring who were “citizens of the United States” as the early and all other subsequent Congresses did in their naturalization acts. The Fourteenth Amendment says "[a]ll persons born . . . in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside." Clearly, the framers of the amendment did not see birth in the U.S. and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as the standard for defining an Article II "natural born Citizen." If they did, they would have written that such a person is a "natural born Citizen" and not just a "citizen of the United States."; September 7, 2012 at 12:06 PM
Carlyle said...: @ Robert said...

September 6, 2012 6:58 PM

==============================

Quite excellent, dear sir!

But you forgot one OBOT tactic. The ol' "innocent until proved guilty" ruse. If you cannot prove he is a non-citizen, then he must be a citizen.

Try that the next time someone asks for your Drivers License to verify your ID. Tell them they have the burden of proof to show that you are not who you say you are.

Even better, for those of you who apply for a Security Clearance - try the "innocent til guilty" argument. See how far that gets you.

Geez, the level of moronity is stupefying.; September 7, 2012 at 12:58 PM
Linda said...: It doesn't look like anyone read the sources I recommended, so I took the time to type up some of the pertinent passages. You may, of course, disagree with them, but at least I can point to an authority for my understanding.

Not one of you have listed any legal texts or court opinions that refer to Minor as a case that defined NBC in the US. I am willing to consider another point of view, but not just on someone's say so.

"IV. Natural-Born Citizens. This phrase is used in Article II, section 1, where it is provided that the President of the United States shall be a natural-born citizen. A natural-born citizen is not necessarily a native of the Unites States. Members of Indian tribes are natives, but not natural-born citizens. And there are some natural-born citizens who are not natives of the Unites states, but were born in other countries. There are two conditions required to make a natural-born citizen -- parentage and place of birth. A child born of American parents in any place under American jurisdiction is unquestionably a natural-born American citizen. But were the parentage and birthplace do not agree, there is a case of doubtful citizenship which is decided by the choice of the person himself, when he comes to years of manhood.
Any person born of an American father, in a place subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign nation, may be a natural-born America citizen, if he claims that privilege when he arrives at the proper age. So, also, any person born of a foreign father in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, may be a natural-born American citizen, if he choose. In these doubtful cases the person may choose the country of his father or the country of his birth. So that a person may be a natural-born citizen of the United States, without being a native of the United States.

An Expostition of the Constitution of the United States, by Albert Orvill Wright, 1888; September 7, 2012 at 6:29 PM
Linda said...: "Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."
A View of the Constitution of the United States of America, By Willam Rawle, LL.D, 1829

"In this clause, "natural born" is usually construed to mean native born, or born within the jurisdiction of the United States....The candidate must have been born a citizen."
Clement's Civil Government, by R.E. Clement, 1888; September 7, 2012 at 6:30 PM
Robert said...: I bet we would be very hard-pressed to find another 35+ year old, 14+ year resident, natural born citizen in the United States who doesn't have an easily attainable and legitimate birth certificate, social security number, and selective service card.

Carlyle,
Heck, the next time I'm in trouble I'm just going to claim that I'm the real Barack Hussein Obama, President of the USA, and that my records are personal and private and that any authority that wishes to question me must be some kind of right-wing wacko racist.

Maybe I'll even upload a PDF of my "birth certificate" to my smart phone.

Do you think it matters if I leave the layers in, or flatten them? It seem that uncharacteristic layering is a good selling point for passing fake documents. Oh, I know, I'll just cut and paste my info into the "Obama" documents like he did. Why reinvent the wheel?)

Anyway, I could even substitute my photo shopped pictures for his in my (new) family photos. Then I could do the same with some great White House photos; you know, put myself in the "War Room", behind the presidential podium, on the boarding ramp to AF-1, and, wait a minute - genius coming - even next to Michelle. Hey, no one would ever expect anyone to be desperate enough to fake that!

The possibilities are endless. Who wouldn't fall for a ruse like this? From what we've seen it would be impossible for anyone to ever figure it out, especially anyone in law enforcement or government.; September 7, 2012 at 6:32 PM
Linda said...: @Mr. Apuzzo,

Why you insist of using an anonymous newpaper article over the actual documents used in the case is beyond me. The letter to Mr. Barlow said McClure was born in Charlseton. It did not say anything about his father or when his father naturalized.

