Donate

Friday, July 19, 2013

The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause: A Response to Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter







The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause:  A Response to Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 19, 2013











Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter (“Squeeky Fromm”) continues in vain to try to persuade the public that she has refuted my position that an Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. 

I.                 
   
Squeeky Fromm has taken a stab at my Jack Maskell article, The Fallacies of Congressional Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen,”  accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-fallacies-of-congressional.htmlYou can read her response here. http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/he-says-apuzzo-i-say-a-pazzo/

She says that I have misread
Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875), because the Court said that “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” I say, so what in light of the fact that the Court also said: “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”  Id. at 167-68.  Hence, the Court said that at common law, if one was not born in the country to citizen parents, one was an “alien or foreigner.” This is the same exact treatment that Congress gave to children born in the United States to alien parents in its Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855. In these acts, Congress treated children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and in need of naturalization.  So Squeeky Fromm has proven nothing other than to show that she does not understand what she reads.

Then Squeeky Fromm turns to my logical analysis of the Maskell fallacious argument. In the first part of her attempt at logic, it is quite clear that she has totally missed my point about Maskell’s first argument being invalid. I showed that Maskell’s first argument as having this invalid logical form (“natural born Citizen”=NBC; “citizen at birth”=CAB):

All NBCs are CABs.
All X’s are CABs.
Therefore, all X’s are NBC.

To show the invalidity of this argument, I wrote:

All poodles are dogs.
Bubbles is a dog.
Therefore, Bubbles is a poodle.

Squeeky Fromm says that this argument is not valid and faults me for presenting it. She misstates my presentation, even attempting to prove me wrong by showing through some other irrelevant logical argument why this argument is not valid. I said that this is the argument presented by Maskell.  But I said that this is Maskell’s argument and that it is not valid because it violates the rule of the undistributed middle and is also fallacious for affirming the consequent. So, what is ironic is that Squeeky Fromm attacks me, in her twisted and incorrect way, for the argument when what she is really doing is attacking Jack Maskell.

Then Squeeky Fromm takes a shot at the second part of my analysis of the Maskell argument.  I recast his argument as follows to make the argument valid: 

All CAB’s are NBCs.
All X’s are CAB’s.
Therefore, all X’s are NBCs.

In my article, I explained that I took Maskell’s invalid argument (above) and made it valid through this logical form. I did this to show where Maskell’s informal fallacy is hidden. I showed how this argument is logically valid, but unsound because its major premise, All CAB’s are NBCs, is false. I explained that Maskell has not presented any evidence to prove the truth of this major premise. I presented U.S. Supreme Court case law which addressed the meaning of a “natural-born citizen” and this case law does not support Maskell’s thesis that all “citizens at birth” are “natural-born citizens.” See below for a summary of these cases.  And even though Squeeky Fromm comes to Maskell’s aid, she also does not present any evidence to show that Maskell’s major premise, as reconstructed by me, would be true. What she does in place of presenting any evidence that the major premise is true is just to say that the premise does not strike her “as being facially incorrect, invalid, or untrue.” From this statement we can see that Squeeky Fromm has very little understanding of informal logic and fallacies. An informal fallacy has the exact facial appeal that she relies upon. But when its underlying truth is tested, it fails.

I have demonstrated how Maskell has not proven that his major premise is true. I have also presented evidence that shows that his major premise is false. I have therefore unmasked the informal fallacy of the Maskell major premise, i.e., that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.” Yet, Squeeky Fromm says that I have proven nothing. On the contrary, she is the one who just says a lot of mixed up nothing, demonstrates how incapable she is of understanding case law, and proves how ignorant she is when it comes to logic.
II.                 
In her June 12, 2013 “Distributed Muddle” article, accessed at http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/mario-apuzzo-esq-s-distributed-muddle/ ,
Squeeky Fromm tries to persuade that she successfully addressed my criticisms of Congressional Attorney Jack Maskell’s thesis (his major premise) that all born citizens are “natural born citizens.”  From her article we can see that she is starting to understand the world of logic a little better. But she does not admit the blunder that she made with the first part of my logical presentation in which I expose why to argue, that since all “natural born Citizen” are “citizens at birth,” and since Barack Obama is a “citizen at birth,” he is a “natural born Citizen,” is logically invalid.  We have to recognize this argument and show that it is invalid because it is one of the means by which Maskell arrives at his conclusion that Obama is a “natural born citizen.”   

Second, Squeeky Fromm, underplays the second part of my logical analysis where I show, by converting Maskell’s invalid argument into a valid argument, that Maskell’s second argument is unsound because the major premises is false.  Maskell’s second argument can only be all “citizens at birth” are “natural born citizens,” and since Obama is a “citizen at birth,” he is a “natural born citizen.”  Maskell’s major premise in this argument would be all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens.” Squeeky Fromm fails to understand the importance of the maneuver of taking someone’s invalid argument and making valid. It is done to show that if the argument is to succeed, then its premises must be true. And it is here that I have shown that Maskell’s major premise is false and therefore also his conclusion that Obama is a “natural born citizen.”    

Squeeky Fromm just blows this point off by simply saying that there is just a disagreement between Maskell and me on the definition of a “natural born Citizen.” Now is that not just genius for Squeeky Fromm to figure out. I have challenged both Maskell and Squeeky Fromm to provide evidence that Maskell’s major premise is true. We do not hear from Maskell nor do we expect to.  And from Squeeky Fromm, who loves to make herself heard on a daily basis, she simply says that
United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) trumps Minor. So there you have the strength of their argument which is supposed to prove that Maskell’s major premise is true. We know that Minor defined a “natural-born citizen” as a child born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. And we also know that Wong Kim Ark, interpreting the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and its “subject to the jurisdiction” clause, and ultimately defining a “citizen of the United States” at birth under that amendment, did not alter Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen,” and even distinguished a “natural-born citizen” from a “citizen of the United States” at birth under that amendment.  Squeeky Fromm is just making stuff up given that she has nothing else to present to us which would show that the Maskell major premises is true. 

So, Maskell’s first argument, that since Obama is a “citizen at birth” he is a “natural born Citizen” is not valid. And his second argument which necessarily contains the major premise, all “citizens at birth” are “natural born Citizens,” has no historical and legal support. Hence, Maskell’s argument, no matter which one we choose as to what is a “natural born Citizen” and whether Obama meets that definition, is false. 

III.              

Squeeky Fromm also comes to the aid of Ted Cruz in her June 25, 2013 article published at http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/25/with-2020-foresight-the-once-and-future-apuzzo/ In this piece, which she passes off as a decision against me rendered by an imaginary judge, she argues, albeit without any historical or legal support, that my definition of a “natural born citizen,” i.e., a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth is wrong.  She maintains that Cruz, who was born in Canada to a non-U.S. “citizen” father and a U.S. “citizen” mother is a “natural born citizen.” 

She attempts to dismiss Minor as being irrelevant to the issue of both Obama and Cruz’s eligibility, arguing that Minor did not define or deal with children born inside the United States to alien parents. This is incorrect. Minor told us that at common law with which the Framers were familiar, such children were “aliens or foreigners.” Here is the quote from the Court:  “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.”  We can see from what the Court said that at common law if a child was born in the United States to alien parents, the child was an “alien or foreigner.”  It also follows from this common law rule that at common law (not to be confounded with statutes), any child who was born out of the United States, regardless of whether born to “citizen” parents or alien parents, was also an alien or foreigner.  This common law rule was reflected in Congress’s Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 which treated children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and naturalized at birth children born out of the United States to “citizen” parents or naturalized them after birth if born to alien parents.  

She states that the clause “natural born citizen” “was discussed at length in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark.” This is false. Wong Kim Ark discussed at length the English common law and an English “natural born subject.” The English common law defined neither a “citizen” nor a “natural born citizen.”  Justice Swayne in United States v. Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. 785 (Cir.Ct. D. Ky. 1866) (No. 16,151), told us that neither a “citizen” nor a “natural born citizen” were defined by the English common law. The court said that “British jurisprudence, whence so much of our own is drawn, throws little light upon the subject.  . . . Blackstone and Tomlin contain nothing upon the subject. ”  Id. at 788.  So, Wong Kim Ark, which spent much time on analyzing the English common law, could not have been analyzing the meaning of a “natural born citizen” which clause was not even found in that law. 

Squeeky Fromm quotes Wong Kim Ark’s comment that the English common law jus soli rule continued “to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.” This statement does not prove that a “natural born citizen” was defined under English common law and not under the law of nations. What this statement means is that through the time of the adoption of the Constitution, the states, which selectively adopted the English common law until abrogated by state legislatures, decided who their citizens were and that they to some undefined degree used the jus soli English common law rule to make that decision. These state citizens became “citizens of the United States” upon the adoption of the Constitution. But then in 1790, Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, followed by that of 1795, 1802, and 1855. After that, the states, to whatever degree they still applied the English common law, could no longer naturalize anyone after birth and their state citizens were no longer recognized as national citizens or what the Constitution called “citizens of the United States.” The only common law rule that Congress did not nor could abrogate was that of the law of nations/American national common law which the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers used to certainly and uniformly define a “natural born citizen.” And that definition was a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.

Squeeky Fromm repeats that “citizens at birth” are equivalent to “natural born citizens.”  But like Jack Maskell, she begs the question that all “citizens at birth” are “natural born citizens.” Other than just assuming, like Jack Maskell, that her statement is true, she fails to provide any evidence that her statement is true. Hence, that the Fourteenth Amendment or a Congressional Act might declare someone born either in the United States or out of it to be a “citizen at birth” does not prove that that person is a “natural born citizen.”

She argues that Ted Cruz is a “natural born citizen” under 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(g).  Here, she makes the absurd argument that Cruz is a “natural born citizen” by way of a naturalization act of Congress.  Using her logic, the “natural born citizen” clause would have no meaning or limits if Congress could simply naturalize anyone at birth which Squeeky Fromm then considers to be a “natural born citizen.”  She looks to the Naturalization Act of 1790 for support. Regarding whether children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents are “natural-born citizens,” the Naturalization Act of 1790 does not help Squeeky Fromm because the 1795 Act, with the work of James Madison, repealed it and replaced “natural born citizen” with “citizen of the United States.” Despite her statement that Congress never did so, the 1795 Act, with James Madison’s influence, plainly shows from its text that “Congress intended to limit the rights of foreign born citizens at birth to some quanta less than that of a natural born citizen.” Furthermore, Wong Kim Ark informed us that the Fourteenth Amendment “has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents, and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.” So, Wong Kim Ark told us that children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents become “citizens at birth” under Congress’s naturalization powers. That means they are naturalized at birth. By her own concession, if they are naturalized, they cannot be “natural born citizens,” regardless of when they obtain their citizenship.

Squeeky Fromm puts forth a straw man argument, arguing that it is an injustice that the children born abroad to our military should be denied the status of “natural born citizens.”  But she misstates my position on that issue.  I have always argued, under Vattel’s Section 217, a child born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents serving the defense of the United States (“the armies of the state”) is reputed born in the United States and therefore a “natural born citizen.” This rule makes John McCain, who was born to U.S. “citizen” parents serving the U.S. national defense, a “natural born citizen” regardless of where in Panama he may have been born.

Squeeky Fromm argues that my position that if Congress makes one a “citizen” at birth, then Congress naturalized that person to be a “citizen” at birth is absurd because Congress in 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) passed a statute which also acts upon the “natural born citizens.”  But that Congress may choose to pass a statute acting upon “natural born citizens” does not make those persons naturalized citizens.  Those persons are “natural born citizen” and they do not lose that status because Congress may pass a naturalization statute which also acts upon them. 

Squeeky Fromm engages in an invalid logical argument, arguing: All "natural born citizens" are "citizens at birth," and since Ted Cruz is a "citizen at birth," he is a "natural born Citizen." As I have shown above, this argument violates the rule of the undistributed middle. It is also fallacious for affirming the consequent. As I have already explained, Jack Maskell commits the same logical errors.  She also commits logical error when she argues: All “natural born citizens are not naturalized citizens. Since Ted Cruz is not a naturalized citizen, he is a “natural born citizen.” She does not understand that we cannot arrive at an affirmative conclusion by way of one or two negative premises. 

Squeeky Fromm argues that “natural born citizens” are not naturalized citizens. Citizens “may be born or they may be created by naturalization.”  She adds that Cruz is a “born citizen” and not a naturalized citizen. She concludes that since he is “born a citizen” and not naturalized, he must be a “natural born citizen.”  Her argument fails because she does not account for how “born citizens” are made. “Born citizens” may be made by American national common law, by the Fourteenth Amendment, or by Acts of Congress. Per Minor, only the ones made by American national common law are “natural-born citizens.” Those made by the Fourteenth Amendment and Acts of Congress are “citizens of the United States” at birth. So, as we can see, just being a “born citizen” or “citizen at birth” does not automatically make one a “natural born citizen.”

Squeeky Fromm’s argument that since parentage is irrelevant for “citizens at birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment, therefore it must also be irrelevant for “natural born citizens” fails for at least two reasons. First, as I have shown above, there are different types of “citizens at birth,” and that parentage might not be relevant to one type does not mean it is not relevant to another type (which is the “natural born citizen” type). 


Squeeky Fromm begs the question that the Fourteenth Amendment defines a “natural born citizen.” She may say it, but she does not prove it. Actually, the Fourteenth Amendment is a red herring when it comes to defining a “natural born citizen.”  Why do I say that the Fourteenth Amendment is a red herring when it comes to defining an Article II “natural born Citizen?”  People like Squeeky Fromm love to use the Fourteenth Amendment as support in the “natural born Citizen” debate.  The amendment provides them with a moral argument for their definition of a “natural born Citizen” which has a great appeal with the American public.   That moral appeal is based on the history and purpose of the amendment.  We cannot forget that Congress passed the amendment as part of its Reconstruction after the Civil War.  It was to guarantee, among various things, the freed slaves citizenship through birth in the United States.  The amendment was designed to put an end for good to the Dred Scott decision, which had denied freed blacks the right to U.S. citizenship.  The amendment made sure that no state could abridge the privileges and immunities enjoyed by “citizens of the United States.”  The amendment also introduced the concept of due process as the protector of life, liberty, and property from abusive state action (the Fifth Amendment prohibits the federal government from depriving one of due process), and obligated the states to extend equal protection of the laws to any person present within its jurisdiction.  The Amendment came to be used as a primary tool to combat racism and discrimination, not only against blacks, but all people who suffered such illegal activities at the hands of any state.  So the amendment is not only connected to citizenship, but it is also supposed to protect our freedom and secure many rights of the individual.  With all that, the amendment packs a strong emotional punch.  So, people like Squeeky Fromm have found a great friend in the Fourteenth Amendment in their attempt to convince people that the amendment defines a “natural born citizen.” 

The problem for Squeeky Fromm is that while the amendment defines two classes of citizenship, federal and state, and has done great things for protecting life, liberty, and property, and the civil rights of all persons present on American territory, it has nothing to do with defining a “natural born Citizen.”  But that surely does not stop Squeeky Fromm from using the amendment when it comes to providing us with a definition of a “natural born Citizen.”  After all, how could she pass it up after all it has done for the betterment of American society?  So people like Squeeky Fromm will continue to tell the public how could anyone dare believe that a “natural born citizen” is not defined by that amendment which does so much to protect our American way of life. 

But the simple truth is that Squeeky Fromm conflates and confounds a “citizen” under the amendment with an Article II “natural born citizen.”  Anyone who will just stop and read the amendment can readily see that it does not even mention the clause “natural born Citizen.”  Rather, it mentions “citizen of the United States,” which citizenship status Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 tells us is no longer sufficient for one to be eligible to be President today.  If one also looks further into the amendment, one will learn that it neither repealed nor amended Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause and therefore left that clause to be defined as it had always been defined under American national common law.  And that definition is, as confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor and the majority and dissent in Wong Kim Ark, a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. 

Squeeky Fromm argues that there is no sign of Emer de Vattel post Wong Kim Ark and therefore Vattel is dead. This is false. Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen,” being a paraphrase of Vattel’s
The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758), comes from Vattel. Wong Kim Ark did not disturb that definition nor did it have to in order to find that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. Nor has any other decision of the U.S. Supreme Court. Hence, Vattel still lives and reigns after Wong Kim Ark and even to the present.

Squeeky Fromm also fails to understand this fundamental truth--that one becomes at once a “citizen at birth” and does not need naturalization does not mean that one was not naturalized. See Calvin’s Case (1608) which was decided in England in 1608. That case proves that being a “citizen at birth” can entail having been naturalized at birth which necessarily excludes one from being a true “natural born citizen.” Calvin was born to Scottish parents in the country of Scotland, after 1603, the year in which the English throne under the Tudor dynasty descended to the Stuart King, James VI of Scotland, making him James I, King of both England and Scotland. Since Calvin was born after 1603, he was considered a postnati. The English Parliament for political and social reasons refused to naturalize the Scottish Calvin as an English “natural born subject” by statute. Since Parliament would not naturalize him by statute, it was decided by the King’s men that they would get the courts to do so by common law (judge made law). Lord Coke found that under natural law Calvin at birth, having been born in the King’s dominion (Scotland), owed natural allegiance to James as King of England and Scotland, by owing that allegiance to the natural body (as distinguished from his political body and the laws of England that came with it) of the King who reigned over both kingdoms. So because Calvin owed natural allegiance to the natural body of the King and that natural King also ruled over England, Lord Coke found that Calvin also owed allegiance to the King as King of England. So it did not matter that Calvin at birth was not bound by the laws of England. What mattered was that by natural law he was bound by natural allegiance to the King who also ruled over England. Lord Coke then, from the single circumstance of Calvin being born in the King’s dominion, naturalized Calvin at birth vis-a'-vis England and ruled that he was a “natural born subject” of England. Calvin’s Scottish parents (the antenati) were eventually naturalized by statute as English subjects. Calvin’s case proves the fundamental rule that gaining subject status at birth under the English common law rather than a statute does not prove that one is a “natural born citizen,” for that status was gained through judicial naturalization at birth  See also Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 214 Naturalisation (1758) (correctly understanding Calvin’s Case said: “Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner”); Wong Kim Ark (said that persons who are born abroad to U.S “citizen” parents and who are U.S. citizens at birth are nevertheless so naturalized by Congressional Acts; Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815(1971) (considers persons born abroad to U.S. citizen parents who are citizens at birth to be naturalized at birth; J. Black dissenting in Bellei also said: "All means of obtaining American citizenship which are dependent on congressional enactment are forms of naturalization"). 

IV.         
     
On July 14, 2013, Squeeky Fromm took another jab at my Jack Maskell refutation.  She says: 
“You see the same thing when Mario Apuzzo, Esq. tries to cobble Logical Syllogisms into his Birther legal theories when such techniques are totally inappropriate in situations where the major premises themselves which [sic] are at issue. (See Note 1, below.)

Note 1. For an example of Apuzzo’s sashay into Putative Pedantics, see:http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/06/12/mario-apuzzo-esq-s-distributed-muddle/ .”
Squeeky Fromm read my article entitled , The Fallacies of Congressional Legislative Attorney Jack Maskell’s Definition of a “Natural Born Citizen,”  accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/06/the-fallacies-of-congressional.htmlShe learned something about logic from my article.  Now she attempts to use that little bit that she learned to sound authoritative and show that she won the argument.  

I clearly stated the two possible sources for Jack Maskell’s erroneous conclusion that Barack Obama is a “natural born citizen.”   

The first source rests on invalid logical argument.  We can all agree on the statement that all “natural born citizens” are born citizens.  From this truism, Maskell wants us to believe that since Barack Obama is a born citizen, he is also a “natural born citizen.”  This is a logically invalid argument.  It is as invalid as arguing that all poodles are dogs, and since Bubbles is a dog, Bubbles is a poodle.  The fallacy is clear to see once identified.  The problem with these fallacious arguments is in recognizing them when someone is trying to give us a snow job. 

The second source is based on unsound logical argument.  An argument can be logically valid but unsound (false).  This occurs when the argument is valid as to its form, but upon investigation, one learns that either the major or minor premise is false which produces a false conclusion.  In my article, I took Maskell’s invalid argument and made it into a valid one by presenting it in a valid logical form.  Thus I produced: 

All born citizens are “natural born citizens.”    
Obama is a born citizen.
Therefore, Obama is a “natural born citizen.” 

I demonstrated that while this argument is valid as to its form, it is unsound because the major premise, All born citizens are “natural born citizens,” is false.  It is false because the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers wrote “natural born citizen,” not “born citizen.”  It is false because just being born a citizen has never been the test for being a “natural born citizen.”  The expression born citizen does not tell us how one becomes a born citizen.  It does not tell us who shall be said to be a born citizen.  It does not tell us what the facts and circumstances are which the definition of a “natural born citizen” states are necessary and sufficient to make one a born citizen and therefore a “natural born citizen.”  No U.S. Supreme Court has ever defined a “natural born citizen” by saying that anyone who is a born citizen is a “natural born citizen.”  There simply is no U.S. Supreme Court case that supports such a proposition.  Congress has never defined a “natural born citizen” as simply anyone who is born a citizen.  In other words, neither Jack Maskell nor anyone else has presented historical and legal evidence which demonstrates that all born citizens are “natural born citizens.”  On the contrary, I have shown that there has only ever been one definition of a “natural born citizen” and that is a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.  This definition is, indeed, a real definition, for it provides those facts and circumstance which must be met in order for one to be a “natural born citizen.” 

Squeeky Fromm also tells us that no one ever heard of Emer de Vattel and that he is a non-figure when it comes to defining a “natural born citizen.”  She adds: 

“1. Most of us have some memory of high school civics class, and no memory whatsoever of anybody called Emer de Vattel. The Birthers try to supplant our non-existent memory with false memories of Vattel and his alleged two citizen parents theory of natural born citizenship. There are actually some people who now claim to remember being taught about Vattel in this light, and absolutely NO TEXTBOOKS which support that memory.”

Apart from all the extant historical evidence which proves Squeeky Fromm to be wrong about the definition of a “natural born citizen” and Vattel’s connection to that definition, there are numerous cases which show her to be wrong.  See: 

1.         Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 Citizens and natives (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758):  “The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.’” 

2.         The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring):  “Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘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 indigenes [having equivalent meaning to "natural-born citizens”] are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’”  

3.         Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830): 

“II. The second general question is, whether John Inglis, the demandant, was or was not capable of taking lands in the state of New York by descent.

This question is presented under several aspects, for the purpose of meeting what at present from the evidence appears a little uncertain, as to the time of the birth of John Inglis. 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.”

After stating that the English common law broad allegiance no longer applied to the new America after the Revolution, it held:  


“2. If born [in New York] after the 4th of July 1776, and before the 15th of 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.” 

Inglis v. Sailors’ Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99, 120-27, 3 Pet. 99. (1830). Rejecting the English common law jus soli rule and the rule of perpetual allegiance that may have prevailed in a state unless abrogated by statute and used for deciding questions of inheritance of lands located within a state’s jurisdiction, which rules were adopted by Justice Johnson and Justice Story in their concurring opinions, and rather adopting the national jus sanguinis rule of the law of nations, the Court held that if the child was born in New York when it was a new state to alien parents, the child followed the condition of his alien father, which could have been cast off at the age of majority, and never having been done the son was therefore neither a “natural born Citizen” nor a “citizen of the United States,” but rather alien born.  So, even though the child was born in New York after the Revolution, the U.S. Supreme Court, regardless of what the common or statutory law of New York might have been on the subject of allegiance, still ruled that the child was alien born, because the father was an alien at the time of the child’s birth. 

4.        Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 245 (1830):  As we saw above, in Inglis, Justice Story was in the minority on the question of whether the demandant was a citizen of the State of New York and thus a U.S. citizen.  Relying upon the English common law jus soli rule, he had ruled that if born in New York after July 4, 1776, but before the 15th of September of the same year, when the British took possession of New York, he was a U.S. citizen even though his father was a British subject.  But in Shanks, which was decided after Inglis, he accepted that the American Revolution changed the rules of allegiance in the new America and changed his position on allegiance and U.S. citizenship.  Here he started by saying: 


“After the elaborate opinions expressed in the case of Inglis vs. The Trustees of the Sailor’s Snug Harbour, ante p. 99, upon the question of alienage, growing out of the American Revolution; it is unnecessary to do more in delivering the opinion of the court in the present case, than to state, in a brief manner, the grounds on which our decision is founded.”