Madison himself said "It is an established maxim that birth is a criterion of allegiance. Birth however derives its force sometimes from place and sometimes from parentage, but in general place is the most certain criterion; it is what applies in the United States"

I am done here.; September 7, 2012 at 6:34 PM
Robert said...: Linda,
Place or parentage.

Obama has documented neither. That either the place of birth or parentage of Mr. Obama has ever been accepted has been only as a courtesy for the sake of argument.

Every document representing the birth/parentage of Mr. Obama except one from Kenya has been proven to be invalid or fake. For some reason researchers are avoiding examination of the Kenyan document. Of course, whether accurate or not, the Kenyan document is of no benefit to Mr. Obama.

Amendment XX mandates that the President Elect "qualify" prior to the time set for taking office. There is no allowance for assumptions or delays. A President Elect must show without question that he has met the age, residency, and citizenship requirements of office and that he has received a majority of the Electoral College vote or he can not assume the office of President nor can any of his actions be treated as official or binding.

Obama's decision to withhold evidence of his qualifications is either a tacit acknowledgement that he has none or a de facto refusal of the office and of all of its authority.

Nothing Obama has done is legal or binding. If you want him to be legitimate, tell HIM to get HIS paperwork together. Of course, it's way past time for the last four years. Hopefully, it will be pointless for the next.; September 7, 2012 at 8:56 PM
jayjay said...: Linda:

In fact, gal (if you are one) you were "done" much earlier than you above comment

You just weren't aware of it as you were dripping over the edges in self importance.

People like you are helping the Communists in their takeover attempt and they are too dumb to realize it.; September 7, 2012 at 9:17 PM
js said...: lol, nice try linda

Wright, Albert Orville 1842 - 1905

Congregational clergyman, educator, author, b. Rome, N.Y. He graduated from Beloit College (1864) and served in the 40th Wisconsin Volunteer Infantry. He graduated from Union Theological Seminary in 1867, moved to Wisconsin, and was ordained in the same year. He was pastor at Waterloo (1867-1870) and at New Lisbon (1870-1875). In 1875 he moved to Fox Lake, where he was pastor (1875-1877) and also served as principal of the Wisconsin Female College (1875-1880). The author of several books, articles, and pamphlets, his most widely used textbooks were An Analysis and Exposition of the Constitution of Wisconsin (1873) and An Exposition of the Constitution of the United States (1880), both books passing through almost 100 editions. He was an officer or member of numerous state and national service organizations, including the state board of normal regents, and was secretary of the Wisconsin State Board of Charities and Reform (1880-1891). From 1898 until his death he was supervisor of Indian schools for the Interior Department. He was a trustee of Wisconsin Female (Milwaukee-Downer) College from 1875 until his death. Cong. Year-Book, 1906 (Boston, 1906); F. N. Dexter, comp., 100 Years of Cong. Hist. in Wis. ([Fond du Lac] 1933); H. A. Miner, Hist. of Downer College (n.p., 1920?); A. O. Wright Papers.

(wright was not in any shape or form a fugurative authority on the US CONSTITUTION, and certainly not above the SCOTUS)

Reading RE CLement...in the same paragraph you cited from...it also states "Thus, a person made a citizen because of any act of Congress is not a "natural-born citizen of the United States". This, in combination with the statment "usually construed" leaves a gapping hole that he fails to define. Also, the failure to cite any authority for this position leaves it on the level of his personal opinion and not the position of the State Department or the US Constitution.

Then you chew on Madision, whose administration absolutely confirmed that both parents must be US Citizens in order for the child to be born a natural born citizen.