Justice Story, adopting the Inglis majority position which rejected the jus soli (citizenship through place of birth) of the English common law and accepted the jus sanguinis (citizenship inherited from parents) of the law of nations, then went on to explain: 

“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.” Justice Johnson, dissenting for other reasons, said that Ann Scott (married Ann Shanks) “was a native born citizen of South Carolina, daughter of a native born citizen of North Carolina,” and that her being a citizen of South Carolina at the moment of her birth was established by the “leading maxim[] of common law,” “proles sequitur sortem paternam,” which means “the offspring follows the condition of the father.” Black’s Law Dictionary 1091 (5th ed. 1979).

5.         Barry v. Mercein, 46 U. S. 103 (1847):  Argument of counsel for John A. Barry, a British “natural born subject:”

“4.  The plaintiff in error being of legeance to the crown of England, his child, though born in the United States during his father’s temporary residence therein – twenty-two months and twenty days – not withstanding its mother be an American citizen, is not a citizen of the United States. It is incapacitate by its infancy from making any present election, follows the legeance of its father, partus sequitur patrem, and is a British subject. The father being domiciled and resident within the dominions of Her Britannic Majesty, such is also the proper and rightful domicil of his wife and child, and he has a legal right to remove them thither. The child being detained from the father, its natural guardian and protector, without authority of law, and writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is his appropriate legal remedy for its restoration to him from its present illegal detention and restraint. Constitution United States, art. 3, sec. 2; Judiciary Act, 1789, sec. 11; Inglis v. Trustees Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 3 Peters, 99; 7 Anne, cap. 5; 4 Geo. III. cap. 21; Warrender v. Warrender, 2 Clar. & Fin. Ap. Ca. 523; Story’s Confl. Laws, 30, 36, 43, 74, 160; Shelford on Marriage, Ferg. Rep. 397, 398.” 

6.         Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 476-77 (1857) (J. Daniel concurring):  The decision only dealt with the question of whether Dred Scott was a “citizen of the United States.”  Nevertheless, Justice Daniel, concurring, defined a “natural born citizen.” While as repugnant as slavery was and still is, no court or amendment has over turned the meaning of “natural-born citizen” from Dred Scott as described by Justice Daniel nor has there ever been a need to do so.  The main point is that in deciding what a "citizen" was in 1856, both the majority and dissent went back to 1787 to examine what the Framers and the people of that time considered a "citizen" to be.  The Court said that the Constitution must be understood now as it was understood at the time it was written.  The judges did not disagree that one had to look back to the Founders.  What they disagreed on is what the public opinion was at that time as to whether a freed slave was a “citizen.”  In this regard, we know that the Court’s holding that freed slaves were not “citizens of the United States” was overruled by the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Thirteenth (ratified in 1865) and Fourteenth (ratified in 1868) Amendment, none of which repealed or amended Article II’s “natural born Citizen” clause. 

As to the “natural born Citizen” clause, Justice Daniel said: 
           
“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages.  The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.  As society cannot perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their parents, and succeed to all their rights.”  Again:  I say, to be of the country, it is necessary to be born of a person who is a citizen; for if he be born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.” 

(quoting and citing Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758)).  It should be noted that Justice Daniel took out of Vattel’s definition the reference to “fathers” and “father” and replaced it with “parents” and “person,” respectively.  It is true that it was only Justice Daniel in his concurrence that defined a “natural born Citizen” the way he did.  But on more than one occasion, the United States Supreme Court has defined what a "natural born Citizen" is.  Justice Daniel’s definition of a “natural born Citizen” was first confirmed by Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus (1814) and later confirmed by the unanimous Court in Minor and both the majority and dissent in Wong Kim Ark.  To this day, that definition has never been changed.    


7.         Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 168-170 (1875):  The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court explained:  “The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens."  Hence, the Court said that neither the original Constitution nor the Fourteenth Amendment (ratified in 1868) defined a "natural born citizen." In fact, there is nothing in the text of or debates on the Fourteenth Amendment which in any way suggests that it amended Article II and its "natural born citizen" clause.  The Court said that the Amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities enjoyed by the people prior to the adoption of that Amendment.  We know that these privileges and immunities enjoyed as a citizen of a state had been protected from state deprivation by Article IV and privileges and immunities enjoyed as a citizen of the United States were now also protected from state abridgement by the Fourteenth Amendment.  Hence, the Amendment could not have granted the privilege and right of being elected to the Office of President to persons who did not have that privilege and right prior to its adoption. 
 

The Court then further explained that since the Constitution did not provide the meaning of a "natural born citizen,"    

"[r]esort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that.  At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.  Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. ”

Id. at 167-68. 

Hence, a child born in a country to parents who were its “citizens” was not only a “citizen” like them, but also a “natural-born citizen,” which maybe his or her parents were not.  Under that same common law, all the rest of the people were "aliens or foreigners," who the Court later explained could become "citizens of the United States" by satisfying naturalization Acts of Congress or maybe the Fourteenth Amendment.  The Court also sua sponte  stated that "some authorities" went further and included as "citizens"  children "born within the jurisdiction" to alien parents.  The Court said that while "there have been doubts" about whether such children born  in the United States to alien parents were "citizens," there never had been any doubts that children born in the country to citizens parents, who the Court called "natural-born citizens," were "citizens."  So the Court basically said that with the "natural born citizens," there were no doubts that they were "citizens."  But with non-"natural born citizens," such as children born in the United States to alien parents, who could look to no other law other than the Fourteenth Amendment to gain U.S. citizenship status, there could be doubts about whether they were even just "citizens." So, exactly from where did the citizenship doubts to which the Court was referring come? They surely did not come from the English common law which based on birthright, naturalized at birth as "natural-born subjects" children born in the King's dominion to alien parents.  So the Court could not have been looking to the English common law for its definition of a "natural born citizen," for that law provided no doubt as to the "natural-born subject" status of children born in the King's dominion to alien parents.  Also, the Court's doubts could not have come from the common law to which the Court said the Framers looked for their definition of a "natural born citizen," for under that common law there was no doubt that such children were not "natural born citizens."  Rather, those doubts came from the new Fourteenth Amendment and its ambiguous "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause, which the U.S. Supreme Court in The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) (virtually the same Court as the Minor Court) said excluded from U.S. citizenship children born in the United States to alien parents.  So these Fourteenth Amendment potential citizens could not be "natural born citizens" under Minor's formulation, for there was no doubt that they did not meet its common law definition of the clause. They also could not even just be "citizens of the United States" under the English common law, for that law had no application in national U.S. citizenship.  The doubts were whether they could be plain "citizens of the United States" under the Fourteenth Amendment. With Virginia Minor being born in the country to "citizen" parents and thus a "natural born citizen," which without any doubt made her a "citizen" and therefore qualified to receive the privileges and immunities available under Article IV and the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment (which the Court eventually held did not include the right to vote), Minor said that it was not necessary to resolve the question that it raised about Fourteenth Amendment citizenship.   U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) eventually resolved this question.  See my discussion below on Wong Kim Ark. 

 
8.         Ex parte Reynolds, 20 F.Cas. 582, 5 Dill. 394, No. 11,719 (C.C.W.D.Ark 1879):  The Circuit Court of the Western District of Arkansas explained:

“[W]hen the question arises as to what people a person belongs, what rule is to govern in the solution of the problem?

There is no statute law on the subject. We find that the question before the country at one time, as to who was a white person and who was a member of the African race, was solved by legislative or       constitutional enactments defining the nationality of persons according to the quantum of white or African blood in the veins of the persons.

These laws were all enactments of the states, and had reference to the African race alone. The United States never had any statute law on the subject (and has not now) with regard to persons who are not subject to its jurisdiction. Now, in this case, as the 38th article of the treaty only permits an American citizen, or a white person, to expatriate himself -- to throw off his allegiance to the government of the United States -- and place himself beyond the jurisdiction of its courts by marriage to a Choctaw and residence in their country, we must somewhere find a rule to define who is a Choctaw, in [**15]  a case where there is mixed parentage. Does the quantum of Indian blood in the veins of the party determine the fact as to whether such party is of the white or Indian race? If so, how much Indian blood does it take to make an Indian, or how much white blood to make a person a member of the body politic known as American citizens? Where do we find any rule on the subject which makes the quantum of blood the standard of nationality? Certainly not from the statute law of the United States; nor is it to be found in the common law. In the case of United States v. Sanders [Case No. 16,220], the court held that the quantum of Indian blood in the veins did not determine the condition of the offspring of a union between a white person and an Indian; but further held that the condition of the mother did determine the question. And the court referred to the common law as authority for the position that the condition of the mother fixed the status of the offspring. The court is sustained in the first position by the common law, and also in the last position, if applied to the offspring of a connection between a freeman and a slave, upon the principle handed down from the Roman civil law,  [**16]  that the owner of a female animal is entitled to all her brood, according to the maxim partus sequitur ventrem. But by the common law this rule is reversed with regard to the offspring of free persons. Their offspring follows the condition of the father, and the rule partus sequitur patrem prevails in determining their status. 1 Bouv. Inst., 198, § 502; 31 Barb. 486; 2 Bouv. Law Dict. 147; Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. [28 U.S.] 242. This is the universal maxim of the common law with regard to freemen -- as old as the common law, or even as the Roman civil law, and as well settled as the rule partus sequitur ventrem -- the one being a rule fixing the status of freemen; the other being a rule defining the ownership of property -- the one applicable to different political communities or states, whose citizens are in the enjoyment of the civil rights possessed by people in a state of freedom; the other defining the condition of the offspring which had been tainted by the bondage of the mother.
No other rules than the ones above enumerated ever did prevail in this or any other civilized country. In the case of Ludlam v. Ludlam, 31 Barb. 486, the court says: "The universal maxim of [**17]  the common law being partus sequitur patrem, it is sufficient for the application of this doctrine that the father should be a subject lawfully, and without breach of his allegiance beyond sea, no matter what may be the condition of the mother."

The law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition of affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the same rule. Vattel, in his Law of Nations (page 101), says: "As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, these children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to their rights. * * * The country of the father is, therefore, that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent." Again, on page 102, Vattel says: "By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights." This law of nature, as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any positive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case.”

Id. at 585, 18 Alb.Law J. 14-17 (cited with approval in United States v. Ward, 42 F.320; 1890 U.S. App. LEXIS 1586; 14 Sawy. 472 (C.C. S.D.Cal 1890) and Keith v. United States, 8 Okla. 446, 448, 58 P. 507 (1899)).   

9.         Ludlam v. Ludlam, 26 N.Y. 356 (1883):  “Vattel says: ‘ Society not being able to subsist and perpetuate itself, but by the children of its citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to all their rights.’ B. 1, ch. 19, § 212.” 

10.       United States v. Ward, 42 F.320 (C.C.S.D.Cal. 1890):  “By the common law this rule [partus sequitur ventrem] is reversed with regard to the offspring of free persons. Their offspring follows the condition of the father, and the rule partus sequitur patrem prevails in determining their status. 1 Bouv. Inst., 198, § 502; 31 Barb. 486; 2 Bouv. Law Dict. 147; Shanks v. Dupont, 3 Pet. [28 U.S.] 242. This is the universal maxim of the common law with regard to freemen -- as old as the common law, or even as the Roman civil law, and as well settled as the rule partus sequitur ventrem -- the one being a rule fixing the status of freemen; the other being a rule defining the ownership of property -- the one applicable to different political communities or states, whose citizens are in the enjoyment of the civil rights possessed by people in a state of freedom; the other defining the condition of the offspring which had been tainted by the bondage of the mother.

No other rules than the ones above enumerated ever did prevail in this or any other civilized country. In the case of Ludlam v. Ludlam, 31 Barb. 486, the court says: ‘The universal maxim of the common law being partus sequitur patrem, it is sufficient for the application of this doctrine that the father should be a subject lawfully, and without breach of his allegiance beyond sea, no matter what may be the condition of the mother.’

The law of nations, which becomes, when applicable to an existing condition of affairs in a country, a part of the common law of that country, declares the same rule. Vattel, in his Law of Nations (page 101), says: ‘As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, these children naturally follow the condition of their fathers and succeed to their rights. * * * The country of the father is, therefore, that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.’ Again, on page 102, Vattel says: ‘By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers and enter into all their rights.’ This law of nature, as far as it has become a part of the common law, in the absence of any positive enactment on the subject, must be the rule in this case.”   

11.       United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898):  Confirmed Minor’s “natural-born citizen” definition when it said: “'At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners” (citing and quoting Minor), and not being limited by the definition of a “natural-born citizen” when defining who a “citizen” was under the Fourteenth Amendment, held that a child born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents was a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment.   

Wong Kim Ark eventually resolved Minor's open question, holding that a child born in the United States to permanently domiciled and resident alien parents was a "citizen of the United States" from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.  It is critically constitutionally important to understand that the Court held Wong to be a "citizen" under the Fourteenth Amendment.  It did not hold that he was a "natural born citizen" under the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution and which according to Minor provided the definition of a "natural born citizen."   

People like Squeeky Fromm also use Wong Kim Ark to tell us about how the decision so well met the needs of our nation of immigrants who have come to our shores thirsting for freedom and opportunity, mixing that noble goal into the definition of a “natural born citizen.”  The simple response to this “feel good” argument is that immigrants coming to America are looking to become “citizens,” not “natural born citizens,” which is a status that their children can enjoy like the children of the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers enjoyed.  Hence, this appeal to tradition is nothing but a fallacious argument applied to the definition of a “natural born citizen.”      

Despite Squeeky Fromm’s lack of memory of who Emer de Vattel was, all these decisions from our U.S. Supreme Court and these lower courts confirmed Vattel’s Section 212 definition of the “natural-born citizens” as “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”  This is the only definition of the clause that has ever existed and which has been recognized by our U.S. Supreme Court.  The conditions of being born in the country to “citizen” parents are both necessary and sufficient conditions of being a “natural born Citizen.”  The definition of a “natural born Citizen” therefore excludes anyone who is either not born in the country (or its jurisdictional equivalent) or not born to parents (both parents) who are its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth or both. 

Squeeky Fromm takes the second part of my article, the one related to an unsound argument, and presents herself as some authority on the matter.  She presents a statement suggesting that I, the one who raised and discussed the issue in the first place, do not recognize the issue concerning the truth of the major premise.  I clearly not only recognized the issue, I created it as part of my logical analysis.  I also demonstrated, as can be seen above, how there is no truth to the Jack Maskell thesis that all born citizens are “natural born citizens.”   I did all that so that the public can see how Jack Maskell ultimately is wrong in his argument.
  
V.                 

Squeeky Fromm’s most recent foray is bringing Trayvon Martin into the “natural born citizen” debate. In her article, The George Zimmerman Verdict and Birtherism, at http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/07/16/the-george-zimmerman-verdict-and-birtherism/ , she argues that Birthers are like “Trayvonites.”   She argues that the Zimmerman verdict was correct because the rule of law and the right to self-defense required it, but that Trayvon Martin’s supporters refuse to see the light.  What Squeeky Fromm fails to understand is that the Constitutionalists (whom she calls the “Birthers”) have taken the position that they have because of the Constitution and the rule of law.  What is ironic is that a commenter on her blog, “Joel Lawler,” has attacked her as being a racist for her pro-Zimmerman position.  He has told her to “take a deep look into your own sad racist soul.”  She defends her position, saying that the evidence and law require it.   So here we see Squeeky Fromm arguing that such decisions must be decided by the Constitution and the rule of law and not by other extraneous factors such as emotion, anger, prejudice, or revenge.  But she does not grant the “Birthers” the same right to argue that Obama is not a “natural born Citizen.”  We can only conclude from Squeeky Fromm’s inconsistent positions that the Constitution and the rule of law count for her only when it is politically expedient that they do so.    

So, Squeeky Fromm has failed to discredit my Jack Maskell refutation in her several articles (the links are above).  She continues to embarrass herself with her own artistic muddle.  She understands what the Constitution and the rule of law mean, but she applies them selectively and only for political expediency.     

In referring to the topic of her gaslighting article ( http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/07/14/are-the-birthers-gaslighting-themselves/ ) blogger ppsimmons, this is what Squeeky Fromm ironically said to one of her sycophants: 

"Hi FrankB!!!

Thank you!!! Somebody had to de-construct him. Why do these guys try to put on airs like they know what they are talking about??? All they do is make trouble for themselves.” 

Too bad that Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter does not follow her own advice. 

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
July 19, 2013
Updated March 8, 2014
####


Copyright © 2013
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved
     

3179 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   2801 – 3000 of 3179   Newer›   Newest»
Anonymous said...

February, 1786, "AN ACT FOR NATURALIZING MICHAEL WALSH.” in which it was declared that Michael Walsh “shall be deemed, adjudged, and taken to be a citizen of this Commonwealth, and entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”

Mario wrote: "the Naturalization Act of 1790 did not “make” children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents true natural born citizens. ...from the Massachusetts acts, those persons were not citizens from birth. They were naturalized as state citizens after birth."

That is an astonishingly bad conflation of American children with foreigners. Foreign immigrants naturalized by the Mass. congress had no connection whatsoever with American children born abroad!
And the words of those Mass. naturalization acts deemed them only to be "citizens", while the Nat Act of 1790 mandated the recognition of foreign-born American children as being "natural born citizens" and thus eligible to be President.

Try to get your facts straight before roostering about your correctness.

" the legislature said that they shall...be... given the “liberties, privileges, and immunities” of “natural born subjects.”

NO! It said no such thing. It said they would be entitled, not given. That meant they were entitled to all the benefits of citizens since they came with citizenship, (that's what citizenship entailed) and were not to be denied any of those benefits. It was written to protect their citizenship rights, as non-natives, from discrimination.

The use of "natural born" was merely official-sounding excess verbiage to add weight to that declaration. It served no other purpose whatsoever.
It was just the inherited British way of writing when seeking to bolster a declaration of protection of citizenship rights.

~"Clearly, those naturalized persons became citizens, they did not become natural born citizens. Rather, they were only given the privileges and immunities of natural born subjects."

"only given"??? Wake up! There was NO DIFFERENCE! "citizens" did NOT have lesser rights than natural born citizens. ALL CITIZENS WERE EQUAL!
There was no equivalence to the U.S. Presidency in Massachusetts.

"entitled to all the liberties, rights and privileges of a natural born citizen.”

But you are correct that they were not "made" nor declared to be natural born citizens.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Adrien Nash,

I am not going to waste my time responding to what you think are fine constitutional or legal distinctions that really make no difference. I say blue, you say aqua blue when all we need to establish is blue. With you, it is all a waste of time.

Anonymous said...

Nario wrote: "But since it [the 1790 Nat. Act] used “shall be considered as natural born citizen,” it recognized that the true natural born citizens was another class of persons and was not really making true natural born citizens, but rather only citizens and giving them the privileges and immunities of natural born citizens."

PROVE IT! You cannot because it is purely fictional thinking. It's fantasy talk. First, there was no such class as fictional natural born citizens nor fictional citizens either.

Were naturalized foreigners and their U.S. children also fictional "citizens of the United States"??? -they were "considered as" also. Same language!
shall be considered as" was not an order to engage in fictional thinking but an order to all State election officers (in control of which presidential candidates they would allow on their ballots) to recognize the fact that all American children are Americans also (jus sanguinis being the national government principle) regardless of birth location.

But an equally debunking point is something that your superficial thinking failed to consider. If, as you claim, they were "given" a fictional status (which according to you, was rightfully theirs automatically by blood inheritance; partus sequitur patrem), then please explain to everyone just exactly what "special" rights came with that fictional designation.

Was it maybe... the right to be President?
No! -you claim, but if that is true, then pray tell, what rights and privileges were entailed in the great honor of being defined as a fictional natural born citizen???

Answer: NONE!!! Neither the category nor special rights existed except in your imagination, which is desperate to shore-up the crumbling walls of your fictional doctrine which is self-contradictory all over the place.
You hold to a Humpty-Dumpty doctrine which cannot be fixed. It is innately broken. I've shown you its inherent self-contradictions and you cannot explain them away with real facts and undistorted logic.

You are in a state of denial, but you have an infinite capacity to fake your way out of anything, but your tricks of deflection and distortion have become too apparent to miss.

Anonymous said...

The Third Congress...knowing that children born out of the United States to alien [correction: AMERICAN] parents were in need of naturalization and could therefore not be natural born citizens, therefore changed the language of the naturalization act from “shall be considered as natural born citizens” to “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”

Mario, you need to explain two things; how did the third Congress "know" something that the first Congress, composed of many of the authors of the Constitution, did NOT know?

Please reveal your theory as to just how the first Congress was so stupid as to declare ALIENS to be natural born citizens??? How?

Second, how did the third Congress "know" that foreign-birth demolished the principle of jus sanguinis upon which they based the naturalization acts.

And how did "partus sequitur patrem
(jus sanguinis) have any geographical limitation due to jus soli, borders, birth place, or anything else?
You pretend that it ceased to exist beyond the water's edge because if you acknowledge the truth, then you must admit that it didn't matter to the founders where American children were born because they only recognized jus sanguinis membership. Inclusion by blood right, -by inheritance from the father who begat them.

You create a Frankenstein nationality monster by stitching together opposing principles: blood right and native-birth privilege. That's a fantasy that even the extremely liberal British never embraced. So just where the heck did it come from?
It's been floating around for over a hundred and fifty years but no one can explain where it came from.

Vattel supported only "partus sequitur patrem", patrilineal descent. You know that for a fact but must deny it or your theory, based on distorting the simple observation he made, collapses.

That's one heck of a corner you've got yourself painted into.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Adrien Nash,

You do protest much. But take up your objection with the U.S. Supreme Court which in Minor v. Happesett (1875 explained:

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."

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

It looks like your children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents made it on the list of naturalized citizens of the United States at birth under a naturalization Act of Congress, but did not make it on the list of the natural born citizens under American national common law as presented by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor. Your current unsupported personal beliefs regarding natural law and how the world should define citizenship cannot change any of that.

Unknown said...

h2ooflife,

Get a grip.

Your ad hominem attacks do not advance your argument.

I used to read your comments because you would occasionally come up with some interesting points.
Now you are increasingly insulting and rude, and reading your comments has become an unpleasant chore.

If you want people to listen to you, don't attack them. It doesn't help, but only harms your argument.

Law is all about precedent. It is not about what your brand of logic tells you it should be.

Find precedent to back your statements up, or no-one will listen to you unless they are accustomed to buckling under to bullies.

ajtelles said...

Original BIG Thinker John Jay Clarity vs. Bob Quasius Confusion
or
Only ONE Original Genesis Intent


Mario, since you have command and control of the historical record as your fully formed responses consistently show, including your response to Cafe Con Leche Republicans founder Bob Quasius on July 10, 2014 at 2:34 PM, I will make a comment on the same "implicit" ground that Quasius expresses an opinion and makes a confused statement without realizing that there are negative historical consequences to dual "natural born Citizen" citizenship with his "implicit" presupposition that Article II in 1787 affirmed birth inside the U.S. AND outside the U.S. to two AND one U.S. citizen parent. Original genesis intent is the antidote to original intent confusion as expressed in Quasius' statement about Sen. Ted Cruz.

>> We have this from Bob Quasius at Café Con Leche Republicans:


>> “I don’t know Cuban law, but
Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen of the U.S.,
and
was a natural born citizen of Canada
until he recently renounced his citizenship.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario, I offer a perspective that is based on that historical record that you articulate so well, specifically the 1787 implicit original intent and original genesis meaning of "natural born Citizen" as understood by John Jay, George Washington and ALL of the delegates who accepted and adopted without opposition Jay's suggestion.

Implicit?
Implicit original intent?
Implicit original genesis?

Yes, here is a very brief slavery example of "implicit" and the historical consequences.

The Northwest Ordinance was passed on July 13, 1787 by the Congress of the Confederation, two months before the U.S. Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787.

President George Washington signed the Northwest Ordinance of 1789 into law on August 7, 1789, after the newly created U.S. Congress reaffirmed a modified Ordinance under the new Constitution. Joseph Story wrote that

>> "the following articles [of the Ordinance] shall be considered as Articles of compact between the original States and the people and states in the said territory, and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent...." Story, Joseph. Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States: with a preliminary review of the constitutional history of the colonies and states before the adoption of the Constitution, p. 228 n. 1 (Little, Brown, 1873): “One party could not change or absolve itself from the obligation to obey them”.


In the original intent of the constitution, to get it accepted and adopted at the constitutional convention, slavery was deliberately not mentioned by the Framers, for or against, but slavery was understood to be addressed in Article 1 Section 2 Clause 3, the three-fifths compromise which was repealed by the 1868 fourteenth amendment.

ajtelles said...

Original BIG Thinker John Jay Clarity vs. Bob Quasius Confusion
or
Only ONE Original Genesis Intent


2/

Yes-slavery advocates said for decades that slavery was implicitly constitutional, and to import it into the new territories was constitutional.

No-slavery advocates said 100% elimination of slavery was implicitly constitutional, even eventually in the slave states, and definitely in the new territories since the Northwest Ordinance.

President Lincoln sided with the no-slavery advocates, and the 13th Amendment was passed by the Senate April 8, 1864, by the House on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865.

Opinions have consequences.

Period. Case closed.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

That yes-slavery vs. no-slavery historical reality is an example of the implicit consequences of Bob Quasius' confusion about Sen Ted Cruz and his historical reality, birth outside of the U.S. to only one U.S. citizen parent.

Informed people want to know which original birther articulated the idea proposed by Quasius that dual "natural born Citizen" citizenship was the original intent of Article II Section 1 Clause 5?

If Quasius says that dual "natural born Citizen" citizenship was NOT implied in Article II, why is he proposing his dual citizenship implication about Sen. Ted Cruz?

If Quasius says that dual "natural born Citizen" citizenship WAS implied in Article II, which original birther, there's gotta be at least ONE, so which ONE is he adducing to support his dual citizenship implication about Sen. Ted Cruz?

Mario, your Bob Quasius quote is another example of original genesis confusion by the "birth-to-one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is good 'nuf birthers about the original intent of "natural born Citizen" that was authored by John Jay on July 25, 1787 when he underlined the word "born" in his note to George Washington, who transmitted Jay's suggestion to the constitution delegates who accepted Jay's original genesis meaning without debate.

The question is what that "original genesis" implicit meaning was to John Jay in 1787.

Was it birth inside the U.S. OR outside the U.S.,?
Was it birth to two (2) U.S. citizen parents OR birth to one (1) U.S. citizen parent?

I'm just itchin' for someone to challenge me on my contention that John Jay's ONLY "implicit" meaning was birth inside the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents.

If Jay had more than ONE "implicit" meaning, defenders of the Obama birth narrative (and defenders of the nascent Cruz birth narrative) need to defend their tacit "implicit" original intent contention that John Jay was a 1700s example of a "birth-inside-the-U.S.-OR-outside-the-U.S.-to-ONE-U.S.-citizen-parent" is good 'nuf birther.

I explicitly content that Jay was a 1700s example of a "birth-ONLY-inside-the-U.S.-to-TWO-U.S.-citizen-parents" original intent and original genesis birther. I use original intent and original genesis "birther" because "birther" is an honorable appellation, but for some obtuse reason the "one-U.S.-citizen-parent" birthers shun adducing original intent light like the mythological vampires shun the light of day.

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"

Maybe Bob Quasius should read what Abraham Lincoln said about the "Union" at his inaugural in 1861.
>> http://originalbirtherdocument14.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

Wilted Rose said...

"h2ooflife,Get a grip. Your ad hominem attacks do not advance your argument."

If you paid closer attention, you'd be aware of the rude and insulting things that Mario regularly throws at me. Do you hear me complaining like a baby?

My arguments are not advanced by anything other than minds that are not distorted by dogmatic biased thinking in favor of a baseless doctrine.
If you wish to engage in debate over what I write, then address what I write. Do not address me because I am not at issue. The truth is at issue, and it is being shoved aside here.

I've been a sorry witness to that fact for far, far too long, (read my posts from years back and Mario's replies) but fighting dogmatic erroneous thinking has lead to greater clarity and understanding break-throughs that otherwise would not have occurred, so the war has not been fruitless.

But I'm fairly certain that I'm right about at the end of it.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

We have this from Obot water carrier, Unknown/NotLinda/brygenon/Bryon Gene Olson, at Café Con Leche Republicans:

“Losing Attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:

'Congress had yet to pass any statutes when the Framers adopted and the People ratified the Constitution. Also, the Constitution does not allow that it can be changed by a statute, but rather only by a duly ratified constitutional amendment.'
Long as this thread and its predecessor are, no one has suggested that Congress did or can change the Constitution by statute. Mr. Apuzzo is the one who wants to skirt the Constitution. In the verdict of his very first birther lawsuit, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey noted the relevant constitutional Article and Amendments on the role of Congress:

'The Constitution commits the selection of the President to the Electoral College in Article II, Section 1, as amended by the Twelfth Amendment and the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3. The Constitution’s provisions are specific in the procedures to be followed by the Electors in voting and the President of the Senate and of Congress in counting the electoral votes. Further, the Twentieth Amendment, Section 3, also provides the process to be followed if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, in which case the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified. None of these provisions evince an intention for judicial reviewability of these political choices.'[Kerchner v. Obama, 669 F. Supp. 2d (D.N.J. 2009)]."

~~~~~

My reply:

The resolution of the issue of whether a president-elect is eligible to assume the executive powers does not rest exclusively with Congress. The question can be handled by the courts and the states working together and eventually even with Congress taking ultimate action. See Lindsay v. Bowen, No. 13-15085 (9th Cir., May 6, 2014) (“[N]othing in the Twentieth Amendment states or implies that Congress has the “exclusive” authority to pass on the eligibility of candidates for president.” (emphasis in the original)). The Twentieth Amendment speaks about issues concerning voting, counting the electoral votes, and the process should the president-elect fail to qualify. These areas can be viewed as mere ministerial acts. Depending upon the circumstances, these could be pure matters of political discretion which then would not be subject to judicial review. But the issue of the definition of a natural born citizen and whether Obama or Cruz meet it does not involve such issues and goes well beyond them and into the realm of interpreting the meaning of Article II “natural born citizen” clause. Interpreting the Constitution and telling us what the law is are judicial functions, not Congressional ones. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Hence, a court is well qualified and within it power to tell us what the definition of a natural born citizen is and whether Obama and Cruz meet that definition.

Once the judicial branch of government tells us that information, action can then be taken by the states against the ineligible candidates, for “[n]othing in its [the Twentieth Amendment] text or history suggests that it precludes state authorities from excluding a candidate with a known ineligibility from the presidential ballot.” Lindsay v. Bowen, supra. Should an ineligible candidate have gotten by the state/federal election process and is now a sitting president (like de facto President Barack Obama), armed with a court ruling as to what is a natural born citizen and whether a certain candidate meets that definition, Congress can then take appropriate action under both the Twentieth and Twenty Fifth Amendments. It could even consider impeachment should it decide that impeachment can be applied to a unconstitutionally elected President.

ajtelles said...

Somebody is confused...

Mario, it seems that confusion is rampant in the camp of those who NEVER adduce the original intent of original birther and original Founder and Ratifier John Jay, and they argue incessantly against everything you write about the historical record without adducing an error of fact on your part but they simply knee-jerk against whatever position you take.

When you make a historically based point, or when I ask a simple 1787 original intent question about John Jay, somebody responds with their own 2014 version of original intent about how confused the 1790 first congress and 1795 third congresses were about the Naturalization Acts, and what Jay should have meant when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen."

Then somebody says that they are not the issue, the truth is the issue.

Ok, what is the truth, somebody?

When original birther John Jay underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to his friend and original birther George Washington, which Washington brought to the attention of the convention delegates who accepted Jay's implicit original intent and implicit original genesis meaning with NO opposition, what was Jay's implicit original intent and implicit original genesis meaning that supported Jay's explicit national security reason for underlining the word "born?"

1-Did Jay mean to suggest birth ONLY inside the U.S.? Yes.
2-Did Jay mean to suggest birth ALSO outside the U.S.? No.
3-Did Jay mean to suggest birth ONLY to two (2) U.S. citizen parents? Yes.
4-Did Jay mean to suggest birth to ALSO one (1) U.S. citizen parent? No.

It is such a simple original intent truth issue that it confuses the "birth-inside-OR-outside-the-U.S.-to-two-OR-one-U.S.-citizen-parent" birthers 'cause they NEVER answer the simple 4 part question.

Original intent is the antidote to the mass confusion of the Obama birth narrative defenders and the lone wolf somebody with 2014 original intent that is contrary to John Jay's 1787 implicit original genesis intent.

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original Birther "Document" of the "Union"

ajtelles said...

Same Old Same Old

Mario,

As I mentioned in a previous comment, since you definitely have command and control of articulating the "natural born Citizen" historical record against all knee-jerk opposition that can't adduce factual errors, I will make a comment about the implications of Bob Quasius. Implication vs. Implication. John Jay's 1787 implication vs. Bob Quasius' 2013 implication.

I took a quick look at the "Is Ted Cruz a natural born citizen?" thread at Cafe Con Leche Republicans, started January 10, 2013, and noticed some people are posting their same knee-jerk opinions against whatever you write.

They NEVER adduce the original genesis intent implication of the author of "natural born Citizen," John Jay, and simply adhere to Bob Quasius' original genesis intent implication in his definition of "natural born Citizen" as a term that "...refers to citizenship at birth rather than through naturalization," and also a term that refers to being "...born a citizen, which makes Ted Cruz a natural born citizen."

Obama-birthers don't question Bob Quasius' 2013 implicit original genesis intent that is contrary to John Jay's 1787 implicit original genesis intent.

#1 -

Confusion statement #1 by the founder of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

>> "Due to misinformation propagated by birthers, many incorrectly assume one has to be born in a U.S. state or territory of two citizen parents to be a natural born citizen, but the term “natural born citizen” refers to citizenship at birth rather than through naturalization."

>> The term "natural born Citizen" "...refers to citizenship at birth rather than through naturalization."

Is Bob Quasius still implying, since January 10, 2013, that John Jay was implying in 1787 that "natural born Citizen" was NOT a reference to only birth inside the U.S. ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents?

Is THAT Bob Quasius' 2013 implication about John Jay's 1787 implication?

ajtelles said...

Same Old Same Old

#2 -

Confusion statement #2 by the founder of Cafe Con Leche Republicans.

>> "Ted Cruz was not born in a U.S. state or territory, so clearly he is not a birthright citizen under the 14th amendment. However, under the McCarran-Walter Act, he was still born a citizen, which makes Ted Cruz a natural born citizen. The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services summarizes the laws in effect when Ted Cruz was born: ..."

Is Bob Quasius still implying, since January 10, 2013, that John Jay was implying in 1787 that "natural born Citizen" was NOT to be a reference that would be exclusive to the 1787 U.S. Constitution, and "natural born Citizen" WOULD be the definition of "citizen" in FUTURE naturalization acts, the first one which would not be in existence for 3 more years in 1790?

Mario, is that the level of discourse on Cafe Con Leche Republicans since January 10, 2013?

Do progressive Republican Bob Quasius and progressive Democrats who agree with Quasius' "birth-outside-OR-inside-the-U.S.-to-ONLY-one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is good 'nuf birther position EVER adduce John Jay's original genesis intent to support their 2000s theory, their 2000s myth, their 2000s fallacy that the 1787 original genes intent of John Jay was implying birth inside OR outside the U.S. and birth ONLY to one U.S. citizen parent?

Do Bob Quasius and his cohorts really think that John Jay would agree with their 2000s mythology that, sure, of course, John, TWO (2) U.S. citizen parents is definitely a "higher hurdle" to protect our national security as you explicitly stated in your note to General Washington, but, John, come on now, this is 2000s America, the "lower hurdle" of ONE (1) U.S. citizen is good 'nuf for government work and eligibility to the office of President as you implicitly... uh.

What was the question?

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"

Anonymous said...

Doublee said...

"The key phrase is subject to the jurisdiction thereof...

Words in the Constitution are intended to have effect. What is the effect of those words?

Is someone born on U.S. soil to parents who are here (a) illegally; (b) as tourists; (c) as diplomatic personnel excluded from being a citizen of the United States?

On what basis would those words discriminate among any of the choices listed above. For example why would (a) and (b) become citizens and (c) would not?"

Actually, you used the wrong term for (c) since diplomatic personnel is undefined. Only children of ambassadors are not deemed to be U.S. citizens. All children of all other foreign embassy and consulate officers are deemed to be U.S. citizens.
(I presume that none of them have diplomatic immunity.)

I could hardly believe my eyes when I read that in 8 U.S.Code, 1401. That was disgusting to see, to know that our government is that brain-dead. Maybe Canada is just as stupid, but I doubt that there are any other nations in the world so dumb. But you never can tell these days. The unthinkable is becoming the all too familiar.

ajtelles said...

Article V & The People v The Court

Mario, your response to the Obama-birther "water carrier" on July 12, 2014 at 3:22 PM is scary. It is not scary because what if it were true, but it is scary because it IS true. Going to the court for a definition of "natural born Citizen" is scary with any court, but this Chief Justice John "call it a tax" Roberts court, can not be trusted. Period.

THAT is why we need an Article V "... Legislatures ... Convention for proposing Amendments ...."

An Article V amendment initiated by "WE the Posterity" of "WE the People" to define what John Jay implied when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" is the only way "WE the Posterity" will make a lasting impact to influence "OUR" tri-partite federal government. The executive administrator of "OUR" federal government is usurping "OUR" authority, and the legislature and judiciary are spineless to oppose the Edward Mandell House inspired "Philip Dru, Administrator" of "OUR" federal government.

In the first paragraph of your reply, you wrote -
>> "Interpreting the Constitution
and telling us what the law is
are judicial functions,
not Congressional ones."


With 100% agreement, I ask, but can the court be trusted to interpret John Jay's "natural born Citizen" implicit original genesis intent of birth inside the U.S. to two U.S. citizen married parents when the court can't be trusted to adhere to the original intent of the commerce clause? That is what is scary about this John Roberts court. Remember when Justice Thomas was asked about the eligibility issue about 4 years ago and he gave a short laugh and explicitly stated that the SCOTUS was deliberately staying away from the issue? Would the SCOTUS shy away of the eligibility issue if all 9 Justices knew the definition of "natural born Citizen" as John Jay intended it to be understood?

If, as EVERYBODY says, the original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" has never been clarified, can the court adduce a definition out of thin air al a, for example, Jack Maskell, or will the court ask common sense questions of the author of the words "natural born Citizen" like I have been asking?

1-Did John Jay intend to imply ONLY birth inside the U.S.?
2-Did John Jay intend to imply ONLY birth to two (2) U.S. citizen parents?
3-Did John Jay intend to imply ALSO birth outside the U.S.?
4-Did John Jay intend to imply ALSO birth to one (1) U.S. citizen parent?

In the second paragraph you wrote -
>> "Once the judicial branch of government tells us that information,
action can then be taken by the states against the ineligible candidates, ...."


and

>> "...armed with a court ruling as to what is a natural born citizen ... Congress can then take appropriate action ...."

Yes, with 100% agreement that Congress can take action, I must ask if the same Congress that wants to sue Obama instead of using their constitutional powers of the purse and impeachment, as Andrew McCarthy recommends in his new book "Faithless Execution: Building the Political Case for Obama's Impeachment," if that same Congress wants to send Obama to the same Supreme Court that Mark Levin says could go either way because you just never know which way the court will go, will that Congress do the right thing just because the court opined?

ajtelles said...

Article V & The People v The Court

2/

As Andrew McCarthy says in his book on page 24,

"It is not the purpose of the federal courts to resolve national controversies. They were created to resolve individual injuries but given no power to enforce their judgments. ... In fact, the law of 'standing,' which addresses what grievances litigants may bring before courts, teaches that the more a controversy affects the body politic rather than the individual citizen, the less appropriate it is for judicial resolution. It is for just such controversies that we have political rights."

To apply to the Supreme Court what McCarthy says about the federal courts, if the Supreme Court opined in favor of John Jay's original genesis intent of birth inside the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents, does not mean that this Congress or the next will act to impeach I-I-I-Managed-to-OCCUPY-America Obama?

Who knows? THAT is why we need an Article V "... Legislatures ... Convention for proposing Amendments ...."

Here is my grass roots draft to remove the ambiguity about the eternal relevance and the perpetual original genesis intent of a "natural born Citizen" as the ONLY U.S. "citizen" who is "natural born" and eligible to be POTUS since the last "...or a Citizen of the United States" died sometime in the 1800s -

- - - - - - - - - -

Amendment XXVIII
(or which ever amendment it will be at the time)
An Amendment to Permit Only a Natural Born Citizen to be Eligible to the Office of President

SECTION 1: No person, except a natural born Citizen, born only inside the U.S. or jurisdiction, born only to two U.S. citizen parents who are U.S. citizens by birth or by naturalization before their child is born, married only to each other, shall be eligible to the office of President.

SECTION 2: To be eligible, a person must be thirty-five years of age, residence during the last fifteen years must be only within the United States, not in jurisdictions.

SECTION 3: Verification of eligibility must include birth place, lineage, residence; verification must be published and made available to the American grass roots electorate, to all of the state legislatures, to all of the Electoral College electors.

- - - - - - - - - -

Mario, an Article V amendment defining what John Jay meant in 1787 when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington will not affect Obama before or after January 2017 when a different president is inaugurated, but when it is accomplished, it will eventually have the residual effect of fumigating the White House and accomplishing Jay's explicit intent "...to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government; and to declare expressly that the Command in Chief of the american army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen."

If originalist constitutionalists can not trust the current Supreme Court and the current Congress, would the progressives of the future trust a Supreme Court if all 9 Justices were Ted Cruz appointed justices?

No.
THAT is why we need a grassroots Article V "... Legislatures ... Convention for proposing Amendments ...."

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Adrien Nash,

Thank you for transcribing pertinent parts of the The Civil Code of LAW AND PROCEDURE of the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (1801). Let us remember that Wilted Rose mentioned this code in one of his previous comments.

The key to understanding the The Civil Code of LAW AND PROCEDURE of the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. (1801) lies in understanding that it distinguished between a citizen of the United States and a citizen of a state or territory or of the District of Columbia. As we can see, there were two different standards. When it came to its own citizens (based on jus soli with the added feature of domicile), the District was willing to consider them as its citizens and therefore its inhabitants if they were domiciled there. It also accepted as its citizens and therefore inhabitants citizens of the United States who were domiciled there. It did not accept citizens of other states or territories, even if domiciled there, as its citizens and inhabitants. In fact, it equated those other state or territory citizens with aliens.

Hence, the national standard was “citizen of the United States.” If a person satisfied that standard and was domiciled in the District, he was a citizen and inhabitant of the District even if not born there. The only distinguishing factor that the District looked to could only have been that under the national standard, a child could not be a citizen unless he was either born to citizen parents or his parents naturalized during his minority and when he or she shall be dwelling in the United States. State citizenship acquired by any other means (e.g. under the English common law which did not require citizen parents and therefore did not meet the national standard) was not good enough to make one a citizen and inhabitant in the District. So, the District was willing to tolerate its own modified jus soli citizenship, but it was not willing to tolerate that of any other state or territory. In all this, there is no doubt that a natural born citizen, born in the United States to U.S citizen parents, could be a citizen and inhabitant not only in the District of Columbia, but in all the states of the Union.

The District of Columbia Code was passed in 1801. This was just before the passage of the Naturalization Act of 1802. The Code is strong evidence of the Founding generation’s understanding of what the meaning of a natural born citizen and a citizen of the United States was. The Code was passed by Congress. So, for purposed of the District of Columbia, Congress viewed children born in other states or territories to alien parents as aliens, unless they became naturalized as citizens of the United States under an Act of Congress or treaty. It did so because Congress on the national level and as it applied to being a citizen of the United States did the same.

All this is consistent with my position that a natural born citizen was defined by the Framers as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth, as confirmed by the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

Here is more from Obot groupie, Unknown/NotLinda/brygenon/Bryon Gene Olson, at Café Con Leche Republicans:

“Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:
‘Regardless of what Cuban or Canadian law might say about Ted Cruz’s citizenship, he is not an Article II natural born citizen under U.S. law.’

Mr. Apuzzo’s experience with the U.S. law consists of losing all his cases and all his appeals. In his latest birther case, Mr. Apuzzo took his theory to the Vermont Superior Court. After considering Apuzzo’s arguments, the Court expressed agreement with other courts and held: ‘the expression ‘natural born Citizen’ is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.’ [Paige v. Obama, No. 611-8-12 WNCV]

As our host BQuasius noted in words only slightly different, Ted Cruz was born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. Senator Cruz is therefore, under the eminently logical distinction stated as law in the verdict of Apuzzo’s own case, a natural-born citizen.”

~~~~~

My reply:

You have no historical or legal evidence that a natural born citizen is merely one who is “born into citizenship.” Just saying “born into citizenship” is not self-executing. It does not provide a means or mechanism which describes how one is “born into citizenship.” Comparing it to someone who gains citizenship after birth does not tell us how one is “born into citizenship.” Hence, the distinction is not “eminently logical.” That alone tells you that it cannot be any definition of a natural born citizen, for how is one to know what the definition is if it is based on such a vague statement. Furthermore, with such vagueness, we are opening up our Constitution to amendment by Congressional Act rather than by duly ratified constitutional amendment, for Congress can by statute decide differently every year who shall be “born into citizenship.”

On the other hand, the standard, born in a country to parents who were its citizens does provide a definite mechanism and means by which someone becomes a natural born citizen. This formulation is certain and provides for uniformity throughout the United States and world. This expression creates no doubts as to who is a natural born citizen, for all civilized nations of the world can accept it without any doubt. That is why we find it so stated by Emer de Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations (1758) (1797):

“The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see, whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”

Id. Sec. 212 Citizens and natives.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

And from there we go to Minor where we also find it so stated there by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court:

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.”

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (providing the same Vattelian definition without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law).

So, as we can see, the definition of a natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth.

MichaelN said...

Unknown said .....

".... the Court expressed agreement with other courts and held: ‘the expression ‘natural born Citizen’ is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.’ [Paige v. Obama, No. 611-8-12 WNCV]"
----------------------------

The court got it wrong!

Not all who are "born into citizenship" are Article II "natural born Citizens"; the 14th Amendment, (which the majority of SCOTUS in the Minor v Happersett case held), did not say who shall be a natural born citizen, the SCOTUS saying that resort had to be sought elsewhere other than the US Constitution.

Those who are "born into citizenship" per the 14th Amendment (which doesn't say who shall be NBC)are "citizens of the United States" which are made distinct in the USC, from NBC.

Bottom-line is that the majority of SCOTUS judiciary in the Minor case trumps the error opinion in Paige v. Obama.

The majority opinion of the SCOTUS judiciary in the Wong case also trumps the error opinion in Paige v. Obama, where Wong was held to be "born into citizenship" was not held to be a NBC and where the chief justice Gray favorably recognized the difference between two types of persons who could be "born into citizenship", one being, the child of an alien in born in the country and the other being the natural born child of a US citizen..... both deemed by the court to be "born into citizenship" but only the child of a US citizen was held to be "natural born"

Anonymous said...

Mario, the DC Civil Code of 1801 did a kind of end-run evasion and avoidance by distinguishing State and territory citizens from citizens of the United States. It thereby managed to not state that some State citizens are citizens of the United States and some United State citizens are State citizens, with those who are both being those who were not born of aliens but of Americans.

They thus avoided any appearance of overt discrimination against common law "sons of the soil", the same sort of persons that they rather hypocritically recognized as citizens of DC via the same jus soli that would get those born under it elsewhere rejected as citizens of DC. A very insular sort of policy, almost describable as xenophobic.