Rawle was talking primarily on the rights of the citizens in the state being priveliged to hold all the rights of the natural citziens when he wrote that statement, which is valid. Certainly if you read the whole chapter you cited from, it can be concluded that Rawle believed an alien chould become a citizen and enjoy all the rights that that class were entitled. The omission is his failure to address the NBC clause as it applies on the federal level, making the point you brought up mute and without merit due to his failure to detail the exact nature of presidential qualifications. You would also find that Rawle was inclined to believe that the children of aliens should be given the choice after the child has attained an age sufficiently mature, according to civil institutions, to enable it to determine which nation it wanted to be a citizen of, and to which society he/she would adhere to. If you consider his statements accuratly representative of our governments stance on what a natural born citizen was, you would have to be inclined to agree that any alien could come to the USA and naturalize and become POTUS, which is pure bunk.

Nice try Linda, but you shot yourself in the foot, and failed to actually use actual case law and legal precedent, instead you brought theory and conjecture which, for the most part, was out of context and deceptive in its very nature.; September 7, 2012 at 10:03 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

Albert Orville Wright is just one of those “authorities” who would fall within the "other authorities" of whom Minor spoke. His word is not binding but only informative. It should also be noted that Wright did not provide any case citations or historical sources to support his expansive definition of a “natural born Citizen.” From what he wrote, it appears to be his personal opinion. Additionally, please advise what Wright's background was so as to make him an authority on defining a "natural born Citizen."

To date, there is no U.S. Supreme Court case, including Wong Kim Ark v. United States, that has adopted a definition of a "natural born Citizen" as put forth by Albert Orvill Wright. On the contrary, the U.S. Supreme Court cases of The Venus (C.J. Marshall concurring), Inglis, Shanks, Dred Scott (J. Daniels concurring), Minor, and Wong Kim Ark, and the early naturalization acts by Congress show that he was wrong in how he defined a "natural born Citizen."

So as we can see, we cannot always adopt the opinions of writers simply because they took the time to write a book.; September 7, 2012 at 11:13 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

Minor and the other cases that I cited in reference to Albert Orvill Wright do not agree with William Rawle. Surely the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court trumps Mr. Rawle.; September 7, 2012 at 11:17 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

Minor and the other cases that I cited in reference to Albert Orvill Wright do not agree with R.E. Clement. Surely the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court trumps Mr. Clement.; September 7, 2012 at 11:20 PM
Linda said...: Marshall dissented, Inglis said achild born in the US, under US control had the right to disaffirm his father's choice to take him back to England. I actually read the cases.; September 7, 2012 at 11:30 PM
Linda said...: Sure, if you are so right, so authority, some text must say that Minor defined NBC in the US. WHere is it?; September 7, 2012 at 11:31 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

I am losing my patience with your worn out Obot responses. Do not think that you have me fooled as to who and what you are. I have seen all your Obot arguments for many years now. You are not providing anything new here, just worn out Obot sound bytes.; September 7, 2012 at 11:46 PM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

I do not think you understand how decisions of our U.S. Supreme Court work. We do no need a "text book" to tell us what they mean. We can read them ourselves. The writers of text books are no smarter than anyone else. That someone took the time to assemble information does not make that person smarter than anyone else.

Given that you are so in love with text books, please provide a text book which says that Wong Kim Ark held that Wong was a "natural born Citizen."; September 7, 2012 at 11:51 PM
Linda said...: Yes, but landmark decision are recorded and taught. I quickly found these.

"In 1898, however, the US Supreme Court entered a decision concerning the rights of natural-born citizens of Asian descent."
US Immigration and Naturalization Laws and Issues, A Documentary History, Lemay and Barkan, 1999

"In the United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the Supreme Court ruled that mere birth on the soil (jus soli) of the United States made a baby a citizen, unless the parents were enemy aliens or diplomatic personnel.
Encyclopedia of the United States Constitution, by David Schultz, 2009

United States v. Wong Kim Ark was a landmarkcase interpreting the definition of citizenship under the 14th Amendment."
Encyclopedia of the United States Constitution, by David Schultz, 2009

"Significance. This case immediately established the the citizenship rights of people of Asian descent born in the Unites States. It also established the general rule of jus soli-embodied in the 14th Amendment-Wong Kim Ark was entitled to all privileges and rights of U.S. citizenship, whether naturalized (by legal procedure) or natural-born, as he was.
The Oxford Guide to the United States Government, by Patrick, Pious, Ritchie, 1993; September 8, 2012 at 12:59 AM
Linda said...: @Mr. Apuzzo,

You must have me confused with someone else, charming, I am sure, but it couldn't have been me. I have only visited birther/anit-birther sites for the past year.; September 8, 2012 at 1:01 AM
Linda said...: "The common law rule has been finally affirmed by the Supreme Court in the recent case of the United States v Wong Kim Ark. The Supreme Court held that a child born in this country of Chinese parents domiciled here is a citizen of the United States by virtue of the locality of his birth. The whole subject is discussed at length in the opinions of this case. The effect of this decision is to make citizens of the United States, by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, all persons born in United States of alien parents and permanently domiciled here, except the children of the diplomatic representatives of foreign powers; and therefore, a male child born here of alien Chinese subjects is now eligible to the office of President, altho his parents could not be naturalized under our laws."
The Literary Digest – Funk and Wagnalls 1899
Willam D. Guthrie; September 8, 2012 at 1:29 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: I of II

I wanted to share with the readers here a little exchange of ideas that I just had with an Obot who goes by the little name G. This is posted on Obot nbc’s blog:

G says:

“Sorry Mario, but you are even WORSE with logical analogies than you are with legal arguments, as impossible as that much ineptitude would seem. First of all, you disingenous hack, you keep intentionally omitting the full phrase in question, "or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution". The key here Mario, which you've been told repeatedly (and thus have NO excuse for trying to keep peddling your dishonest con game), is that this clause SPECIFICALLY allows a time-limited exception to the NBC clause, for those who ALSO Abecame US citizens, provided that they did so by the time the US Constitution was ratified and went into effect. The whole intent there is to reward those who may not have been born here, but who supported the revolution and cause for American independence, to also have the opportunity to obtain the highest office in the land. Nothing more. It is an exception to NBC that is meant by that phrase. That is all. It does not get around the stark and evident fact that there are and have always been ONLY TWO types of paths to citizenship in the US - being born one or becoming one, via naturalization. That's it. The correct logical statement analogy would be: All "natural born citizens" and "naturalized citizens" are "citizens of the United States." Not all "citizens" are "natural born Citizens" A "naturalized citizen" is not a "natural born citizen" The only distinction being made in the clause you keep misrepresenting, is a TIMING factor. Therefore, ALL "citizens of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution" includes BOTH those who were BORN citizens prior to and up to that moment in time (NBC) ***AND*** those who were granted (obtained i.e. "naturalized") US citizenship, prior to and up to that moment in time. (A further point here Mario - your silly rants about capitalization of these terms is meaningless and stupid, so don't even waste our time with any more of that nonsense either). Obviously, your regular day job as a 3rd-rate bottom-feeding ambulence chaser must not be doing so well, since you spend all your time crapping the same long-debunked nonsense here and on other online forums. Get a life and give it a rest.”

**************

Continued . . .; September 8, 2012 at 2:49 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: II of II

I respond to G:

“G,

Oh, please, the man, who lurks on these blogs all day, who has a big mouth, and who has a very little name (like his little brain) has arrived.

(1) Regarding the grandfather clause, the text is quite clear. Those born after the Constitution was adopted who became “Citizens of the United States” were no longer eligible to be President like those who were born and became “Citizens of the United States” by the time of that adoption. There is nothing stated in Article II about the grandfather clause serving only those born over seas. That is your own made up nonsense. In fact, James McClure was born in South Carolina on April 21, 1785. His British subject father naturalized in South Carolina on February 20, 1786 when his son was dwelling in the United States and was still a minor. Hence, upon his father’s naturalization, James McClure became a “Citizen of the United States” under the Naturalization Act of 1802. Since he had the status of a “Citizen of the United States” before the Constitution was adopted in 1787, James McClure was eligible to be President. But note that he was born in the United States and, not being a “natural born Citizen,” only the grandfather clause allowed him to be eligible to be President. So, your idiotic theory that the grandfather clause only applied to persons born out of the United States is pure nonsense.