But you falsely characterize the code as supporting your doctrine of native-birth + citizen parentage. It's U.S. citizens are not in the least bit defined as being native-born. In fact they could be born anywhere, just like Jefferson's Virginia nationality law which recognized the Virginian citizenship of all children born anywhere to citizen fathers, or the Nat. Act of 1790, which did likewise. Or Vattel which also did likewise.
The best you can say about that code is that it was silent on the issue of native-birth and United States citizenship.
~~~~~~
The 14th Amendment of 1868 stated that "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." The question for the Supreme Court three decades later, was what determines who is subject and who is not? Are aliens subject, and thus their native-born children also subject through them? Or are they subject to their foreign government still?

This DC Code reveals the answer. They are citizens who are born and domiciled within the District. Those who are not domiciled are not citizens and not inhabitants but are "transient aliens".

Barack Obama Sr. was not domiciled in the United States because his permanent home was still in Kenya. He came to the U.S. on a 1 year student Visa. He was never what this code called "an inhabitant" or citizen, but was only a transient alien, and thus he remained subject to the government where he had his permanent domicile (Kenya), and did not fit the status of 14th Amendment national sovereign subjection that his son would have to be born under in order for citizenship to be attached in his case.
So his son was born solely under the foreign jurisdiction of his father whose domicile was also that of his son, and was not born as an American citizen.

Anonymous said...

"the [asinine lap-dog] Court expressed agreement with other [sycophantic brain-dead] courts and held: ‘the expression [natural] 'born Citizen’ is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.’

Yes!, it is eminently logical that a person born into citizenship of course is a "born citizen"! Yipee! We all agree! Now what do we agree that "natural" adds when we add it to "born citizen"???

We know for certain that it adds something of significance because the framers were hardly trifling foppists given to verbal puffery just for the heck of it.

Oh, I know! It refers to being born into citizenship by nature instead of by legal permission. Yeah, citizen parents would naturally produce natural citizen children.
Gee, why didn't everyone think of this before??? Seems like a total no-brainer.

[DC Civil Code 1801: Sec. 20. The word person includes a corporation as well as a natural person;]

Gee, whatever could be the source of a "natural person"? Oh, I know! Natural parents!

And... whatever could be the source of natural citizens? Oh, I know! Citizen parents!

"No,no, that's too complicated for people to follow, -better dumb it down or drop it altogether. (...citizen parents producing citizen children?? what will they come up with next?!)"

Anonymous said...

There has been a misunderstanding as to the nature of the subjectship of Calvin. The idea that he was naturalized at birth is true but in a sense that is different than what has been assumed.
The ancient scripts speak of naturalization by Procreation and by birthright:

"First, The King hath the Crown of England by Birthright, being naturally procreated of the Blood Royal of this Realm:

Secondly, Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by Procreation and Birthright, since the Descent of the Crown of England:..."
The reports of Sir Edward Coke Kt. In English (1727)

Just as the heir to the throne has that right via birthright and via procreation by royal blood, -meaning he is royal born as well as first-born (having the birthright to be king).
And what does it say about Calvin? The same thing!

He was born of a subject of the Crown since his father was a subject of the king of Scotland when he became king of Britain, therefore he was not alien born since his father was not an alien but was a Scottish subject, and thereby a subject of the English king as well.
So Calvin was born within the king's dominion and subject to him as well via his subject father. A subject by both blood and native-birth.
I came across a quote that stopped me cold, which said Calvin was naturalized by descent.(?) That got me thinking and reading closer than before. When I when to copy that quote, I could no longer find it anywhere.

"...yet was it resolved, That all those that were born under one natural Obedience, while the Realms were united under one Sovereign, should remain natural-born Subjects, and no Aliens;"

"under one natural obedience" means under a father who was a natural subject of the monarch. So it cannot be said that he was naturalized at birth except in the British sense which used the term to even refer to being made a natural subject by blood (procreation), as in made natural by nature, -as apposed to common law.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

The Obots maintain that the Framers would have allowed a child born in the United States to, if not to two alien parents, then at least to one citizen parent to be a natural born citizen. They also argue that the Framers got their definition of a natural born citizen from Calvin’s Case (1608) as reported by Lord Coke and the English common law. I have already demonstrated that given how the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) defined a natural born citizen under the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar, they could not have possibly relied on Calvin’s Case and the English common law for their definition of the clause. But that is not to say that the Framers did not also look to the English common law for their understanding of citizenship. Indeed, that law did contain concepts which were consistent with citizenship concepts found in the law of nations whose citizenship principles became the common law of which Minor spoke.

For example, here is what Lord Coke said about the unity of husbands and wives under English common law:

“The husband and wife are all one person in law, and the nief [bondwoman or serf (villeine)] marrying a free man is enfranchised during the coverture . . . and therefore by the common law of England the issue is free.”

Sir Edward Coke, Institutes of the Law of England.

Then we have this from Blackstone:

“By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law; that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during the marriage.”

William Blackstone, 1 Commentaries 442.

What Lord Coke and Blackstone both said is that a husband and wife were one and that they became one by the wife following the condition of the husband. Lord Coke added that the child born to them also followed their condition. This condition produced a united family unit. The same concept was used in defining a natural born citizen. The husband and wife were one, with the wife following the condition of the husband, and the child born to them following their condition. From this paradigm emerged the doctrine that children followed the condition of their fathers, for it was the fathers who created the family unity. So, from this concept we get the definition of a natural born citizen, i.e., a child born to citizen parents in the country of which they were both members. Under this definition, all was united, father and mother united by one citizenship and allegiance, and the child’s citizenship and allegiance united with that of the father and mother, which produced unity of citizenship and allegiance in the child at the moment of birth. It was only this unity of citizenship and allegiance at birth which allowed the child to be born with absolute allegiance, faith, and loyalty only to the United States and not the subject of any foreign power. In the eyes of John Jay and the other Framers, this was the birth quality which best assured that the Commander of the Military would be free during his difficult service to his nation of any foreign or monarchical influence which could jeopardize the preservation and survival of the nation and its people.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

I am not suggesting that today, a woman is not the equal of a man in matters of citizenship. In fact, we know that through the Cable Act of 1922, wives were finally able to enjoy their own citizenship independent of their husbands. But the Cable Act did not nor could it amend the meaning of an Article II natural born citizen. So what I am saying is that since under the common law that prevailed during the Founding husband and wives were one, they both had the same citizenship which produced a unified citizenship reality for their children born to them in the nation of which they were members. Hence, the Framers expected that children be born in the United States to parents who were both citizens if they were to be natural born citizens. How both of those parent are to be both citizens is another question which does not change the meaning of a natural born citizen. Both men and women are free to become citizens. The point is that they both be citizens prior to giving birth to a child in the country of their membership if their child is to be a natural born citizen.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger/h2ooflife/Adrien Nash,

Your understanding of Calvin’s Case is incorrect. That Calvin was naturalized by descent does not mean descent from his father. It means descent of the Crown of England to James IV of Scotland who became James I of England, Ireland, and Scotland.

Calvin was born in Scotland after James IV of Scotland became James I of England, Ireland, and Scotland. Calvin’s father was an antenati (born before the descent of the Crown of England to James IV) and Calvin was a postnati (born thereafter). Being a postnati made one an alien in England, for there was no connection to the English law, government, and English King. It was contended that the postnati, born out of England to alien parents, were also aliens in England. They too were not born subject to the English laws and government.

The English Parliament refused to naturalize as English subjects persons like Calvin who was born in Scotland to Scottish parents. So certain individuals decided to get the courts to naturalize him.
Since Calvin was born in the dominion and under the natural allegiance of a King who was King of not only Scotland, but also England, the court naturalized Calvin at birth and made him an English natural-born subject, even though Calvin was born in Scotland to Scottish parents and not born subject to the laws and government of England. So while the court naturalized the postnati at birth to be English natural-born subjects, the English Parliament eventually naturalized the antenati.

Vattel in The Law of Nations, at Section 214, called “Naturalisation,” recognized the English practice of naturalizing at birth persons born in the King’s dominion to alien parents. There he said: "Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalizes the children of a foreigner."

Unknown said...

Cruz was born a citizen of the us only because of usc 1401. He was also born a foreign citizen because of his alien father and birth in canada.... A citizen is not eligible obots, one must be a natural born citizen. If you are just a citizen then you can serve in congress...there are roughly 300m natural born citizens to choose from and i wouldve felt better if the democrats had actually picked one who was eligible to screw us

Anonymous said...

Mario wrote: "Your understanding of Calvin’s Case is incorrect. That Calvin was naturalized by descent does not mean descent from his father. It means descent of the Crown of England"

Your understanding of my comment is incorrect. I said I read a quote from Coke or someone who said that Calvin was naturalized by descent. It did not say by "the" descent, but by descent itself, period, meaning by the effect of descent. That is just another way of saying what Coke said:

"Secondly, Calvin the Plaintiff naturalized by Procreation and Birthright, since the Descent of the Crown of England:..."

Descent is by procreation and right of birth, so your understanding needs to be readjusted. He was made a natural subject (or naturalized) naturally, -by right of blood.

As you state, Calvin's father was not a subject of the English State but he was a subject of the person of the English King, so the court chose to do an end-run around the law and Parliament be shifting the focus of subjectship from pertaining to the nation and its laws & government, to pertaining solely to the Crown.

Thus the court by that focus could point to the father as being a subject of the King, even though not a subject of England itself. It thereby forever altered the entity to which one owed declared allegiance from being the nation as a whole to being the King personally.

You wrote: "the court naturalized Calvin at birth and made him an English natural-born subject,"

It is not accurate to say that the court did something which he had no authority to do. All it did was switch the focus and the result produced itself.
By having a father who was subject to the king, Calvin also was therefore his subject by descent, by procreation, by birthright.

"Being a postnati made one an alien in England, for there was no connection to the English law, government, and English King."

True except for the English King. Postnati were subject to him before the English were. Parliament was forced to act in order to reconcile the subjection to the Crown with the non-subjection to the laws of England.
That was kind of like the U.S. federal government having a different citizenship policy than the States. A divergence that needed uniting.

Anonymous said...

"As Bacon explained in Calvin’s Case, there were four classes of people under English law: “alien enemy;” “alien friend;” “denizen, using the word properly, (for sometimes it is confounded with a natural born subject”); and “natural born subject,” “by birth or by act of parliament.”

The term "natural born subject" is innately ambiguous and undefined as to origin, carrying only the meaning of subject status from birth, -or naturalization, not how that status was acquired; -via blood or via native-birth to foreigners.

So it would be more accurate to say that there were five classes of people, but since all born as subjects had identical rights there was no point to distinguishing the origin of those rights at or before birth.

So parentage, while given verbal recognition as the true origin of natural subjection, took a back seat to place of birth in everyday life, -as it has continued to do in America. If someone were to point to an individual and exclaim: "He is a natural born subject!", that would not tell one anything about his nationality background; whether he as born of native Englishmen or born of immigrant foreigners.

That was a rather significant distinction, sociologically and culturally, but not legally, and so it came to be ignored as irrelevant, until the office of President of the United States was created. Then it mattered a lot. But those days are gone... for now. One day they may be recognized again, but not in any foreseeable future.

Unknown said...

h2ooflife said...

So it would be more accurate to say that there were five classes of people, but since all born as subjects had identical rights there was no point to distinguishing the origin of those rights at or before birth.


All born as subjects did not have identical rights.

The children of aliens, born in the realm, called denizens or natural born subjects, did not have the same rights as actual natural born subjects who were born in the realm of actual subject parents.


This is from
CLIVE PARRY

BRITISH NATIONALITY LAW

AND THE HISTORY

OF NATURALISATION:

"There is a curious passage in Hale’s Treatise Concerning the Customs concerning aliens’ customs in the 17th century. He says « If an alien come into England and have issue here, he is a natural-born subject. Yet (I know not by what law) such a natural-born subject hath been decreed heretofore to pay aliens’ duties... Possibly it may be from a reason of state, because he is as in the next degree to an alien, and the relation so near, that he is presumed more to favour them than the English ». Hargrave, Tracts, vol. I (1787) 210. Cf. the similar tendency to treat the native members of the foreign Protestant congregations as aliens, supra, note 148. The statute 12 & 14 Car. 2, c. 11 furthered the policy by disabling infant children of aliens from trade." (Parry -British Nationality Law, footnote 327).
http://www.uniset.ca/naty/parry.htm

There are English statutes that require the children of aliens to pay alien's duties instead of the duties required from natural born subjects, and statutes that forbade the children of aliens to be apprentices in certain trades. They were denied a lot of the rights of natural born subjects.

MichaelN said...

The English model for acceptance as a born subject, commonly referred to as a "natural born subject" was based on at least a low degree of parental allegiance, when the child was native-born.

There was no provision in the English law for eligibility of a subject of any kind to be elected by fellow subjects to the office of president of a republic.

The US, via the SCOTUS in the Wong case, relied on the English model of native-birth and a low degree of parental allegiance to qualify a native-born as a "citizen of the United States.

The eligibility criteria for POTUS, is qualification for a person who is ALREADY a "citizen of the United States" to be electable for the office of POTUS.

The only similarity between an English "natural born subject" and a "citizen of the United States" who qualifies as an Article II "natural born Citizen", is the us of two words, i.e. "natural born".

The use of the words or term "natural born" in the English model was merely a qualifier for a subject, and for that subject to be eligible for property inheritance and a few other civil posts, etc.

The status of an English "natural born subject" could be achieved via a low degree of parental allegiance in the case of a native-born.

In the US, the same low degree of parental allegiance, in the case of a native-born, makes one a born "citizen of the United States".

Ergo; an English "natural born subject" via parental local allegiance is the equivalent to a US born 14th Amendment "citizen of the United States".

The use of the words or term "natural born" in the US model was a qualifier for one who was already a citizen who already was eligible for property inheritance and other rights and privileges, to be electable for president of a republic and one with the highest possible allegiance to the US.

Like chalk and cheese, not the same meaning and was never intended to have the same meaning and never will have.

Anonymous said...

United States Congress, “An act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization” 1790).

[requirements emphasized]
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person,(1) who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years,(2) may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States (3) wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least (4),

-and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character,(5) and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States,(6) which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon(7); and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States.
Seven conditions must be met, and none of them involve the exercise of sovereign power by Congress. Congress is not even a part of the picture after having written the rule that must be adopted by the States as their law and practice when they would see fit to naturalized a foreign resident.

Congress had no authority over the regular practice of domestic naturalization, nor over any American citizen and his citizen children.
Mario must resort to phrase distortion to claim that American children not born within U.S. borders are aliens and not natural born citizens, and yet ignore the fact that the very same words mandate that the children of naturalized men be understood to be U.S. citizens following his naturalization.

That means, by his claim, that they are not "real" U.S. citizens but only fictional citizens, yet having all of the rights of citizens.
But no such class as fictional citizens exists, nor a fictional natural born citizen class either.
"What a wicked web we weave when first we practice to deceive."

Anonymous said...

MichaelN wrote quite accurately: Ergo; an English "natural born subject" via parental local allegiance is the equivalent to a US born 14th Amendment "citizen of the United States".

Let's make it even clearer from a 1st century perspective: both cases involve foreign immigrants.
Both are subject to the national authority.
Both must obey all orders of the national government.
Both must not be disloyal to the nation.
Both can be tried for treason. Both can be conscripted into the military if of qualifying age and gender.
Both must pay all taxes assigned to citizens and subjects.
Both obtain citizenship at birth because they are anticipated to grow up to be normal members of the nation.
Neither are natural members because they were born of aliens.

Britain had seven kinds of inhabitants: slaves, indentured servants, foreign ministers, aliens, aliens made Denizens by the King, alien-born children made subjects by native-birth, and natural native subjects and their children. Both of the latter two groups were known as natural-born subjects.

The United States had no Denizens but did have Native Americans, transient visitors, and eventually natural born citizens eligible to be President.
Unlike in Britain, children of aliens born in States and considered citizens were not known by those who engaged in actual thinking as natural born citizens but simply citizens or native-born citizens.
The word "natural" was not rightfully attached to them except in the imagination of those who wanted it to. They included most or all of the immigrant community, and they had voting power after naturalization.
They despised the fact that all of their children born before taking the naturalization oath were banned for life from ever being eligible to serve as President.

After all, it was not their fault that their father was not yet a citizen when they were born, but they were disenfranchized from an almost universal right because of it.
And THAT was why the wording of the 1790 Nat. Act had to be changed. The voters who resented its implication that only citizen fathers could produce children eligible to be President viewed such a federal position as very politically incorrect and in need of not being stated openly, since it killed the dreams of tens of thousands of patriotic American sons.

Anonymous said...

Wilted Rose said...
All born as subjects did not have identical rights.

Rose, you need to take the factor of Time into account, which your statement failed to do. The evolution of British nationality law did not end in the 1600s, which you should be well aware of.

I have no reason to doubt that they were made equal in all respects by the time that the colonist declared independence, which was the era that defined the meaning of natural-born subject as it related to the nomenclature in America.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Adrien Nash,

“The power, granted to Congress by the Constitution, ‘to establish an uniform rule of naturalization’ was long ago adjudged by this court to be vested exclusively in Congress. Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheat. 259 (1817). Did you see that Mr. Nash, the U.S. Supreme Court in 1817 said that the power was “exclusive.” That means that your position that the states continued to naturalize persons and that Congress had no such power is pure crank.

“But the provision concerning foreign-born children, being expressly limited to the children of persons who then were or had been citizens, clearly did not include foreign-born children of any person who became a citizen since its enactment. 2 Kent.Com. 52, 53; Binney on Alienigenae 20, 25; 2 Amer.Law Reg. 203, 205. Mr. Binney's paper, as he states in his preface, was printed by him in the hope that Congress might supply this defect in our law.”

Wong Kim Ark. Hence, children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents who acquired that status after 1802 were aliens. Yet you tell us that they are natural born citizens.

“This sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is declaratory of existing rights and affirmative of existing law as to each of the qualifications therein expressed -- "born in the United States," "naturalized in the United States," and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" -- in short, as to everything relating to the acquisition of citizenship by facts occurring within the limits of the United States. But it has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents, and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.”

Wong Kim Ark. So the U.S. Supreme Court told us that children born out of the United States needed a naturalization act of Congress to be made citizen of the United States. If they need such an act, they surely cannot be natural born citizen.

Too bad for Bryan Gene Olson that it does not look good for Senator Ted Cruz, who was born out of the United States. Wong Kim Ark, the very case that he relies upon although erroneously to make Obama a natural born citizen, tells us that Cruz is no natural born citizen.

ajtelles said...

John Jay vs. 14Th Amendment
or
Tug-of-War between 1787 and 1868

Mario, here's a bit of trivia, but it portends that your John Jay inspired Article II "natural born Citizen" POTUS eligibility tutorials are still needed after 6 years

I was curious about how many times John Jay, the author of "natural born Citizen" in 1787, was mentioned in various online articles related to the meaning of "natural born Citizen" and the citizenship status of Sen. Ted Cruz, and how many times the 1868 Fourteenth/14th Amendment was mentioned, so I did a word search on CNN.com (two 2013 articles), WND.com (one 2012 article), YouGov.com (one 2014 article), and HotAir.com (one 2014 article).

TOTAL
9,868 total comments
John Jay = 18 = .001824%
Fourteenth/14th Amendment = 787 = 0.7975%

1-YouGov.com poll -
May 22, 2014 - Kathy Frankovic
>> http://today.yougov.com/news/2014/05/22/who-natural-born-citizen/

Who is a natural born citizen? -
1,336 comments
John Jay = 3
Fourteenth/14th Amendment = 109

2-CNN.com #1 -
August 14, 2013 - By Z. Byron Wolf
>> http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/13/politics/natural-born-president/index.html

Can Ted Cruz run for president?
12,167 comments (5,000 +/- )
John Jay = 2
Fourteenth/14th Amendment = 43

3-CNN.com #2 -
August 13, 2013 – Gabriel "Jack" Chin – Special to CNN
>> http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/13/opinion/chin-cruz-president/index.html

Ted Cruz can be president, probably
700 comments
John Jay = 0
Fourteenth/14th Amendment = 5

4-HotAir.com –
May 27, 2014 - Allahpundit
>> http://hotair.com/archives/2014/05/27/poll-majority-says-child-born-outside-u-s-to-one-american-citizen-parent-isnt-a-natural-born-citizen/

Poll: Majority says child born outside U.S. to one American-citizen parent isn’t a “natural born” citizen

276 comments
John Jay = 0
Fourteen/14th Amendment = 11

5-WND.com – 2,556 comments
July 13, 2012 - Bob Unruh
>> http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/supremes-asked-who-is-natural-born-citizen/

Supremes asked: Who is 'natural born citizen?'
2,556 comments -
John Jay = 24 (- 12 from one commenter) = 13
Fourteenth/14th Amendment = 124

dj anderson - 2 years ago
>> "If someone were in your home illegally,
and had a baby in your house,
would that baby then be a member of your family?"


This is an example of the type of simple "original genesis – original intent" questions that I like to ask about original birther John Jay's original genesis intent.

Did John Jay imply birth ONLY inside the U.S. OR birth ALSO outside the U.S.?
Did John Jay imply birth to ONLY two (2) U.S. citizen parents OR birth to ALSO one (1) U.S. citizen parent?

ajtelles said...

John Jay vs. 14Th Amendment
or
Tug-of-War between 1787 and 1868

2/

To Obama-birthers, aka 1868 original intent birthers, 1787 and John Jay are an original genesis and original intent no-go-to date and person, while 1868 and the 14th Amendment are the go-to "one-U.S.-citizen-parent" original intent pot 'o gold at the end of the rainbow.

To John Jay birthers, aka 1787 original intent birthers, 1787 and John Jay are the "two-U.S.-citizen-parents" original genesis go-to starting date, the gold mine source of "natural born Citizen" original genesis and original intent insight, while 1868 and the 14th Amendment is simply declaratory about "citizen" without amending "natural born Citizen" in Article II.

John Jay and his 1700s common law insight about national security is the light of day about original genesis and original intent that reveals the fallacy of the Obama-birthers' 2000s theory, their 2000s mythology of "one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is good 'nuf.

Why?

Because the fallacy of ONLY one U.S. citizen parent is contrary to the natural law that ONLY two can generate one. ONLY two singular U.S. citizen parents can produce a singular U.S. citizen child.

The one-is-good-'nuf birthers prefer the 1868 14th Amendment while the two-is-a-must birthers prefer the 1787 Article II. The Obama-birthers prefer the original genesis implication of one U.S. citizen parent of the 14th Amendment over the original genesis implications of two U.S. citizen parents of Article II.

John Jay's explicit national security stated reason for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" is STILL relevant in 2000s America, as the July 2014 children at the border debacle reveals. Obama is either incompetent or is deliberately creating a "Rules for Radicals" issue for "transform America" political gain.

It will take time to turn the information and education ship around, but the goal is for future commenters to mention John Jay and original genesis intent 109 times and to mention the 14th amendment original genesis intent 3 times. Kevin/aka S..., aka PhD mathematician, was starting to raise 14th amendment original intent trial-baloon terminology, but it didn't go anywhere because the 14th Amendment is declaratory, it did not amend Article II.

In a sense, the YouGov.com poll tug-of-war between yiu, Mario, and other original intent birthers vs. Dr. Conspiracy and other Obama-birthers was really a tug-of-war between 1787 John Jay, THE ORIGINAL genesis birther, and 2014 John Jay birthers pulling for 1787 and Article II, and the 2014 Obama-birthers pulling for 1868 and the 14th Amendment.

In simple terms, the "natural born Citizen" debate is a tug-of-war between John Jay and the 1787 Article II words "natural born Citizen" with the original genesis meaning of "two-U.S.-citizen-parents" is a higher hurdle must, and the 1868 14th Amendment word "citizen" and "one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is lower hurdle good 'nuf for a child to be eligible to be POTUS.

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

We have this gem from Obot water carrier, Unknown/NotLinda/brygenon/Bryan Gene Olson, at Café Con Leche Republicans:

I wrote:

“Furthermore, with such vagueness, we are opening up our Constitution to amendment by Congressional Act rather than by duly ratified constitutional amendment, for Congress can by statute decide differently every year who shall be ‘born into citizenship.’”

Mr. Olson responds:

“Congress can also change the law on naturalization after birth. Does that amend the Constitutional meaning of “seven years a citizen”, or “nine years a citizen”? Apuzzo makes no sense.”