(2) You said: “The correct logical statement analogy would be: All ‘natural born citizens’ and ‘naturalized citizens’ are ‘citizens of the United States.’ Not all ‘citizens’ are ‘natural born Citizens’ A ‘naturalized citizen’ is not a ‘natural born citizen.’"

(a) You mention a “naturalized citizen,” when there is no such class of “citizen” included in the Constitution. The only classes of “citizens” found in the Constitution are “natural born Citizens” and “citizens of the United States.”

(b) “Citizens of the United States” existed before “natural born Citizens.” In fact, when “Citizens of the United States” first came into being, there were no “natural born Citizens.” So how can “Citizens of the United States” include “natural born Citizens” if there were no “natural born Citizens” existing when “Citizens of the United States” first existed? They cannot. Congress did create more “citizens of the United States” by naturalization acts. But Congress did not nor could it declare those “citizens of the United States” to be “natural born Citizens.” Nor does the Fourteenth Amendment declare that its “citizens of the United States” are “natural born Citizens.” So when did any “citizens of the United States” ever become part of “natural born Citizens” or “natural born Citizens” ever become a part of “citizens of the United States?” The answer is that they did not nor could they ever. So, we can see that your statement “All ‘natural born citizens’ and ‘naturalized citizens’ are ‘citizens of the United States’” makes no logical sense.

(3) Your point about capitalization is idiotic like you. The Constitution contains capitals simply because the drafters capitalized all its nouns.

So, G, again you prove yourself to be all big talk, but zero in the brain department. Don’t tell your boss about the beating that I just gave you here.”; September 8, 2012 at 2:50 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

William Dameron Guthrie correctly stated the holding of the Wong Kim Ark Court as: “The Supreme Court held that a child born in this country of Chinese parents domiciled here is a citizen of the United States by virtue of the locality of his birth. The whole subject is discussed at length in the opinions of this case. The effect of this decision is to make citizens of the United States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment all persons born in United States of alien parents permanently domiciled and here, except the children of the diplomatic representatives of foreign powers.”

Where Mr. Guthrie errs is in saying what that holding means. That holding does not mean that Wong was eligible to be President, for his citizenship was established by ‘virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment” and no more. The very old rule of constitutional construction provides that every word and clause in the Constitution must be given effect. The Fourteenth Amendment speaks only of a “citizen of the United States.” It makes no mention of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” The Fourteenth Amendment did not repeal or amend Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause. You still have to show that Wong satisfied the original definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen” as confirmed by both Minor and Wong Kim Ark itself.

Additionally, so Mr. Guthrie read Justice Fuller’s dissent or maybe yet he was pushing for somebody to run for President. Maybe you are not familiar with the slippery slope argument. Many times dissents (and opposing counsels) will argue that the majority decision is ruling in a way which will lead to great calamity. The majority will usually just ignore what the dissent is complaining about or simply explain how it is not true. In the case of Wong Kim Ark, the majority simply ignored Chief Justice Fuller’s one sentence presidential eligibility dicta. Hence, just because the dissent says something about the majority opinion does not make it correct, even in the words of many majority opinions themselves. The majority did not construed Article II and its “natural born Citizen” clause. Rather, it constued the Fourteenth Amendment and it “citizen of the United States” clause. How can you want to make Fuller’s super dicta some binding precedent?; September 8, 2012 at 2:57 AM
bdwilcox said...: Let me present the real face of Loon-da:

Loon-da: "Ohh, I'm just a widdle waif wost in the big, scary woods who can't find her way home. Can you pwease help widdle ole' me find he widdle way?"

Mario: "Yes, you go to the sign post, make a left, go to the next intersection with the stump on one corner and make a right. You'll be home in no time."

Loon-da: "BS! According to my GPS receiver, that would land me exactly 17.3341 degrees off course. I've used waypoint coordinates cross-referenced with topological maps and a radio frequency triangulation system with multiple fail-over redundancies. In addition, I have scouted the terrain with ISAR equipped aerial drones in tandem to reduce anomalies in my resultant digital terrain model."

Loon-da presents herself as the innocent waif, the bird with the broken wing, the great seeker of knowledge. But in reality, she's a sapper in the wire. Her job here is reconnaissance, perimeter probing, intelligence gathering, subterfuge and sewing confusion.