~~~~~

What an asinine point. The Constitution gives to Congress the exclusive power to make citizens through its naturalization powers. That power does not include the power to make natural born citizens. A citizen of seven or nine years is clearly a naturalized citizen. Hence, under the Constitution, Congress can make citizens who then, along with natural born citizens, can go on to become members of Congress. But since Congress does not have power to make natural born citizens, it cannot change who shall be natural born citizens through its statutes. Additionally, by making citizens, Congress is actually regulating who shall be members of itself, which it can constitutionally do provided its choice is not contrary to what the Constitution prescribes.

Anonymous said...

“The power, granted to Congress by the Constitution, ‘to establish an uniform rule of naturalization’ was long ago adjudged by this court to be vested exclusively in Congress. Chirac v. Chirac,"

"the U.S. Supreme Court in 1817 said that the power was “exclusive.” That means that your position that the states continued to naturalize persons and that Congress had no such power is pure crank."

Mario, your bias blindness prevents you from comprehending your own quotes (unless you are deliberately deceitful).

The exclusive power was not the power that you claim (to make citizens) but merely the authority that you quoted: to establish a nation-wide uniform rule or pattern for the States to adopt as their law governing the naturalization of their foreign immigrants.

Congress was also given authority to establish uniform nation-wide bankruptcy law, as seen in the same sentence.

Did that mean that the Congress administered bankruptcy cases?
I rest my case.

Congress administered nothing and created no citizens by any constitutional authority. New citizens were created, as I've already shared, via the oath of naturalization in accordance with the seven requirements that you naturally failed to address.

Becoming an American was achieved via a process, and Congress had no part in that process once its template was "established".
The only parties involved were the applicant and the magistrate of the Court of Record who administered the oath and recorded it after being satisfied as to the man's eligibility and suitability.

And in almost all cases, the common law court of record was a State court, since in the beginning there was no federal court system.
So you see, you need a total revision of your concept of congressional authority. The framers did NOT make Congress into a reflection of the unlimited power of Parliament. Its powers were fairly specific and enumerated, and did not include any authority that usurped the retained authority of the State governments over the naturalization process beyond making writing a uniform pattern they were to follow.

Also, children of naturalized men were not made citizens by Congress either. All it did was direct that they be recognized as the same as what their family head had become via application of partus sequitur patrem.
Your own understanding understands that. Their naturalization was natural, not statutory. What was statutory was the mandate that naturalization by procreation or blood relationship be recognized.

Anonymous said...

"Mr. Binney's paper, as he states in his preface, was printed by him in the hope that Congress might supply this defect in our law.”

"Hence, children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents who acquired that status after 1802 were aliens."

The only defect was in Binney's nerdy technocratic legalese thinking. No one on Earth ever has nor ever will show any hint that it was the express intent of the 1802 Congress to unconstitutionally disenfranchise for life natural born American children from their unalienable, inviolable, Natural Law "Right of Blood" membership in the nation into which they were born.

Please, oh devotee of the all-wise, infallible Binney, show us the quotes from 1802 that support his bone-headed idea.
There ARE NONE!
He invented the whole "problem" because of an astute focusing ability regarding the technical meaning derived from sentence structure and word elements.

What he recognized was that there was a flaw in the legalese of the act which had nothing whatsoever to do with its intent, and if he had not made an issue of it, no one else in the world would have ever had a single thought along the lines of what he read into the meaning of the deficiency of the words of the act.

I've previously informed you about the history of the Bancroft treaties, and how everyone in government presumed that Congress had authority over naturalized citizens which it was not given and which was thus unconstitutional.
I told you how the Supreme Court amputated that limb of power after 80 years of the government using it, rebuking the whole Congress & executive branch for a multi-generational violation of the constitutional rights of American citizens who had been born as foreigners.

The rebuke by the court began with Afroim v. Rusk when they finally reaffirmed fundamental American principles of equality, and informed Congress that it was not the all-powerful body that Parliament is.

ajtelles said...

1787 John Jay and TWO v. 1868 14Th Amendment and ONE
or
Tug-of-War
or
Pearls

Mario, Bryan's finger-wag that you posted on July 15, 2014 at 1:01 AM is an example of the tug-of-war between 1787 Article II John Jay birthers on one side, and 1868 14th Amendment Obama-birthers on the other side.

>> "Mr. Olson responds:
>> “Congress can also change the law on naturalization after birth.
Does that amend the Constitutional meaning of “seven years a citizen”, or “nine years a citizen”?
Apuzzo makes no sense.”


Obscurantists like Bryan pull you toward 1868 and naturalization statutes and away from John Jay's gold mine of original intent, and you are expected to jump at their trivial comments. You respond with common sense and pull them back to 1878 original genesis original intent.

>> "A citizen of seven or nine years is clearly a naturalized citizen."

Amending Article I or Article II was not the purpose of the 14th Amendment. The Article II original intent was not denied by the 14th Amendment authors in the 39th Congress such as Rep. John Bingham and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lyman Trumbull.

Mario, it does not matter how accurate you are about the historical record, 1787 and John Jay do not help the "one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is good 'nuf birthers because they can't handle the truth about 1787 Article II and the implicit "two-U.S.-citizen-parents".

John Jay and TWO
v.
14Th Amendment and ONE

"birth-ONLY-inside-the-U.S.-ONLY-to-two-U.S.-citizen-parents"
vs.
"birth-inside-OR-outside-the-U.S.-to-two OR-one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is good 'nuf.

Pearls...

"Do not give that which is holy to the dogs, nor throw your pearls before the pigs, that they not trample them with their feet, and turning they charge you."

The "pearls before pigs" and "casting pearls" are from Matthew 7:6 in the sermon on the mountain (Mt. 5:1 – 7:29). Jesus was implying that what is valuable should not be offered to those who will reject that what is offered has value, and that they will try to diminish and destroy what is offered and the one offering the thing of value.

Mario, the war against John Jay's 1787 original genesis meaning implied when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" and it's perpetual original intent is won, but the obscurantists who promote the 2000s theory that "one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is implicit in the 1868 14th Amendment can't handle the truth that it is NOT implicit in the 1787 Article II. The simply attack those who are exposing the pot 'o fools gold at the end of the "one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is good 'nuf rainbow that judges are also protecting without addressing the merits.

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"

Anonymous said...

"But it has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents, and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.”

What pure garbage, and transparently so. It is a huge non sequitur to baselessly claim that by sticking to the issue of non-citizens within the U.S., that the 14th Amendment somehow gives it imprimatur to Congress to exercise a "power" that it never had and never exercised.

It is 1000% blind, bone-headed thinking to presume that the mention of foreign-born American children was an exercise of sovereign power rather than merely a declaration of pre-existing reality as an affirmation of the natural law and natural rights naturally possessed by all American men.

~PARTUS SEQUITUR PATREM!

"Wong Kim Ark. So the U.S. Supreme Court told us that children born out of the United States needed a naturalization act of Congress to be made citizen of the United States."
Show us a quote that claims that!
It is either true or false depending on whether or not the father was an alien.
If he was an American, then anyone to believes and claims that that statement is true is a traitor to American values, American principles, and American rights.

No power on Earth could tell a sovereign American man that his issue, his progeny, his flesh is an alien. That is a treasonous concept.
And it was demonstrated by the Nat. Act of 1855 which declared the foreign bride of an American citizen to be an American citizen also.
If a stranger (no blood connection) was viewed as being naturally what her "head" was, then how much more would have every man in America viewed his own flesh & blood as being born with his American citizenship?

Any contrary thought is totally preposterous and antithetical to how humans, and especially Americans, are wired.
Try telling an Israeli that his son is not Jewish because he was not born in Israel.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Adrein Nash,

I have told you time and time again that your personal unfounded beliefs do not mean anything. End of story.

ajtelles said...

End of story—SWAT—It's Outa Here...

Mario, I noticed that you didn't take Adrien's 14th Amendment bait, as well as his personal opinion about whatever.

Also, your brief response hit it out of the park, and in my mind's eye I saw Babe Ruth, the King of Swat, point to center field, swing, and it's gone. Your "king of swat" response is all that's needed to deal with such nonsense as Adrien and Bryan and Kevin and Kevin and Dun...(spelling?) and Bob Q and "one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is good 'nuf birthers promote.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario, maybe you could do something educational about the entire U.S. Constitution as you have done with Article II, starting with the Preamble, and each day posting one line with your comment, or one clause with comment, and relating the daily line comment if possible to English common law and 1787 American common law and naturalization acts and amendments, and etc.

Maybe the "birth-inside-OR-outside-the-U.S.-to-one-OR-two-U.S.-citizen-parents" is good 'nuf birthers will learn something about John Jay and 1787 original genesis and original intent about "natural born Citizen" that was designed to be perpetual, "birth-ONLY-inside-the-U.S.-to-ONLY-two-U.S.-citizen-parents."


Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"

MichaelN said...

Mario Appuzo said "Wong Kim Ark. So the U.S. Supreme Court told us that children born out of the United States needed a naturalization act of Congress to be made citizen of the United States."

h20oflife said....
"Show us a quote that claims that!
It is either true or false depending on whether or not the father was an alien.
If he was an American, then anyone to believes and claims that that statement is true is a traitor to American values, American principles, and American rights."
----------------

For starters, from the Wong Kim Ark opinion, we have this....

"....is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship."

then from the same SCOTUS opinion, we have this ....

"The statute of 5 Edw. III recites the existence of doubts as to the right of foreign-born children to inherit in England; and, while it is declaratory of the rights of children of the King, and is retrospective as to the persons specifically named, yet, as to all others, it is, in terms, merely prospective, applying to those only "who shall be born henceforth." Mr. Binney, in his paper above cited, after a critical examination of the statute and of the early English cases, concluded:

There is nothing in the statute which would justify the conclusion that it is declaratory of the common law in any but a single particular, namely in regard to the children of the King; nor has it at any time been judicially held to be so. . . . The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother, father or mother, must be discarded. There is not, and never was, any such common law principle."

and this from the same opinion (also note the distinction made for "American parents")...

"It thus clearly appears that, during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad, during that period, of American parents who had not become citizens of the United States before the act of 1802, and that the act of 1855, like every other act of Congress upon the subject, has, by express proviso, restricted the right of citizenship, thereby conferred upon foreign-born children of American citizens, to those children themselves, unless they became residents of the United States."

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I just posted this at Cafe Con Leche Republicans. The comment responds to Unknown/NotLinda/brygenon/Byron Gene Olson:

You provide this quote to prove your belief that Congress under it naturalization powers has the power to make natural born citizens out of the alien born upon whom it acts with those very same powers.

“Under the power to adopt a uniform system of naturalization Congress, as early as 1790, provided [...] that the children of citizens of the United States that might be born beyond the sea, or out of the limits of the United States, should be considered as natural-born citizens. These provisions thus enacted have, in substance, been retained in all the naturalization laws adopted since.” Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) at 168.
~~~~~

You theory is really silly for basically it says that naturalized citizens from the moment of birth under a naturalization statute are natural born citizens under the Constitution. I thought by now you would have seen the plainly printed words which are "natural born citizen," not "naturalized citizen." Further, you want us to think that such a theory prevailed in the minds of the Framers when they wrote the Constitution in 1787 when there were no naturalization Acts of Congress yet passed until 1790. You want us to believe that the Framers did not know what a natural born citizen was and so just left it up to Congress to figure out in the future. What is funny is that if those children were natural born citizens then why would they need Congress to make them citizens with a naturalization act? Lastly, yes, as Minor said, "in substance" the Acts were similar. Children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen children were citizens under all the acts except for that of 1802.

You have been trying for years to win even one point on my blog. You have failed there and you are now failing here.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Here is more from Cafe Con Leche Republicans from me to Bryan Olson:

You said:

"One problem here is that, as I noted in the comment to which Mr. Apuzzo responds, he rails against the theory most constitutional scholars hold without grasping what it says. “Natural-born citizen” means citizen from birth."

~~~~~

You have just got to love this one. Here is what it looks like:

All natural born citizens are born citizens.

Obama/Cruz are born citizens.

Therefore Obama/Cruz are natural born citizens.

OR

All poodles are dogs.

Bubbles is a dog.

Therefore, Bubbles is a poodle.

Poor Bryan/NotLinda. Just all mixed up.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Again at Cafe Con Leche Republicans, Apuzzo v. Bryan Gene Olson:

You said:

Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
“A citizen of seven or nine years is clearly a naturalized citizen.”

That’s just nuts, as others have pointed out. See, for counter-example, a native ten-year-old.

~~~~~

Now you are really outdoing yourself with this one. I never saw a "native ten-year old" member of Congress. Maybe you can point one out for me.

ajtelles said...

Implication vs. Implication
or
What did John Jay Mean?

Mario, here are some simple questions for Bryan and "one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is good 'nuf birthers.

>> Poor Bryan/NotLinda. Just all mixed up.
>> July 16, 2014 at 8:04 AM

>> Here is more from Cafe Con Leche Republicans from me to Bryan Olson:

>> You said:

>> "One problem here is that, as I noted in the comment to which Mr. Apuzzo responds,
>> he rails against the theory most constitutional scholars hold without grasping what it says.
>> “Natural-born citizen” means citizen from birth."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

It is obvious that Bryan and other Obama-birthers at Cafe Con Leche Republications are not clear thinkers, because according to the implicit intent of Bryan's 2000s theory, the 1787 John Jay words "natural born Citizen" meant the 2000s "citizen from birth" and vice versa, and the in 1787 John Jay would have agreed with the 2000s theory of the "one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is good 'nuf birthers.

Are the promoters of the Obama-birther's 2000s theory, the proposition that "one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is good 'nuf, are they clear about the implications of their 2000s theory, their 2000s mythology, as indicated by the following questions?

Before the first naturalization act was passed in 1790, did John Jay mean to imply in 1787 that the 2000s theory of "citizen from birth" meant birth inside OR outside the U.S., to one OR two U.S. citizen parents?

Q -
Before the first naturalization act was passed in 1790, did John Jay mean to imply in 1787 that
1-"citizen from birth" meant birth ONLY inside the U.S.?
A = YES.
2-"citizen from birth" meant birth ALSO outside the U.S.?
A = NO.
3-"citizen from birth" meant birth to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent?
A = NO.
4-"citizen from birth" meant birth to ALSO one U.S. citizen parent?
A = NO.

Q -
Before the first naturalization act was passed in 1790, did John Jay mean to imply that the "citizen from birth" child would be a U.S. "natural born Citizen" or an alien?
A -
ONLY a citizen.

Conclusion:

John Jay meant ONLY birth inside the U.S. and ONLY birth to two U.S. citizen parents.

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"

Anonymous said...

MichaelN responded: "For starters, from the Wong Kim Ark opinion, we have this....

"....is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship."
~~~~~~~~
You need to parse those words carefully. A "nation" is not a government, nor a group of elites holding power by election. A nation is first and foremost the body of people that constitute a country that develops a formal, established government.

A nation's people have an inherent right to choose the conditions for admitting outsiders into their ranks. They do not have a right to choose who among themselves will be deemed to be outsiders since by definition, they all are insiders.
The authority to naturalize outsiders is the authority to bestow the gift of membership to foreigners. Foreigners are those born of foreigners. Those born of insiders, of members, of fellow citizens, are NOT foreigners but are Americans.

No one has a right to tell them that they are aliens, otherwise the concept of unalienable, inviolable rights is out the window.

"the children of the King;... The notion that there is any common law principle to naturalize the children born in foreign countries, of native-born American father and mother...must be discarded."

Being born of foreigners makes one foreign, -not being born across U.S. borders.
Natural American children are not American by any law but are so by nature, -by Natural Law, just as they are members of their own family by Natural Law. From family on up to nation, it is the same everlasting principle of life.

All children born of citizens are the American "children of the King". We are not subject to common law because we, like royal children of the sovereign, supersede it.

We are the American sovereigns, similar to those who were "Blood royal" by birth, "naturalized" by "Procreation & Birthright", and royal heirs by birthright.
We are American heirs via naturalization by nature, meaning by "Procreation & Birthright".

The "law" means nothing to us as it does to outsiders who need our permission to join us. We are the ones who make the laws about who we admit into our nation and our body politic.
We don't make laws in order to admit ourselves and our own flesh. We are the creators; the laws are our creation.
Anyone who disagrees with that is a traitor to American values.

Carlyle said...

ANNIVERSARY

Coming up on one year. Are you planning on surprising us with a new lead story?

GRIN

Anonymous said...

In Wong, Gray blathered thusly:

"It thus clearly appears that, during the half century intervening between 1802 and 1855, there was no legislation whatever for the citizenship of children born abroad, during that period, of American parents who had not become citizens of the United States before the act of 1802,"

Gray was an idiot who understood zilch about natural citizenship. He was wrong about the real-world reality of the 1802 Act. The Justice Department, charged with interpreting and administering Congressional Acts, had no impression that the intent of Congress was to violate the natural citizenship rights of American men and their children based on a criterion that had no place in law or reason, nor constitutional authority.

Congress had no authority over the citizenship of Americans, only over the rule for naturalizing those born of foreigners.

Just as Congress did not recognize as U.S. citizens the children that foreigners gave birth to within U.S. borders, so also, Americans, as aliens abroad, also gave birth to aliens, -aliens to foreign nations but natural American citizens to Congress.

Whether American or Foreign, it did not matter to Congress what a man's nationality was when it came to determining his child's nationality. It was the same as his. PARTUS SEQUITUR PATREM. Foreigners gave birth to foreigners in America; Americans gave birth to Americans in foreign lands.
SAME PRINCIPLE! Natural Law. NATURAL MEMBERSHIP by blood right.

"and that the act of 1855,...restricted the right of citizenship thereby conferred upon foreign-born children of American citizens, to those children themselves, unless they became residents of the United States."

That means that their "RIGHT" of citizenship was not passed by descent to their also foreign-born children if they, the parents, never lived as Americans in America. The foreign-born children of foreign-born citizens with no experience of their own (foreign to them) country were foreigners, -just as British law had determined much earlier.

Carlyle said...

WOW - did you all see this?

http://www.wnd.com/2014/07/impeach-obama-presidency-likely-illegal/

Highest visibility yet for a detailed description?

WND, not exactly Major Network Nightly News, but still something!!

Carlyle said...

Suggested Topic for New Lead Article

"Ted Cruz is NOT Eligible for POTUS".

1. Lay out your correct definition of NBC.

2. Name your major sources/precedents and refer to other articles and comments as necessary.

3. Summarize why the NBC definition IS and MUST BE restrictive. Otherwise we could end up with some sort of Socialist, Muslim, Foreign Agent, Domestic Enemy. Oh, wait - - -

Not only would it broaden the discussion, but would get the lunatic OBOTs off you b-tt for being "racist" or having "obama derangement syndrome".

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of III

Here is my response to Slartibartfast at Café Con Leche Republicans:

He said:

“I know that you want to conflate President Obama’s eligibility with that of Rafael Cruz, but the fact is that they are natural born citizens by different reasoning. By combining the two cases, you dishonestly attempt to discredit our argument as insufficient, while, in fact, President Obama’s eligibility is beyond dispute and, although a non-frivolous argument can be made that Rafael is not natural born, it is almost certainly a loser as well.”

~~~~~

Assuring that the nation not only survives but is preserved as conceived is a matter of allegiance to that cause. Under our Constitution, the President, who is also the Commander in Chief of the Military, given the singular civil and military powers given, plays a critical role in that survival and preservation.
An Article II natural born citizen is a child born or reputed born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Minor v. Happersett (1875) (paraphrasing Emer de Vattel, Section 212, The Law of Nations (1758) (1797)). One satisfying this definition and thereby cutting off any claims to one’s allegiance and citizenship from any foreign power (both jus sanguins or citizenship and allegiance inherited from one’s parents and jus soli or citizenship and allegiance acquired from one’s place of birth) is born in allegiance only to the United States and not subject to any foreign power. This birth circumstance is what the Framers required of future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military.

De facto President, Barack Obama, fails this allegiance test for one reason and Senator Ted Cruz for another. Assuming that Obama was born in the United States, he was born to a U.S. citizen mother and a British/Kenyan father. Hence, he was born in allegiance to a foreign power, that power being Great Britain and Kenya. Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and Cuban father. Hence, he was born in allegiance to two foreign powers, those powers being Canada and Cuba. Because of their birth circumstances, which they cannot change after birth, neither Obama nor Cruz is a natural born citizen.

He said:

“You imply that changing the definition of ‘natural born citizen’ (specifically by adding to it) is an unConstitutional over-reach by Congress, yet the Congress which clearly had the very best understanding of the Framer’s intent (because it included many of the Framers) believed that it did, in fact, have the power to add citizenship by descent (which we know was not incorporated in the law under the Constitution as originally ratified*) to the jus soli principle that was continuously in effect since the founding of the colonies.

~~~~~

Congress can only constitutionally exercise that power which the Constitution gives to it either expressly or by implication. In matters of citizenship, the only power that the Constitution gives to Congress is the power to make uniform the laws of naturalization. This power does not include the power to make one a natural born citizen, for the power to naturalize by definition does not and cannot include making one a natural born citizen.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of III

This does not mean that Congress cannot through naturalization extend to someone the same privileges and immunities enjoyed by natural born citizens. But again, what it gives is limited by what the Constitution demands. So, Congress can give to naturalized citizens the same privileges and immunities enjoyed by natural born citizens. But because only a natural born citizen is eligible to be President, Congress cannot make a naturalized citizen eligible to be President. Hence, the First Congress said in the Naturalization Act of 1790 that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents “shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Clearly, there had to exist natural born citizens who took on that national character by other means (born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents) in order for these foreign-born children to be considered as them. But because these foreign-born children were naturalize by an Act of Congress which made them naturalized, these persons were not natural born citizens and Congress could not extend to them the privilege of being eligible to be President. The Third Congress, with the lead of Representative James Madison, and with the approval of President George Washington, recognized this limitation in Congress’s power and so simply repealed the 1790 Act and replaced it with the Naturalization Act of 1795 which provided, among other things, that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” Additionally, had Congress not amended its naturalization legislation, it could have been struck down as the Court struck down Congress’s judicial legislation in Marbury v. Madison (1803). Finally, even if Congress has the power to make anyone a natural born citizen, which it does not, it has never again provide in any of its naturalization Acts that anyone it may naturalize under those Acts is a natural born citizen. So, Cruz, born long after the repeal of the Act of 1790, cannot look to any Act of Congress for help in making him a natural born citizen.

He said:

“As your nemesis Bryan has repeatedly pointed out, the unanimous SCOTUS in Minor believed that later naturalization acts carried the same weight even if they lacked the specific words of the First Congress in the 1790 act.”

~~~~~

This is a silly argument. If what Bryan Gene Olson (a/k/a Unknown/NotLinda/brygenon) says is correct, then we can simply conclude that the Framers engaged in an empty exercise when in Article II they distinguished between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States.” We know by Marbury v. Madison that the Framers did not just put words into the Constitution for those words not to have specific meaning. And the argument grows in absurdity when we consider that Congress took its precious and limited resources to repeal the Naturalization Act of 1790 which said “shall be considered as a natural born citizen” and replaced it with the Naturalization Act of 1795 which then said “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” So, Mr. Olson wants us to believe that what Congress did with surgical precision means nothing because even after it believed it had repealed an act and used different language to describe what type of citizens those persons were, that subsequent language meant the same as the language it repealed. Mr. Olson must not be feeling well of late.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of III

He said:

“This is a strong basis for Rafael’s eligibility (which is further supported by the Senate resolution affirming John McCain’s eligibility—another case where you try to misrepresent a sufficient condition as a definition, I might add), but completely irrelevant as far as President Obama is concerned.”

~~~~~

I have explained over the years that John McCain is a natural born citizen even though he was born in Panama because he was born to U.S. citizen parents who were serving the national defense of the U.S. The same cannot be said for Cruz’s parents. From the Wong decision, quoting Chancellor Kent:

"If a portion of the country be taken and held by conquest in war, the conqueror acquires the rights of the conquered as to its dominion and government, and children born in the armies of a State, while [p665] abroad and occupying a foreign country, are deemed to be born in the allegiance of the sovereign to whom the army belongs. It is equally the doctrine of the English common law that, during such hostile occupation of a territory, and the parents be adhering to the enemy as subjects de facto, their children, born under such a temporary dominion, are not born under the ligeance of the conquered."

See also, Alexander McLeod, A Scriptural View of the Character, Causes, and Ends of the Present War 170-71 (2nd ed. 1815) (“‘By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights. The place of birth produces no change in this particular—for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction. Children born at sea—out of the country—in the armies of the state-in the house of its ministers at a foreign court, are reputed native citizens. Every man, born free, may examine whether it be convenient for him to join in the society for which he was destined by his birth. If he finds that it will be of no advantage to him to remain in it, he is at liberty to leave it.’ Vattel, Sec. 216—220;” Emer de Vattel, Section 217 (“For the same reasons also, children born out of the country, in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family, on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.”).

He said:

“If you ever hope to succeed in court (or convince anyone who isn’t already completely prejudiced against President Obama, for that matter), you need to address the real opposing arguments, not just your own straw man versions.”

~~~~~

The conclusion that Obama is not a natural born citizen has nothing to do with what you imply to be “prejudice.” Rather, as I have clearly and plainly explained above, it has all to do with him not satisfying what the Constitution demands regarding who may be eligible to be President. Simply put, he was not born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents, does not pass the allegiance test, and he is therefore not a natural born citizen.

He said:

“* I’m sure you recognize this quote: ‘…citizenship does not descend, in the legal sense…’”

~~~~~

You do not know what that means. In the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, Congress treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens. On my blog, I along with other commenters, have provided many sources from the Founding period which support this conclusion. Those children were born in the country, but yet aliens because born to alien parents. So, birth in the country was not sufficient for one to acquire citizenship at birth, for citizen parents were also needed. So, Congress recognized, as the Framers did, that for those wanting to be citizens from the moment of birth, citizenship did descend from parents, not only for those born out of the United States, but also for those born in the United States.

As you see, I have addressed the opposing arguments. What else do you have for me to debunk?

ajtelles said...

John Jay vs. Slartibartfast,
aka S...,
aka Kevin,
aka PhD. mathematician ...

Mario, before reading your response to S..., I have some John Jay original genesis and original intent input to S..., the "one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is good 'nuf birther.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

You said -
>> "Here is my response to Slartibartfast at Café Con Leche Republicans:

>> "He said:
>> “I know that you want to conflate President Obama’s eligibility with that of Rafael Cruz,
>> but the fact is that they are natural born citizens by different reasoning.


Mario, S... is implying something that John Jay would not only renounce, Jay would denounce as idiotic S...'s implication that "natural born citizens by different reasoning" was Jay's original genesis intent in underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington.

Is S...'s 2000s implicit and tacit mythological assertion about John Jay inept, or what?

With that kind of statement, S... and "one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is good 'nuf birthers lose the 1787 John Jay original genesis and original intent debate, although they do not know it, since they are stuck defending their cul de sac position that the original intent of the 14th Amendment implies their "one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is good 'nuf birther view.


S... continues -

>> By combining the two cases,
>> you dishonestly attempt to discredit our argument as insufficient,
>> while, in fact,
>> President Obama’s eligibility is beyond dispute and,
>> although a non-frivolous argument can be made
>> that Rafael is not natural born,
>> it is almost certainly a loser as well.”


Mario, is S... so dense to think that "... a non-frivolous argument can be made that Rafael is not natural born" is not an admission by "one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is good 'nuf birthers that destroys their "one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is good 'nut birther 2000s mythology?

Mario, now, after expressing my own mind, now I will read your response to S... and learn something that I know from your previous comments will support John Jay and his 1787 original genesis intent.

That reference to John Jay is a hint... hint... hint... to any "one-U.S.-citizen-parent" is good 'nuf birther who may be lurking here.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

PS. Mario,

It does not matter where I post about John Jay's 1787 original genesis original intent, puzo1 or WND.com or YouGuv.com or TheRighthScoop.com, or wherever, nobody, I mean NOBODY ever, ever, ever NEVER ever rebuts and refutes that John Jay had ONLY one, only ONE (1) original genesis intent, which I define as birth ONLY inside the U.S. to ONLY two U.S. citizen parents.

It seems that wherever it's expressed, the "higher hurdle" of "birth-ONLY-inside-the-U.S.-to-ONLY-two-U.S.-citizen-parents" common sense trumps the "lower hurdle" of "birth-inside-OR-outside-the-U.S.-to-one-U.S.-citizen-parent" EVERY time.


Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"

ajtelles said...

John Jay's Charge to the Grand Jury

Mario, here is something from John Jay that mentions his views on "a novel doctrine ... citizens ... expatriate", laws of nations, treaties, laws of the United States, regulate the conduct of the citizens.

I searched through your blog and this charge to the grand jury of Richmond, Virginia is not referenced by anybody, so I thought that Jay's explicit statement about "... who made the laws of nations? The answer is ...," will add something of substance that expresses John Jay's original genesis implicit presuppositions that are inherent in his underlining the natural law word "born" in "natural born Citizen" and which were obviously also understood by the constitution convention delegates who accepted Jay's helpful suggestion that was incorporated into Article II.

The date is not listed, but Jay's charge to the grand jury follows Jay's May 12, 1793 letter to President Washington.

John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, vol. 3 (1782-1793) [1891]
>> http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/2329

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

CHARGE TO GRAND JURY, RICHMOND, VIRGINIA.

"It is an observation no less useful than true, that nations and individuals injure their essential interests in proportion as they deviate from order. By order I mean that national regularity which results from attention and obedience to those rules and principles of conduct which reason indicates and which morality and wisdom prescribe. Those rules and principles reach every station and condition in which individuals can be placed, and extend to every possible situation in which nations can find themselves.

"Among these rules are comprehended the laws of the land, and that they may be so observed as to produce the regularity and order intended by them, courts of justice were instituted whose business it is to punish offences and to render right to those who suffer wrong.

"To inquire into and present those offences is the duty which the law generally imposes upon you, and, as there is a national tribunal having cognizance only of offences against the laws of the United States, your inquiries and presentments are to be confined to offences of that description.

"The Constitution, the statutes of Congress, the laws of nations, and treaties constitutionally made compose the laws of the United States.

"You will perceive that the object is twofold: To regulate the conduct of the citizens relative to our own nation and people, and relative to foreign nations and their subjects.

"To the first class belong those statutes which respect trades, navigation, and finance, and ...

[...]

"The present state of affairs requires that the second object of the laws should be attentively regarded. I mean those which regulate our conduct relative to foreign nations.

"This head comprises the laws of nations and treaties.

"By the laws of nations our conduct relative to other nations is to be regulated both in peace and in war. It is a subject that merits attention and inquiry, and it is much to be wished that it may be more generally studied and understood.

ajtelles said...

John Jay's Charge to the Grand Jury

2/

It may be asked who made the laws of nations? The answer is he from whose will proceed all moral obligations, and which will is made known to us by reason or by revelation.

Nations are, in respect to each other, in the same situation as independent individuals in a state of nature.

Suppose twenty families should be cast on an island and after dividing it between them conclude to remain unconnected with each other by any kind of government, would it thence follow that there are no laws to direct their conduct towards one another? Certainly not. Would not the laws of reason and morality direct them to behave to each other with respect, with justice, with benevolence, with good faith—would not those laws direct them to abstain from violence, to abstain from interfering in their respective domestic government and arrangements, to abstain from causing quarrels and dissensions in each other’s families? If they made treaties, would they not be bound to observe them? Or if by consent expressed or implied they gave occasion to usages mutually convenient, would not those usages grow into conventional laws? The answer is obvious.

In like manner the nations throughout the world are like so many great families placed by Providence on the earth, who having divided it between them, remain perfectly distinct from and independent of each other. Between them there is no judge but the great Judge of all. They have a perfect right to establish such governments and build such houses as they prefer, and their neighbors have no right to pull down either because not fashioned according to their ideas of perfection; in a word, one has no right to interfere in the affairs of another, but all are bound to behave to each other with respect, with justice, with benevolence, and with good faith.

[...]

"A novel doctrine has been propagated and found some advocates even in this enlightened country—viz., that as citizens have a right to expatriate, so they have a right to engage and enlist in the military service of one of the powers at war, provided they at the same time declare that they expatriate. I make no remarks on this ridiculous doctrine—its absurdity is obvious.

"Of national violations of our neutrality our government only can take cognizance. Questions of peace and war and reprisals and the like do not belong to courts of justice, nor to individual citizens, nor to associations of any kind, and for this plain reason: because the people of the United States have been pleased to commit them to Congress.

"Are we then to punish our citizens for hostile conduct towards such of the belligerent powers as violate our neutrality and do us injustice? This is a natural question.

"There must be order in society or the bonds of it will soon be dissolved. This order consists in every man moving in his own sphere, doing the duties incumbent upon him, and not going out of the circle of his own rights and powers to meddle with or officiously supervise those of others.

The great question before mentioned being committed exclusively to Congress, they must be left to deliberate, and their decisions must be conclusive.
[...]

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Again at Cafe Con Leche Republicans, Apuzzo v. Bryan Gene Olson:

You said:

Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
“A citizen of seven or nine years is clearly a naturalized citizen.”

That’s just nuts, as others have pointed out. See, for counter-example, a native ten-year-old.

~~~~~

Now you are really outdoing yourself with this one. I never saw a "native ten-year old" member of Congress. Maybe you can point one out for me.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of IV

We have more comments by Startibarttast to me and my responses at Café Con Leche Republicans:

The reason that David Farrar told you [Startibartfast] that you are delusional is that you really believe that you have won some point here or on my blog. I have shot down every one of your pathetic arguments and will continue to do so. Allow me to do more.

You said:

1. You raise the irrelevant issue of foreign citizenship. Whether or not any foreign country believes someone is one of their citizens is irrelevant to their US citizenship and natural born status.

Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were French citizens while POTUS as well as being the key players in the Louisiana Purchase (a massive conflict of interest by your reasoning). No one cared.

Chester Arthur was both an Irish and an American citizen at birth. He was referred to as “our Irish President”. No one cared.

Spiro Agnew was born a Greek citizen and died a Greek citizen (as well as being a natural born American). No one cared.

George Romney was probably a dual US/Mexican citizen at birth. No one cared.

It only became an issue after the native born son of an American mother and an absentee foreign father was elected POTUS. Why is that?

~~~~~

Your little unsubstantiated stories and innuendo do not prove any constitutional legal rule. A natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Minor v. Happersett (1875). That is all that counts in this debate, not your cute rumor and anecdotes.

You said:

2. You pretend that the First Congress meant that people “shall be considered as natural born citizens” except in regard to presidential eligibility based solely on your need to avoid the otherwise inescapable conclusion that the Framers believed that Congress had the right to add to the class of natural born citizens without violating the Constitution.

In addition, you ignore the fact that this has no bearing on President Obama as he was one of the people who was covered under the Constitution as originally ratified.

~~~~~

It is more than clear that the First Congress did not want the people to think that it was saying through a naturalization Act that a child born out of the United States to citizen parents was eligible to be President. President Washington approved the 1790 Act. That Act only said that those children were to be considered as natural born citizens. Clearly, there had to be natural born citizens who were the true natural born citizens for these other children to be considered like them. The Third Congress removed “shall be considered as natural born citizens” and replaced it with “shall be considered as citizens of the United States,” who we know under Article II were no longer eligible to be President unless they were also natural born citizens. Representative James Madison led the committee that made the legislative change. President Washington approved it. Given that Article II provided that being a citizen of the U.S. was no longer sufficient to be eligible to be President and that only a natural born citizen was so eligible, there cannot be any doubt that Congress and President Washington told the people that those children born out of the U.S to U.S. citizen parents were citizen of the United States at best, and not natural born citizens, and therefore not eligible to be President. If Congress still saw those children as natural born citizens, there simply would not have been any reason for it to remove their natural born citizen status and replace it with citizen of the U.S. You have got to be brain dead like you to believe that Congress still saw those children as natural born citizens after having gone through all that trouble to surgically amend

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of IV

the nomenclature of their status. Additionally, the language used in both the 1790 and 1795 Act was retrospective and not prospective as to when the births occurred. The same retrospective language was used in the 1802 Act. It was not until the Naturalization Act of 1855 that Congress used both retrospective and prospective language with respect to when the births occurred.

If the Framers had believed that Congress “had the right to add to the class of natural born citizens without violating the Constitution,” it would have said so in the Constitution. But the Framers gave to Congress in matters of citizenship only the power to make uniform the laws of naturalization. On its textual face, we can see that such power does not include the power to make any one a natural born citizen which would be a contradiction, for naturalized cannot mean natural, and on its definitional face, natural born citizens are made by natural condition (birth in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth), not by positive or municipal law (the Fourteenth Amendment, Acts of Congress, or treaties).

Finally, what Congressional Acts defining citizenship for children born out of the United States provide would have a bearing on de facto President Obama if he was not born in the United States. But even if was born in the United States, he was born to a U.S. citizen mother, but to an alien father, which prevents him from being a natural born citizen. As I have explained, a person born in the United States to one or two alien parents fails the very strict Presidential and Commander of the Military allegiance test.

You said:

3. You call the argument that all of the naturalization acts are substantially the same “silly”, even though this is not the argument of Bryan, but rather the certain argument of the Holy and Unanimous Supreme Court of the United States in the sacrosanct case of Minor v. Happersett. Why is it that considering just about any part of the opinion from Minor beyond the clause you constantly cherry pick completely sinks your argument?

~~~~~

First, you tell us that “this” is not the argument of Bryan, but the argument of Minor v. Happersett. One would think that if the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court made such an argument Mr. Olson and you would latch on to it. But you tell us that it is not Bryan’s argument. Second, Minor made no such argument. It only said in a general and brief way in a statement of dicta that the substance of the naturalization acts did not change over time. I have been through this already. Surely, the Court was not talking about anything in specific, for that would be silly given that Congress repealed Acts and made substantive changes to those laws over the years. Rather, the Court meant that the fundamental naturalization rules did not change, i.e., children born in the United States to alien parents were still aliens and could naturalize after birth and children born out of the United States to U.S. citizens parents were still citizens at birth. Children who were born out of the United States to alien parents who turned into adults without being naturalized needed to naturalize as adults. But none of this demonstrates that citizens of the United States really meant natural born citizens (an absurd and desperate argument on your part).

You said:

4. Sorry, you may see John McCain’s circumstances as different from those of Rafael Cruz, but the law, the courts, and the US Senate don’t.

~~~~~

This statement is so devoid of any facts or substance that it does not merit a response.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of IV

You said:

5. I never said that your erroneous conclusion regarding natural born citizenship had anything whatsoever to do with prejudice (although every birther is strongly and obviously prejudiced against President Obama for whatever reason). I said that you could not convince anyone not already strongly biased against President Obama that you are correct. I’ll admit I was wrong just as soon as you convince someone who has supported President Obama in the past that he is ineligible.

~~~~~

Your statement is so ridiculous. Have you gone out and polled the entire population of the world which now allows you to make such stupid statements?

You said:

6. You say that I don’t understand the meaning of the quote I gave and then go on to discuss naturalization acts (see below), which are completely irrelevant in the context of the quote (something which you should well know). The passage says that citizenship does not pass from parent to child either by the common law or by the common naturalization acts. In the greater context of the quote, this only leaves jus soli citizenship as what prevailed under the Constitution as originally written. Which makes all of the nonsense you wrote completely irrelevant.

~~~~~

Did you forget that the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor said that under the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution natural born citizens were children born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth and that all the rest of the people were “aliens or foreigners” who could be naturalized by Acts of Congress or treaties and as it turned out also by the Fourteenth Amendment. As I have demonstrated to you and which you have not been able to refute, this common law was American national common law (which applied throughout the United States) and not English local common law (which applied selectively only in the states and not uniformly among the states). Consistent with this American national common law rule which was part of the supreme law of the land under the Constitution, under the early naturalization acts, children born in the United States to alien parents were aliens.

Concerning children born out of the United States, as Vattel explained in Section 215 of The Law of Nations, people do not have a right to pass their citizenship by inheritance to their children born out of the country if a positive or municipal law provides otherwise. The nation has the sovereign right to decide how it will treat children born out of its territory. Hence, it is correct to say that for those born out of the United States, citizenship does not pass by descent if Congress decides not to allow it to so pass, which is what it did under the Naturalization Act of 1802. But if Congress passes a law allowing it, then such citizenship does pass by descent, which it again did under the Naturalization Act of 1855 and continues to do so to the present.

Horace Binney and Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark were confused regarding the producing cause of citizenship. A statute that provides that a child born out of the United States to citizen parents is a citizen at birth is only confirming a natural condition which is expressed as partus sequitur patrem (children follow the condition of their parents). When a statute states that such a child shall not be a citizen, it is only declaring that the law of nature shall not be followed. So, while a statute can abrogate the law of nature, when a statute allows the law of nature to provide the rule, it is not the statute that is the true source of that citizenship, but rather the law of nature. And when it is the law of nature alone that provides the rule of decision, citizenship, for sure, descends from parents to their children.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

IV of IV

You said:

7. There is nothing in any of the naturalization acts that explicitly addresses the native-born children of aliens. The provisions are written so that they would apply to such children if necessary, however, in light of the holding in Wong Kim Ark, such children have been considered citizens since the ratification of the Constitution. If you wish to show that was not the case, you need to find explicit evidence of the naturalization of a native-born child, something no birther has ever been able to do.

~~~~~

You keep posting this same point over and over. I have addressed it already and showed you to be wrong. I’ll just remind you that the James Madison Administration in the celebrated citizenship case of James McClure of 1811 ruled that under the Naturalization Act of 1802 a child born in the United States to alien parents was alien born and could become a citizen of the United States after birth if the child’s parents naturalized when the child was still a minor and dwelling in the United States. That was James Madison saying that, the Father of the Constitution. The Father of American Jurisprudence, Nathan Dane, said the same in his Abridgement.

”And now if an American citizen goes abroad and marries an alien wife, and have a child by her in a foreign country, that child is not alien, but may inherit his estate in the United States. But if an American woman, a citizen, go abroad and marry an alien husband, and have a child by him, so born, that child is an alien, and cannot inherit her estate in the United States. And upon the same principles, if an English subject comes into the United States, and marries an American wife, and has a child by her born here: it cannot inherit her estate here, because this child follows the allegiance of its father, and may inherit his estate in England.”

4 Dane’s Abridgement, ch. 131; art. 2, § 8, 701 (1824).

And as Wilted Rose advised us on my blog, so did Judge Samuel Parker, "Digest of Selected British Statutes..." (Roberts' Digest) (1817): "The children of aliens, born within the U.S. are aliens; they do not acquire citizenship by birth". Id. at 26.

And let us not forget The Slaughterhouse Cases (1872) which said that children born in the United States to alien parents were not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.

Minor then said that “there have been doubts” whether a child “born within the jurisdiction” to alien parents was a citizen. Minor was referring to the Fourteenth Amendment and the Slaughterhouse case.

So as you see, you do nothing but lie when you say that I have misrepresented the Framers, the Constitution, Congress, and the U.S. Supreme Court. Also, I have not misrepresented you and Bryan Gene Olson. Rather, I have destroyed the garbage that both of you produce on the internet.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Here is more from Bryan Gene Olson at Cafe Con Leche Repubicans:

You [Mr. Olson] provide the following quote from Akil Reed Amar, author of /America’s Constitution: A Biography/ Random House, 2005. ISBN-13 978-1400062621, as some formula of who is a natural born citizen:

“‘The Constitution’s rule that the president be ‘a natural born citizen’ focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date.’http://slate.com/id/2183588/ .”

~~~~~

Mr. Amar states the obvious which is that a natural born citizen must be born a citizen. The clause itself tells us that. It does not take a constitutional scholar to figure that much out. But then it takes a little more intelligence to ask the next question: by what means or mechanism is one to be a born citizen in order to be a natural born citizen? It is here that Mr. Amar, like you and your coterie, fail. It is that pesky means or mechanism that sinks your Obot ship. Minor told us what the means or mechanism is when it said that the Framers looked to the common law the nomenclature with which they were familiar for their definition of a natural born citizen. It explained that that common law defined a natural born citizen as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth and that all the rest of the people were under that common law “aliens or foreigners” who could be naturalized by Acts of Congress or treaties and as it turned out also by the Fourteenth Amendment. (This statement of the common law was a reference to American national common law and not the English local common law.) So, the means or mechanism was (1) birth in the country (2) to parents who were U.S. citizens, (3) at the time of the child’s birth. This is a definition, which contains both sufficient and necessary conditions in order to be a natural born citizen.

Mr. Amar’s formula, born a citizen, tells us nothing by stating the obvious and provides no constitutional standard. If anything, it is fallacious for it argues: All natural born citizens are born citizens; Obama/Cruz are born citizens; therefore Obama/Cruz are natural born citizens, or All poodles are dogs; Bubbles is a dog; therefore Bubbles is a poodle (clearly not true). Jack Maskell makes the same error as Mr. Amar.

So, Mr. Olson, what else would you like to peddle here?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Bryan Gene Olson said at Cafe Con Leche Republicans:

“Above one can read Mr. Apuzzo say that fellow commenter Slartibartfast lied in calling Aupzzo’s blog is “heavily moderated”. And one can read Apuzzo proudly proclaim that he blocks posts of mine from his blog. Gee, I wonder who the liar is.”

~~~~~

What a pathetic soul you are. So you want us to believe that you have all this wisdom that you just wanted to unload onto my blog and that I just did not let you do so. LOL. You have had more than a full opportunity to prove yourself not only on my blog, but also here and at other Obot blogs. No matter where you go, you are an absolute failure.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Bryan Gene Olson at Café Con Leche Republicans:

Mario Apuzzo Esquire Asked:
“You have just got to love this one. Here is what it looks like:
All natural born citizens are born citizens.

Obama/Cruz are born citizens.
Therefore Obama/Cruz are natural born citizens.
OR
All poodles are dogs.
Bubbles is a dog.
Therefore, Bubbles is a poodle.
Poor Bryan/NotLinda. Just all mixed up.”