The sad thing is that she's so pathetically transparent. Is this the best that Cass Sunstein and his other little disinformation trolls can throw over the wall?

To me, it's a true sign of desperation; much like a crumbling Germany, in the waning days of WW2, throwing 8 year old kids into battle because they had no one else left to fight for them.

Can you hear that? Yeah, that's team Obama scraping the bottom of the barrel.; September 8, 2012 at 7:34 AM
Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...: Linda,

You say that you are interested in finding out the truth about the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.” You have also provided us here with some historical sources that support your position.

You also have accepted the theory that a “natural born Citizen” is defined under colonial English common law and therefore includes any child born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of the parents, provided those parents are not enemy aliens or diplomatic personnel. Since you say that we have adopted this rule since the Founding and that the rule still prevails in our country today, I would expect that there is some historical evidence that our nation actually ever applied this rule to deny some child citizenship in the United States because the child born in the United States was born to an “enemy alien.”

As you know, America had two wars with Great Britain, the Revolutionary War and the War of 1812. Hence, it goes without saying that at one point in our history, British subjects were “enemy aliens.” We also know that during the post July 4, 1776 period and through the first half of the 19th Century, there have been countless instances of children born in the United States who were children of British parents. Let us assume that when these children were born, we still considered Britain our enemy. Do you have any historical sources which show that we did not give U.S. citizenship to these children born in the United States because their father was an “enemy alien?”; September 8, 2012 at 12:31 PM
Linda said...: @Mr. Apuzzo,

In Inglis v Sailor's Snug Harbor, 28 US 99, the Court went to great lengths to show the Inglis citizenship depended on when he was born. If it was before the Declaration of Independence, he was British. If born between July 4, 1776 and Sept. 15, 1776, he was American, and could disaffirm his father's choice for him and retain his American citizenship. If he was born while the British occupied New York, until the evacuated in November 23, 1782, he was a British subject.

"From the view of the general question referred to in this Court, the answers to the specific inquiries will, in my judgment, be as follows.
1. If the demandant was born before 4 July, 1776, he was born a British subject, and no subsequent act on his part or on the part of the State of New York has occurred to change that character; he of course continued an alien, and disabled from taking the land in question by inheritance.
2. If born after 4 July, 1776, and before 15 September of the same year, when the British took possession of New York, his infancy incapacitated him from making any election for himself, and his election and character followed that of his father, subject to the right of disaffirmance in a reasonable time after the termination of his minority, which never having been done, he remains a British subject and disabled from inheriting the land in question.
3. If born after the British took possession of New York and before the evacuation on 25 November, 1783, he was, under the circumstances stated in the case, born a British subject, under the protection of the British government, and not under that of the State of New York, and of course owing no allegiance to the State of New York. And even if the resolutions of the convention of 16 July, 1776 should be considered as asserting a rightful claim to the allegiance of the demandant and his father, this claim was revoked by the act of 1779, and would be deemed a release and discharge of such allegiance, on the part of the state, and which laving been impliedly assented to, by the demandant, by withdrawing with his father from the State of New York to the British dominions and remaining there ever since worked a voluntary dissolution, by the assent of the government and the demandant, of whatever allegiance antecedently existed, and the demandant at the time of the descent cast was an alien and incapable of taking lands in New York by inheritance.
4. When Charles Inglis, the father, and John Inglis, his son, withdrew from New York to the British dominions, they had the right of electing to become and remain British subjects. And if the grand assize shall find that in point of
Page 28 U. S. 127
fact they had made such election, then the demandant at the time of the descent cast was an alien, and could not inherit real estate in New York."; September 8, 2012 at 4:00 PM
Linda said...: @bdwilcox

Go back and read my comments. I did not come in here like a little bird or asking to learn at the feet of the master. I have my understanding, what I have learned, and I have sources in support, but I am willing to at least consider an opposing view if it is well supported. What I keep asking for, and have not received, is any sort of legal text, treatise, or court decision that says Minor defined NBC. To the contrary, the sources I find that cite Minor, make no mention of it.; September 8, 2012 at 4:43 PM