Pure Apuzzo. He knowingly makes up nonsense, then acts like it is someone else’s. He has attributed the above to both the Congressional Research Service and myself. On his blog I’ve repeatedly asked him to cite it. He’s taken to blocking my comments.

~~~~~

Mr. Olson must not be feeling too well. He complains that I blocked his comments relative to this argument (a complete lie). What tells us that Mr. Olson is full of it is that he does not post on Café Con Leche Republicans what comments of his I blocked on my blog which prove him to be right and me to be wrong. What a lightweight this Mr. Olson is.

ajtelles said...

John Jay vs. Startibarttast/aka S.../aka Kevin

July 19, 2014 at 11:14 AM, Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

" We have more comments by Startibarttast to me and my responses at Café Con Leche Republicans:

"You said:

>> "5. I never said that your erroneous conclusion regarding natural born citizenship had anything whatsoever to do with prejudice (although every birther is strongly and obviously prejudiced against President Obama for whatever reason).

>> "I said that you could not convince anyone not already strongly biased against President Obama that you are correct.

>> "I’ll admit I was wrong just as soon as you convince someone who has supported President Obama in the past that he is ineligible."


Mario, your response to S..., aka Kevin -

>> "Your statement is so ridiculous.
>> Have you gone out and polled the entire population of the world
>> which now allows you to make such stupid statements?"

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario, since S... and every "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birther refuses to answer the simple question about John Jay's original genes intent in underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" with the implicit meaning of birth ONLY inside the U.S. to ONLY two U.S. citizen parents, here is S...'s question back at him, with John Jay original intent.

S... wrote -

>> "I’ll admit I was wrong
just as soon as you convince someone
who has supported President Obama in the past
that he [Obama] is ineligible."


I and every John Jay original genesis birther will admit that they are wrong about John Jay's original genesis intent as soon as S... can convince someone that has supported John Jay's original genesis intent that Jay really meant birth inside OR outside the U.S. to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, and NOT birth ONLY inside the U.S. to ONLY two U.S. citizen parents.

Fair and balanced, right?

Since John Jay is the original source for "natural born Citizen" in Article II, the "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birthers should have no problem defending their point of view that John Jay ALSO implied that "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf for POTUS eligibility.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario, you have been writing coherently on your blog about "natural born Citizen" since December 20, 2008, and I have only been "awake" about "natural born Citizen" since 2012, so I write this with the respect due to you in your daily toe-to-toe heavyweight commentary in search of a worthy competitor, and it is obvious to me and others that it is YOU who is in command and control of the historical record about John Jay and "natural born Citizen" in Article II, definitely NOT Startibarttast/aka S..., and YOU are the king of swat, to apply a name that was said about baseball slugger Babe Ruth.

ajtelles said...

John Jay vs. Startibarttast/aka S.../aka Kevin

2/

S... and Bryan and the crowd at Cafe Con Leche Republicans, and ObamaConspiracy.org and Fogbow Foggy/aka PJ Foggy/aka Bill Bryan, seem to only have spit balls and lob balls, but they don't have fast balls, curve balls, sliders.

This is the results of of your responses to S...'s lob balls -
1-SWAT
2-SWAT
3-SWAT
4-SWAT
5-SWAT
6-SWAT
7-SWAT

For those who do not know who Fogbow is, see Fogbow Foggy in the red hat with the hammer and sickle, a mentor of Startibarttast/aka S.../aka Kevin.
>> http://www.birtherreport.com/2011/01/exposed-meet-two-vile-obots-bill-bryan.html

"Finally, we get to see the faces of the vile Obama supporters PJ Foggy (Bill Bryan) and Grumpy of Fogbow and Politijab. These two have spent the last two years harassing and slandering people that question Obama's eligibility.

"Disbarred" Suspended California attorney Bill Bryan aka PJ Foggy aka Foggy and Fogbow Foggy is the old man wearing the red hat with the Hammer & Sickle on it. You can see where his loyalties are."


Meet 'PJ Foggy,' birth certificate fraudster
Disbarred attorney organized 'birther punking' scheme

June 16, 2011 - Jerome R. Corsi
>> http://www.wnd.com/2011/06/311093/#jBFoUJDhvVfwaA55.99

Fogbow Foggy said...
Mario said: "The Obots are running scared."

We're so scared that I'm inviting you to address us as a group. We're having a meetup of more than 35 Obots from Fogbow in Philadelphia on May 16-18.

[...]

Bill Bryan
Raleigh, NC
March 14, 2014 at 6:12 AM

Yep, the guy in the red hat with the hammer and sickle is a friend of "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birthers Startibarttast/aka S.../aka Kevin and Dr. Conspiracy/aka Kevin, according to S...'s comment June 6, 2014 at 3:35 AM.

>> "In fact, on this very thread, Foggy invited Mario to address the Fogbow gathering in Philadelphia a couple of weeks ago, offering to pay for his dinner and travel as well. After he made this offer, I told Foggy that I would be willing to debate Mario one-on-one in case he was scared of having real lawyers debate him. Doc C was also at this meet up, so Mario could have faced all three of us and argued his interpretation of original intent."


Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

The Obots argue that a natural born citizen has the same meaning as an English natural born subject. Our first Chief Justice, John Jay, the person who wrote to then-General George Washington in 1778 that the powers of the Commander in Chief should not devolve upon a person who was not a natural born citizen, one of the writers of the Federalist Papers, surely did not agree. Here is what Jay thought about the new American citizen and the old English subject:

1st. In determining the sense in which Georgia is a sovereign State, it may be useful to turn our attention to the political situation we were in, prior to the Revolution, and to the political rights which emerged from the Revolution. All the country now possessed by the United States was then a part of the dominions appertaining to the crown of Great Britain. Every acre of land in this country was then held mediately or immediately by grants from that crown. All the people of this country were then, subjects of the King of Great Britain, and owed allegiance to him; and all the civil authority then existing or exercised here, flowed from the head of the British Empire. They were in strict sense fellow subjects, and in a variety of respects one people. When the Revolution commenced, the patriots did not assert that only the same affinity and social connection subsisted between the people, of the colonies, which subsisted between the people of Gaul, Britain, and Spain, while Roman Provinces, viz. only that affinity and social connection which result from the mere circumstance of being governed by the same Prince; different ideas prevailed, and gave occasion to the Congress of 1774 and 1775.

The Revolution, or rather the Declaration of Independence, found the people already united for general purposes, and at the same time providing for their more domestic concerns by State conventions, and other temporary arrangements. From the crown of Great Britain, the sovereignty of their country passed to the people of it; and it was then not an uncommon opinion, that the unappropriated lands, which belonged to that crown, passed not to the people of the Colony or States within whose limits they were situated, but to the whole people; on whatever principles this opinion rested, it did not give way to the other, and thirteen sovereignties were considered as emerged from the principles of the Revolution, combined with local convenience and considerations; the people nevertheless continued to consider themselves, in a national point of view, as one people; and they continued without interruption to manage their national concerns accordingly; afterwards, in the hurry of the war, and in the warmth of mutual confidence, they made a confederation of the States, the basis of a general Government. Experience disappointed the expectations they had formed from it; and then the people, in their collective and national capacity, established the present Constitution. It is remarkable [2 U.S. 419, 471] that in establishing it, the people exercised their own rights, and their own proper sovereignty, and conscious of the plenitude of it, they declared with becoming dignity, 'We the people of the United States, do ordain and establish this Constitution.' Here we see the people acting as sovereigns of the whole country; and in the language of sovereignty, establishing a Constitution by which it was their will, that the State Governments should be bound, and to which the State Constitutions should be made to conform. Every State Constitution is a compact made by and between the citizens of a State to govern themselves in a certain manner; and the Constitution of the United States is likewise a compact made by the people of the United States to govern themselves as to general objects, in a certain manner. By this great compact however, many prerogatives were transferred to the national Government, such as those of making war and peace, contracting alliances, coining money, etc. etc.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

If then it be true, that the sovereignty of the nation is in the people of the nation, and the residuary sovereignty of each State in the people of each State, it may be useful to compare these sovereignties with those in Europe, that we may thence be enabled to judge, whether all the prerogatives which are allowed to the latter, are so essential to the former. There is reason to suspect that some of the difficulties which embarrass the present question, arise from inattention to differences which subsist between them.

It will be sufficient to observe briefly, that the sovereignties in Europe, and particularly in England, exist on feudal principles. That system considers the Prince as the sovereign, and the people as his subjects; it regards his person as the object of allegiance, and excludes the idea of his being on an equal footing with a subject, either in a Court of Justice or elsewhere. That system contemplates him as being the fountain of honor and authority; and from his grace and grant derives all franchises, immunities and privileges; it is easy to perceive that such a sovereign could not be amenable to a Court of Justice, or subjected to judicial controul and actual constraint. It was of necessity, therefore, that suability became incompatible with such sovereignty. Besides, the Prince having all the Executive powers, the judgment of the Courts would, in fact, be only monitory, not mandatory to him, and a capacity to be advised, is a distinct thing from a capacity to be sued. The same feudal ideas run through all their jurisprudence, and constantly remind us of the distinction between the Prince and the subject. No such ideas obtain here; at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects (unless the African [2 U.S. 419, 472] slaves among us may be so called) and have none to govern but themselves; the citizens of America are equal as fellow citizens, and as joint tenants in the sovereignty.

From the differences existing between feudal sovereignties and Governments founded on compacts, it necessarily follows that their respective prerogatives must differ. Sovereignty is the right to govern; a nation or State-sovereign is the person or persons in whom that resides. In Europe the sovereignty is generally ascribed to the Prince; here it rests with the people; there, the sovereign actually administers the Government; here, never in a single instance; our Governors are the agents of the people, and at most stand in the same relation to their sovereign, in which regents in Europe stand to their sovereigns. Their Princes have personal powers, dignities, and pre-eminences, our rulers have none but official; nor do they partake in the sovereignty otherwise, or in any other capacity, than as private citizens.

Chisholm v. State of GA., 2 U.S. 419, 470-71 (1793).

Can we reasonably believe, given the importance that Jay gave to the law of nations in matters affecting the whole nation vis-à-vis other nations and the meaning that Jay gave to being a citizen in the new America versus being a subject under English common law, that he would have used the English common law rather than the law of nations to define a natural born citizen? The answer is a resounding “no.”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of IV

Bryan Gene Olson, a/k/a Unknown/NotLinda/brygenon, in his effort to prove me wrong, tells us that Professor Robert G. Natelson wrote:

“Most importantly, the President and Vice President had to be natural-born citizens or citizens at the time of ratification. We know exactly what the Founders meant by the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ because they adapted it from the English legal term, ‘natural born subject,’ which in Britain defined who could serve in Parliament or the Privy Council. Essentially, a natural born citizen was one who met either one of two requirements. First, a person qualified if born in within the United States or within American territory, even if the person’s parents were aliens. Alternately, an individual qualified even if born outside the country if the individual’s father was an American citizen not then engaged in traitorous or felonious activities.”

Robert G. Natelson, The Original Constitution: What it Actually Said and Meant 127 (2nd ed. 2010).

Professor Natelson is wrong. How do I know it? The historical sources, our early Congress, and the U.S. Supreme Court tells us that he is wrong. Minor defined a natural born citizen as follows:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

Id. at 167-68.

As can be readily seen from what Minor explained, it did not say that the Framers adapted natural born citizen from the English common law natural born subject. Minor does not even once mention the English common law or an English common law natural-born subject. Minor did not say that who could serve in England in Parliament or the Privy Council had anything to do with defining the clause. In defining a natural born citizen, Minor did not mention that its meaning comes from anything connected to England. It did not say that there were two ways to be a natural born citizen. On the contrary, it said that the Framers looked to the common law the nomenclature with which they were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. In what the Court went on to say about that common law, we know that it was not the English common law, but rather American national common law which in matters of citizenship obtained its substance from citizenship principles found in the law of nations. See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Sections 212-231 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758). (“The citizens are the members of the civil society; bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this, in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation; and it is presumed, as matter of course, that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of IV

merely by their tacit consent. We shall soon see whether, on their coming to the years of discretion, they may renounce their right, and what they owe to the society in which they were born. I say, that, in order to be of the country, it is necessary that a person be born of a father who is a citizen; for, if he is born there of a foreigner, it will be only the place of his birth, and not his country.”).

Minor said, consistent with Founding sources such as John Locke, Samuel von Pufendorf, Jacques Burlamaqui, Emer de Vattel, George Washington, John Jay, James Madison, James Wilson, David Ramsay, Nathan Dane, St. George Tucker, Judge Samuel Parker, Chief Justice John Marshall, House Speaker Langdon Cheves, and the entire early Congress (in the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens) (the list is not meant to be exhaustive), and U.S. Supreme Court cases such as The Venus (1814), Inglis (1830), Shanks (1830), Dred Scott (1857), and The Slaughterhouse Cases (1872) (all treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens), that under that American national common law, one could be a natural born citizen only if born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth, for, as it explained, under that same American national common law, if one was not so born one was an alien or foreigner who needed to be naturalized by an Act of Congress or treaty and as it later turned out in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) by the Fourteenth Amendment. Minor did not say that a child born in the United States to alien parents was a natural born citizen. On the contrary, it said that “there have been doubts” whether a child born in the United States was even a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, let alone a natural born citizen. (The U.S. Supreme Court in The Slaughterhouse Cases (1872) had said that children born in the United States to alien parents were not citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.) Given the definition of a natural born citizen that Minor articulated and the doubts that it expressed about the birth status of children born in the United States to alien parents, Minor surely did not believe that the English common law definition of a natural-born subject prevailed in the United States to define either a natural born citizen or even just a citizen of the United States. (Under the English common law, there was no doubt that a child born in the King’s dominion and under his allegiance to alien parents was an English natural-born subject.) We know that in 1898, Wong Kim Ark, relying upon a modified version of the colonial English common law, held that a child born in the United States to alien parents who were permanently domiciled and resident in the United States and not foreign diplomats or military invaders was a “citizen of the United States” by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. It did not hold that such a child is an Article II natural born citizen under the common law which Minor told us the Framers used to define a natural born citizen.

Concerning children born out of the United States, Minor explained that under the common law relied upon by the Framers to define a natural born citizen, such children were aliens in need of naturalization and that Congress had been naturalizing those children under its naturalization Acts since 1790. We know that since 1790 and down to the present, Congress has been naturalizing those children to be citizen of the United States. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) and Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) both told us that.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of IV

Wong Kim Ark explained:

“But the provision concerning foreign-born children, being expressly limited to the children of persons who then were or had been citizens, clearly did not include foreign-born children of any person who became a citizen since its enactment. 2 Kent.Com. 52, 53; Binney on Alienigenae 20, 25; 2 Amer.Law Reg. 203, 205. Mr. Binney's paper, as he states in his preface, was printed by him in the hope that Congress might supply this defect in our law.”

Wong Kim Ark. Hence, according to the U.S. Supreme Court case which Mr. Olson erroneously argues makes Obama a natural born citizen, children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents who acquired that status after 1802 were aliens. Yet Professor Natelson tells us that today they are natural born citizens.

Again from Wong Kim Ark:

“This sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment is declaratory of existing rights and affirmative of existing law as to each of the qualifications therein expressed -- "born in the United States," "naturalized in the United States," and "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" -- in short, as to everything relating to the acquisition of citizenship by facts occurring within the limits of the United States. But it has not touched the acquisition of citizenship by being born abroad of American parents, and has left that subject to be regulated, as it had always been, by Congress in the exercise of the power conferred by the Constitution to establish an uniform rule of naturalization.”

Wong Kim Ark. So the U.S. Supreme Court told us that children born out of the United States needed a naturalization act of Congress to be made citizen of the United States. If they need such an act, they surely cannot be natural born citizens.

Bellei held that Congress has the power to impose the condition subsequent of residence in the United States on persons who do not come within the Fourteenth Amendment's definition of citizens as those "born or naturalized in the United States," and its imposition is not unreasonable, arbitrary, or unlawful.

Minor, Wong Kim Ark, and Bellei explained that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents become citizens of the United States only through the grace of Congress which it extends to them through a naturalization act. That Congress may naturalize those children to be citizens of the United States from the moment of birth does not and cannot make those children natural born citizens. Rather, they are just naturalized “citizens of the United States” at birth, not natural born citizens. Minor, Wong Kim Ark, and Bellei told us that if not for such a naturalization act of Congress, those children would be aliens, for, not being born in the United States, they cannot be natural born citizens (Minor) and do not fall under the grace of the Fourteenth Amendment (Wong Kim Ark and Bellei). Bellei even explained that Congress has the constitutional power to add conditions subsequent (occurring after the fact) to the citizenship status that it bestows upon those children at birth, causing them to lose that birth status should the condition not be satisfied. It is ludicrous as you would have us believe that Congress through its naturalization powers can create natural born citizens and even cause a natural born citizen to lose his or her natural citizenship status with which he or she was born by not coming to live in the United States after his or her birth. Surely, if you would grant Congress the power to make natural born citizens, you cannot deny it the power to unmake them. What you fail to grasp is that the Constitution gives to Congress in matters of citizenship only the power to naturalize. It does not give Congress power to make natural born citizens or the power to take away the

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

IV of IV

natural born citizen status of one who satisfies the constitutional definition of that clause. Congress has never since its first naturalization act of 1790 even attempted to do so. (The 1790 Act only said that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents “shall be considered as natural born citizens” which in the 1795 Act it changed to “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.”) Hence, these foreign-born children, not satisfying the American national common law definition of a natural born citizen, are not and cannot be natural born citizens.

How Professor Natelson defined a natural born citizen, wrong as to persons born in and out of the United States, is not consistent with these historical sources, the legislative expressions of our early Congress, and U.S. Supreme Court cases. There is no doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court, speaking about both children born in the United States and out of it, trumps Professor Natelson. As I have already said, Natelson just gives his personal belief without any sources to back him up. Are we to accept what he wrote simply because he is a law professor? Not having historical and legal sources to support him, what Natelson says within the Obama eligibility debate is to be seen as nothing more than politically motivated rhetoric and therefore rejected as valid constitutional law. Maybe Professor Natelson can do a third edition to his book in which he can correct what he so erroneously wrote.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Here is some more from Cafe Con Leche Republicans:

I said, within the context of Article I, Section 2 and 3, which allows naturalized citizens after birth to be members of Congress, and not within the context of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, which requires persons born after the adoption of the Constitution, that they be natural born citizens in order to be eligible to be President:

“A citizen of seven or nine years is clearly a naturalized citizen.”

Smart aleck (but dumb), Genie Olson (a/k/a Unknown/NotLinda/brygenon), said:

“That’s just nuts, as others have pointed out. See, for counter-example, a native ten-year-old.”

I then responded:

“I never saw a ‘native ten-year old’ member of Congress. Maybe you can point one out for me.”

Dumby pants then took the hook, line, and sinker and responded:

“Mr. Apuzzo, when you come up with such a silly idea as a ten-year-old member of Congress, you should not expect me to help you search for one.”

~~~~~

Implying that a 7 or 9 years citizen is not necessarily a naturalized citizen, that was your only example that you provided to try to show that my statement, which you took out of context, is incorrect. You dare not attempt to explain how all members of Congress who are at least 7 or 9 years citizens of the United States are all natural born citizens which would demonstrate that my statement is incorrect. Rather, now that you see how stupid you and your example is, you try to run from it. Mr. Olson, as I have said before I will say it again, you have failed at everything you have said here and elsewhere on the internet.

ajtelles said...

I Believe vs. I Believe

Mario, you are wrong.
Why?
'Cause Bryan said so.
Why?
'Cause Prof. Natelson expressed a personal opinion without sources, an opinion that Bryan believes is true truth.

July 20, 2014 at 11:57 AM

>> How Professor Natelson defined a natural born citizen, wrong as to persons born in and out of the United States, is not consistent with these historical sources, the legislative expressions of our early Congress, and U.S. Supreme Court cases.

>> There is no doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court, speaking about both children born in the United States and out of it, trumps Professor Natelson.

>> As I have already said, Natelson just gives his personal belief without any sources to back him up.

>> Are we to accept what he wrote simply because he is a law professor?

>> Not having historical and legal sources to support him, what Natelson says within the Obama eligibility debate is to be seen as nothing more than politically motivated rhetoric and therefore rejected as valid constitutional law.

>> Maybe Professor Natelson can do a third edition to his book in which he can correct what he so erroneously wrote.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Also, if Prof. Natelson publishes a third edition of The Original Constitution: What it Actually Said and Meant (my edition is 2nd, 2010 – 2011), maybe he can discuss Article II Section 1 Clause 5 in connection with Article V, since both were intended to be perpetual, for Article II national security and Article V individual control of "OUR" tri-partite federal government. With Article V "WE the Posterity" of the 1787 "WE the People" control Article II and John Jay's "natural born Citizen" original genesis intent.

Mario, as you know, three months ago, on March 14, 2014 at 3:29 PM, I posted here on your blog the short email exchange I had with Prof. Natelson. I made public the emails because I tried posting on his blog, but the Captcha form would not accept my posts. So, the emails were published because originally I wanted Prof. Natelson's comments to be public on his own blog also. I did not publish private correspondence, but correspondence that was intended to be as public as this is that I am writing here, now.

ajtelles said...

I Believe vs. I Believe

Mario, you are wrong.
Why?
'Cause Bryan said so.
Why?
'Cause Prof. Natelson expressed a personal opinion without sources, an opinion that Bryan believes is true truth.

2/

So, here is a suggestion for Bryan, the defender of opinions that agree with him. Maybe Bryan can email to Prof. Natelson that some guy on the internet named Mario says in a 4 part tutorial that Prof. Natelson is wrong, and include your blog URL?

To help Bryan get motivated to send an email to Prof. Natelson, I've done the heavy lifting for him.

First is your comment, Mario, followed by your blog URL.

"Professor Natelson is wrong.
How do I know it?
The historical sources, our early Congress, and the U.S. Supreme Court tells us that he is wrong.
Minor defined a natural born citizen as follows: ... ."


Bryan can tell Prof. Natelson that part one of a four part tutorial was posted on July 20, 2014 at 11:48 AM on this blog page -
>> https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?postID=3651895997482884113&blogID=7466841558189356289&isPopup=false&page=15

Here is Professor Natelson's public contact information for Bryan.

Constitution.i2i from the Independence Institute.
>> http://constitution.i2i.org/

Contact Rob Natelson
>> http://constitution.i2i.org/contact-rob-natelson/

>> "You can contact Rob Natelson at his email address: Rob@i2i.org.
>> If time allows, Rob sometimes answers general questions about the Constitution, but does not comment on individual legal problems."


My suggestion to Bryan is, just do it.

But Bryan my need to be persistent, because it was not until my third email that I got anything of substance from Prof. Natelson. Oh, he was very considerate in his brush off, he just did not write very much, other than to say that he was traveling and did not have his book at hand so he could not reference his single paragraph on a single page, so he directed me to his book which I had not read yet at the time of the emails.

PS.

Mario, if you emailed Prof. Natelson, maybe he would write more substantively to you than he did to me, and more substantively than he probably will write to Bryan if Bryan will ask Prof. Natelson for his comment about your 4 part tutorial today, July 20, 2014 at 11:48 AM

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

More from Cafe Con Leche Repubicans:

Bryan Gene Olson, a/k/a Unknown/NotLinda/brygenon, said:

“Contrary to Mr. Apuzzo’s stated understanding, nothing I say makes empty the distinction between ‘natural born Citizen’ and ‘Citizen of the United States’.

~~~~~

As we can see, Mr. Olson never really comes out and says anything of any substance. Rather, he just sits back and throws little stupid pebbles which fail to hit any real target. Let me try to smoke him out of his little dark tunnel.

Would you care to enlighten all of us with your wisdom by explaining to us what your understanding is of why the First Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790 said that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents “shall be considered as natural born citizens” and the Third Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed that language and replaced it with “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” Please do explain to all of us whether Congress saw in both of these acts a difference between a natural born citizen and a citizen of the United States. If it did not see any difference, then why did the First Congress use the clause “natural born citizens” rather than “citizens of the United States” and the Third Congress remove “natural born citizens” and replace it with “citizens of the United States?”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

More precious gems from Cafe Con Leche Republicans:

Bryan Gene Olson, a/k/a Unknown/NotLinda/brygenon, said:

“Once again we see that Apuzzo doesn’t even understand the theory he attacks. I do not say that ‘natural born Citizen’ is the same as ‘Citizen of the United States.’ The natural-born citizens are the (proper) subset of citizens that obtained their citizenship at birth.”

~~~~~

Now that is precious. You said that natural born citizens is a proper subset of born citizens. To properly understand what you said, let us examine the definition of a proper subset:

Proper subset definition

A proper subset of a set A is a subset of A that is not equal to A. In other words, if B is a proper subset of A, then all elements of Bare in A but A contains at least one element that is not in B.

For example, if A={1,3,5} then B={1,5} is a proper subset of A. The set C={1,3,5} is a subset of A, but it is not a proper subset of A since C=A. The set D={1,4} is not even a subset of A, since 4 is not an element of A.

http://mathinsight.org/proper_subset_definition

As we can see, the central point to understand about a proper subset is that it is not equal to the set of which it is a proper subset.

So now that you have told us that natural born citizens is a proper subset of born citizens and we know the meaning of a proper subset, please do explain how the two sets, i.e., natural born citizens and born citizens, are not equal. You better get mathematicians Dr. Conspiracy and Slartibartfast (he says he has a Ph.D. in Mathematics) to bail you out of this one.

ajtelles said...

That's just nuts...

Mario, I noticed that a few days ago you asked Bryan the same question that you posted above on July 20, 2014 at 1:50 PM, about Bryan's comment,

>> “That’s just nuts, as others have pointed out.
>> See, for counter-example, a native ten-year-old.”


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Maybe Bryan can email to Prof. Natelson his insights about the "counter-example, a native ten-year-old" and see how long Prof. Natelson will continue correspondence with Bryan.

Also, maybe Kevin/Slartibartfast and Adrien Nash and Dr. Conspiracy and Bob Quasius at Cafe Con Leche Republicans can also ask Prof. Natelson a question or two.

Since Professor Natelson's "captcha" form does not work on his public comment section of his site, it would also be nice for Wilted Rose and MichaelN and some other friends to send an email and then make public Prof. Natelson's response about the lack of original intent comment about Article II Section 1 Clause 5 in his Original Constitution book.

Prof. Natelson's public email address is included in my previous post above, and at his blog [ http://constitution.i2i.org/contact-rob-natelson/ ]

Who knows, Mario, Professor Natelson may surprise us all with original intent common sense about John Jay's reason for underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington.

Here is an example of a question to Prof. Natelson, similar to the questions I asked him last March. Prof.

What was John Jay implying in 1787 when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen?"

Prof. Natelson will conclude one of two things, but NOT both.

Either John Jay implied in 1787 America birth ONLY inside the U.S. to ONLY two U.S. citizen parents, or Jay was confused and implied for 1700s America AND future debate in 2000s America, birth inside OR outside the U.S. to either one OR two U.S. citizen parents.

Who knows, it's worth a try to initiate friendly dialogue with the professor abut publishing a 3rd edition of his book The Original Constitution, What It Actually Said And Meant, to include more content about the perpetual intent for both Article II Section 1 Clause 5 AND an Article V convention of states to amend the constitution, just like the House and the Senate do with equal Article V authority.

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Unknown/NotLinda/brygenon/Bryan Gene Olson is crying over at Cafe Con Leche Republicans that I block is comments here.

Part of the rules of this blog are:

“Unsubstantiated statements which are determined to be false and misleading, or even potentially misleading to others (the jury of public opinion reading this blog) as to the true facts, repetitive, argumentative, personal ad hominem attacks, defamatory statements, criticism or lobbying efforts for other attorneys and/or their cases, blog scrolling, advertising links, inappropriate links, disinformation campaigns, and/or off topic comments will likely not be posted.”

I have not blocked any comments of his that do not violate the rules of this blog like just repeating the same thing over and over like simply repeating that some lower courts have ruled against me without providing any sources or reasoning which supports the decisions of those courts and which adds nothing of substance to the debate. I told him at Café Con Leche Republicans:

“May we have the honor of a legal argument with relevant historical and legal sources supporting it? No one is blocking you here from doing so. Please entertain us.”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

From Cafe Con Leche Republicans:

Slartibartfast said:

“Here’s a legal argument: Your theory has failed in every contemporary court before which it has been brought. Can you provide an argument to discount every single one of these precedents—many of which explicitly say President Obama is a natural born citizen eligible for his office?”

~~~~~

I just posted here this comment to Bryan Gene Olson:

“I have not blocked any comments of his that do not violate the rules of this blog like just repeating the same thing over and over like simply repeating that some lower courts have ruled against me without providing any sources or reasoning which supports the decisions of those courts and which adds nothing of substance to the debate.”

As we can see, you like Mr. Olson have no relevant historical and legal sources and legal argument to support your position that an Article II natural born citizen has the same meaning as a colonial English natural born subject and that any person who is a "born citizen," regardless of how that status may have been acquired, is a "natural born citizen," (BC=NBC) and must simply continue the same nonsense.

P.S. I do not know what kind of a Ph.D. Mathematician you are, not understanding that the best answer is that natural born citizens is a proper subset of citizens (not just a subset) and believing that BC=NBC. You are also a terrible pinch hitter.

ajtelles said...

John Jay vs. Proper Subset...

Mario, in you July 20, 2014 at 5:20 PM response to Slartibartfast/aka S.../aka Kevin, you showed that S...'s debate points really lack substance.

First, I must say that I'm staying on common law common sense ground with John Jay, and I'll simply watch the lopsided match between you and S... on the "proper subset" baseball diamond... SWAT.

S...'s reference to "... every contemporary court ... precedents ... explicitly say President Obama ... natural born citizen ... ” is missing the explicit language by the courts where EVERY judge, not just 2 or 1 or 0, but where EVERY judge has adduced sources proving that from the time of John Jay in 1787, "natural born Citizen" meant birth inside OR outside the U.S. to two OR one U.S. citizen parent, depending on the needs of the POTUS eligibnility usurpers.

Where are ALL of the previous court decisions and dicta that prove you wrong that Jay's implicit original genesis intent was birth ONLY in the U.S. to ONLY two U.S. citizen parents?

S... and his "courts" NEVER adduce the sources to prove you wrong 'cause there are zip, zero, zilch, none.

Zero judges have adduced sources to support the "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birther theory of the Obama-birthers.


Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"

ajtelles said...

"Everyone knew it " Common Ground...

Mario, here is something by Prof. Natelson that indicates he is an originalist constitutionalist as you are, and why I'm thinking that he will eventually come around about Article II and John Jay's unity of citizenship and allegiance original genesis intent about "natural born Citizen" as meaning birth only inside the U.S. to only two U.S. citizen parents.

>> March 28, 2014 by Rob Natelson

>> http://constitution.i2i.org/2014/03/28/how-do-we-know-an-article-v-amendments-convention-is-a-%E2%80%9Cconvention-of-the-states%E2%80%9D-because-both-the-founders-and-the-supreme-court-said-so/

>> How Do We Know an Article V Amendments Convention is a “Convention of the States?”
>> Because Both the Founders and the Supreme Court Said So


[...]

In the last paragraph -

>> "By contrast, a convention held within a state was thought of as a convention of the people.
>> All of these documents were issued while discussion over ratification of the Constitution was continuing.
>> Eleven states had ratified, but in North Carolina and Rhode Island the outcome was still very much in doubt.
>> Moreover, these are all official documents, not the product of individual eccentrics.
>> As such, they are powerful evidence that a “Convention for proposing Amendments” was understood to be a gathering of the states.

>> The Framers of Article V didn’t need to spell it out, precisely because everyone knew it.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The words "... everyone knew it" is common law language in the same sense that the meaning of "natural born Citizen" was not debated because "everyone knew it" also.

Mario, I don't have the credentials, so somebody with credentials and gravitas could probably communicate with Prof. Natelson to initiate dialogue about the perpetual nature of both Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and an Article V convention of states for proposing amendments, aka a "convention of the people."

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"

Carlyle said...

@ajtelles said...
The words "... everyone knew it" is common law language in the same sense that the meaning of "natural born Citizen" was not debated because "everyone knew it" also.

-------------------------

This is SO VERY CRITICAL. It is one of two key points I have been trying to make since forever, it seems. (The other being that NBC was meant to be exclusionary to the max, not some sort of pre-history multi-culti diversity PCness).

It is IMPERATIVE to determine the "everybody knew it" version of the 18th century. Vattel is perhaps the best place to look. (And I know of no credible authority disagreeing with Vattel!)

I am not much for legal mumbo jumbo in that I pretty much lost my faith in the Supreme Court with "emanations and penumbras"! I am an engineer and I look for logic and sane. Mario's definitions and explanations are the only ones I know of that are both logical and sane.

Then, in defense of the legal system, one must ask the further question as to whether the obvious original definition of NBC has ever been changed. For that I will have to defer to my colleagues, cases, and precedents.

MichaelN said...

Professor Robert G. Natelson wrote:

"We know exactly what the Founders meant by the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ because they adapted it from the English legal term, ‘natural born subject,’ which in Britain defined who could serve in Parliament or the Privy Council."
----------------------------------

How would Professor Robert G. Natelson "know" that the Founders adapted the definition of eligibility for a president of a republic from the English legal term "natural born subject", when the English term describes qualification for someone to be a subject of a monarch, with inheritance rights, etc, but the American term "natural born Citizen" describes qualification for an existing born citizen of the US to be eligible for the office of president of a republic????

Professor Robert G. Natelson's opinion is wrong and misleads those who may think he speaks from a position of authority.

MichaelN said...

The prat extraordinaire, i.e. Unknown, aka Bryan Gene Olsen, gets completely demolished AGAIN!

------------------------------

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

"More precious gems from Cafe Con Leche Republicans:

Bryan Gene Olson, a/k/a Unknown/NotLinda/brygenon, said:

“Once again we see that Apuzzo doesn’t even understand the theory he attacks. I do not say that ‘natural born Citizen’ is the same as ‘Citizen of the United States.’ The natural-born citizens are the (proper) subset of citizens that obtained their citizenship at birth.”

~~~~~

Now that is precious. You said that natural born citizens is a proper subset of born citizens. To properly understand what you said, let us examine the definition of a proper subset:

Proper subset definition

A proper subset of a set A is a subset of A that is not equal to A. In other words, if B is a proper subset of A, then all elements of Bare in A but A contains at least one element that is not in B.

For example, if A={1,3,5} then B={1,5} is a proper subset of A. The set C={1,3,5} is a subset of A, but it is not a proper subset of A since C=A. The set D={1,4} is not even a subset of A, since 4 is not an element of A.

http://mathinsight.org/proper_subset_definition

As we can see, the central point to understand about a proper subset is that it is not equal to the set of which it is a proper subset.

So now that you have told us that natural born citizens is a proper subset of born citizens and we know the meaning of a proper subset, please do explain how the two sets, i.e., natural born citizens and born citizens, are not equal. You better get mathematicians Dr. Conspiracy and Slartibartfast (he says he has a Ph.D. in Mathematics) to bail you out of this one."

July 20, 2014 at 2:38 PM

Unknown said...

MichaelN said...

Professor Robert G. Natelson wrote:

"We know exactly what the Founders meant by the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ because they adapted it from the English legal term, ‘natural born subject,’ which in Britain defined who could serve in Parliament or the Privy Council."


We also know Natelson was wrong, because the term "natural born subject" also included those who were naturalized by statute, including adult foreigners who were naturalized.

If the US had used the English definition - including statutory natural born subjects, then any citizen who had been naturalized would also be eligible for the presidency.

But they aren't.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

David Farrar said at Cafe Con Leche Republicans:

"Positive law can always adopt natural law; it can never create natural law."

I made this response:

Positive law can always change or adopt natural law; it can never create natural law. It is for this reason that the law of nations (natural law applied to and modified for the affairs of nations) definition of a natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797); Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898).

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

The English common law did not distinguish between a “natural born subject” and a naturalized subject. "The English common law provided that an alien naturalized is “to all intents and purposes a natural born subject.” Co. Litt. 129 (quoted and cited in United States v. Rhodes, 27 F.Cass. 785, 790 (1866).). Under English common law, once a person became naturalized, he or she was deemed to be a “natural born subject.” Hence, under English common law a naturalized citizen was considered a “natural born subject.” Hence, giving the “natural born Citizen” clause the same meaning as a “natural born subject” would have allowed a naturalized citizen to be eligible to be President of the new Republic. But Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 mandates that only a “natural born Citizen” is eligible to be President. The clause is written as “No person except . . . shall be eligible . . .” which means that one must be a “natural born Citizen” in order to be eligible to be President, with no exceptions. The way we have interpreted the “natural born Citizen” clause since the beginning of the Republic, a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. But assuming the “natural born Citizen” clause had the same meaning as a “natural born subject,” with the Constitution as written it would not have conveyed in any manner that a naturalized citizen was not eligible to be President. No where do we find in the Constitution any statement that a naturalized citizen is not eligible to be President. To reach this conclusion, we have always relied upon the “natural born Citizen” clause itself which we have compared with the fact that the Framers prescribed in Article I that naturalized citizens were eligible to be Senators (“nine Years a Citizen of the United States”) and Representatives (seven Years a Citizen of the United States”) . The manner in which the Framers provided that Senators and Representatives needed to be “Citizen of the United States” for only a certain amount of years shows that the naturalized citizen class was included within “Citizens of the United States” and not within “natural born Citizens.” This shows that naturalized citizens were not part of “natural born Citizens.” Hence, equating the meaning of a “natural born Citizen” to a “natural born subject” would have allowed naturalized persons to be President, a result that we have rejected from the beginning of the Constitutional Republic. Such a meaning would have created an exception to the “natural born Citizen” clause which would have eviscerated the clause itself. Additionally, since Congress has the power under Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 to make uniform the naturalization laws, such a meaning would have given Congress the power to decide who could be President by simply changing the naturalization requirements. The Framers, fearing that Congress would allow foreign influence to creep into the office of President if it were given the power to select the President, did not give Congress such power.

Mario Apuzzo brief to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, in Kerchner and Laudenslager v. Obama, accessed at http://www.scribd.com/doc/83104811/Kerchner-Laudenslager-v-Obama-Ballot-Challenge-Brief-on-Behalf-of-Objectors-Filed-28Feb2012 .

Anonymous said...

If the United States federal government strictly followed British common law regarding the election of the President, and natural-born subject equaled natural born citizen, then what equaled "a citizen of the United States"?

What was it's equivalent British term? Where do we find the label "a subject of the United Kingdom" as common standard parlance for any and all subjects?

It did not exist, but if it had, it would have meant the same thing as a natural-born subject, but following that fact, in America the meaning of natural born citizen and citizen of the United States would have had to have been equivalent and interchangeable. Who wants to step to the plate and argue that that was the case?

CALLING ALL OBOTS... WHICH ONE WANTS TO DEFEND THE AMERICAN COMMON LAW EQUIVALENCY DOCTRINE?

btw, I've spend hours searching the internet for a trace of the INS Interpretations page that used the terms; "a naturalize, native, or natural born citizen..." and it has been totally scrubbed from the internet, -as previously the obamunists had changed its url to hide it, but by searching I relocated it, and spread the word.

Now, the newer link, which I checked for the first time in ages, gives PAGE NOT FOUND using google, but the first time, while using Bing, it said: We would like to show you a description of the page but it will not allow us. (!!)

No reference to its location in government files remains on the internet within a reasonable search-time window.
It gets worst, even the Wayback Machine has been scrubbed, claiming it has no record of the page, when I have a link on my homepage to its record, -which now supposedly never existed.

I was alerted to something strange going on when I saw a huge spike in the number of readers of "Four Ways To Acquire Unnatural Citizenship"; instead of the usual 2-4 there were 160, so I became one of them, and click on the INS link which failed to produce the page, and then my second great search for it began.
The traitors have been busy.

I alerted Donofrio way back then and he wrote a new post on the find, which is here: http://naturalborncitizen.wordpress.com/2012/01/25/the-current-ins-officially-recognizes-a-delineation-between-natural-born-and-native-born/

http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/four-ways-to-acquirecitizenship/
A. Nash
PS, read my new revealing exposes of the short-form birth certificate.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

h2ooflife/Adrien Nash,

Now you can understand why the lightweight Obots deny what I have been saying for years that there are only two classes of citizens in our Constitution, the natural born citizens and the citizens of the United States. They just cannot stomach that the natural born citizens are made by virtue of being born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth and the citizens of the United States, who are not natural born citizens, are made by virtue of positive law which includes the Fourteenth Amendment, Acts of Congress, and treaties.

ajtelles said...

A Simple John Jay Question...

I got a response from some guy who makes a lot of what looks like sophisticated comments about the historical record and also negative ad hominem comments about Mario Apuzzo at FreedomOutpost.com, but who is not very responsive to my simple John Jay question that I have asked a few times of him and others, and which nobody EVER rebuts or refutes.

>> http://freedomoutpost.com/2014/07/natural-born-citizen-matter-republicans-democrats/

>> "Dave B. to Art Telles • a day ago
>> Cut the games and I'll carry on a dialogue.

>> Art Telles to Dave B. • 2 minutes ago
>> "Cut the game of no response and I'll carry on a dialogue.

>> What was John Jay's original genesis intent in 1787 before the first and subsequent naturalization acts and the 1868 14th Amendment?

>> 1-Birth inside OR outside the U.S. to one OR two U.S. citizen parents?
>> 2-Birth ONLY inside the U.S. to ONLY two U.S. citizen parents?

>> It's a simple question.
>> Right

It seems that the "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birthers do not have a cogent response to a John Jay original genesis intent question.

I wonder why?
Hmmm.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Before I could post the above to Puzo1, Dave B. Was responding on FreedomOutpost.com to my "cut the game of no response" comment.

Dave B. • 22 minutes ago

>> "John Jay didn't explain his intent."

Art Telles Dave B. • a minute ago

OK.

Well, why don't YOU explain John Jay's intent?

1-Was Jay implying birth inside OR outside the U.S. to one OR two U.S. citizen parents?
2-Was Jay implying birth ONLY inside the U.S. to ONLY two U.S. citizen parents?

It's a simple original genesis intent question.

Right?

My two parent is mandatory original genesis birther understanding is that Jay was implying, according to the 1700s common law understanding of the unity of citizenship and allegiance, that the citizenship of the husband determined the citizenship of the wife, AND the singular citizenship of BOTH parents determined the singular citizenship of the child, and the singular U.S. citizenship was a John Jay "natural born Citizen" eligible to be POTUS.

What is your "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birther understanding, and what original sources or John Jay implication supports your "one U.S. citizen' parent" is good 'nuf point of view?

It's a simple question.

Right?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

See, the simple question about John Jay's original genesis intent is a no-go-zone for "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birthers.

John Jay and his 1787 original genesis intent seems to be a winner question.

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"

Anonymous said...

~from one of my latest blog postings:

I finally found on the web a replica of the entire Interpretations page, (only one) in an obscure page that has been long abandoned. I down loaded it, and copied and pasted to this page all of the pertinent sections and more so they will not disappear again.

Here's the pdf I downloaded. I'm assuming it is the same as the pdf page I downloaded it from.

HERE'S THE ENTIRE COMPENDIUM OF INTERPRETATIONS, 466 PAGES

Interpretations 890Kb. Key page is page 190; (shown below; key words are in Red and are easily located.)

"The repatriation provisions of these two most recent enactments also apply to a native- and natural-born citizen woman who expatriated herself by marriage to an alien racially ineligible to citizenship,..."

"...as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of native-born or natural-born citizen (whichever existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired."

"but to restore the person to the status if naturalized, native, or natural-born citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss."
Interpretation 324.2 Reacquisition of citizenship lost by marriage.

(a) Repatriation
(b) Naturalization.
(c) Effect of expatriation reversals under Afroyim v. Rusk upon derivative citizenship rights.

(a) Repatriation. (1) Before and under....

Anonymous said...

Here's that darn U.S. Government "family agenda" law:

7 FAM 1131.4 Blood Relationship Essential

7 FAM 1131.4-1 Establishing Blood Relationship
a.
The laws on acquisition of U.S. citizenship through a parent have always contemplated the existence of a blood relation-ship between the child and the parent(s) through whom citizenship is claimed.

It is not enough that the child is presumed to be the issue of the parents' marriage by the laws of the jurisdiction where the child was born. Absent a blood relation-ship between the child and the parent on whose citizenship the child's own claim is based, U.S. citizenship is not acquired.

The burden of proving a claim to U.S. citizenship, including blood relationship and legal relationship, where applicable, is on the person making such claim.
b.
Applicants must meet different standards of proof of blood relationship depending on the circumstances of their birth:
(1)
The statutes do not specify a standard of proof ...The Department applies the general standard of a preponderance of the evidence. This standard means that the evidence of blood relationship is of greater weight than the evidence to the contrary.

It is credible and convincing and best accords with reason and probability. It does not depend on the volume of evidence presented.
c.
Children born in wedlock are generally presumed to be the issue of that marriage. This presumption is not determinative in citizenship cases, however, because an actual blood relationship to a U.S. citizen parent is required.

If doubt arises that the citizen "parent" is related by blood to the child, the consular officer is expected to investigate carefully.

So, like I've told you over and over, it's all about blood, American blood. Either you inherit it or you don't, -and are therefore not an American citizen by nature, and if born abroad, not a citizen by common law either.

Anonymous said...

There is no statutory allowance for women to be President, nor any constitutional provision defending such a privilege. There is only the fundamental principle of citizenship equality, and it was only finally embedded in the Constitution via the 14th Amendment.

Before the passage of the 19th Amendment, women could not vote, and certainly could not seek the presidency or any such high office.

Consequently, there was no real-world difference between a female native-born American common law citizen and a female natural born citizen, since neither had any right to serve as President.

The wickedly dishonest obama defenders would have everyone believe that when it came to national security, the framers were willing to allow sons of aliens to be President, when they would not allow their own mothers, wives, sisters and daughters to be President.
Just ask yourself, who would you trust more to babysit your small child, a female relative or a total stranger? Or to be a trustee of your parent's will and estate?
Or to watch your back when under attack?
If the framers would not allow their own flesh and blood to be President, how much more would they not allow the flesh and blood of strangers to rule over them?

ajtelles said...

John Jay vs. "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birthers

Mario, it seems that John Jay can't get a respectful response from "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birthers.

Here is the concluding, uh, very brief John Jay related dialogue with Dave B., who writes profusely about the historical record, English and American, using the same sources you use, and who has extensive comments about naturalization and Minor v Happersett and U.S. v Wong Kim Ark and etc., but who for some reason has absolutely NOTHING to say about John Jay's implicit original genesis original intent.

>> Dave B. Art Telles
>> "I'm not John Jay. And until you start writing coherent questions, I'm not going to try to answer them."

>> Art Telles Dave B.
>> "Dittos...
I also am not John Jay, but I have an informed opinion about Jay's 1787 original genesis intent.

>> "So, you do not have a cogent and coherent response about what YOU think Jay may have been implying in 1787.

>> "So, the winner is...
>> birth ONLY inside the U.S. to ONLY two U.S.citizen parents makes a person a "natural born Citizen" and eligible to be POTUS.

>> "So, Obama is NOT a "natural born Citizen" because he ONLY had one U.S. citizen parent.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

There was no rebuttal or refutation, and there NEVER is, to the simple John Jay original genesis original intent question.

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"

PS.

I concluded with President Abraham Lincoln, to continue the, uh, dialogue with Dave B., or anybody who might be lurking, but apparently Abe Lincoln is a "no go zone" also.

>> "Read what President Lincoln said about the "Union"
>> http://originalbirtherdocument14.blogspot.com/

Unknown said...

Just to be nitpicky, or rather to set the record straight ...

h2ooflife said...

There is no statutory allowance for women to be President, nor any constitutional provision defending such a privilege.


There was also no statutory prohibition for women to be President ...
"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 ..."

Person includes both male and female.

Before the passage of the 19th Amendment, women could not vote, and certainly could not seek the presidency or any such high office.

Women could vote in a lot of states before the passage of the 19th Amendment. It varied from state to state, with most of the western states granting full voting rights to women before the passage of the amendment. The 19th Amendment simply guaranteed that the right to vote couldn't be denied on account of sex.

Please don't perpetuate the myth that women weren't allowed to vote before the passage of the 19th Amendment.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Wilted Rose,

I agree with what you wrote regarding whether women were allowed to vote prior to the 19th Amendment and whether women were and are eligible to be President. I would like to add the following.

First, Virginia Minor in Minor v. Happersett (1875) was denied the right to vote because the State of Missouri denied her that right and the Court simply said that there was nothing in the Constitution which prohibited Missouri from taking that position. If Virginia has resided in another state that allowed her to vote, she simply could have gone to vote in that state without any need to resort to any law suits.

Second, as you point out, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, only says “person.” It does not discrimination based on gender. We have this from Minor which can be used to shed light on whether women were included as “persons” in Article II:

The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens. The words "all children" are certainly as comprehensive, when used in this connection, as "all persons," and if females are included in the last they must be in the first. That they are included in the last is not denied. In fact the whole argument of the plaintiffs proceeds upon that idea.

Id. at 167-68.

Indeed, the Court told us that women were included in “persons” in the Fourteenth Amendment and also in “children” in the definition of a natural born citizen (“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.”). Note that Minor’s definition of a natural born citizen includes two classes of membership, a “citizen” and a “natural born citizen,” indicating that there could not be natural born citizens unless there were citizens first. Hence, since qualifying women could be “natural born citizens” and were also included under the Fourteenth Amendment as “citizens” when they satisfied the Amendment’s requirements for that status (note the distinction between a “natural born citizen” under Article II and a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment), there is no reason to think that women were not included in “person” in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

Hence, women, who could be natural born citizens, at least 35 years of age, and at least 14 years a resident within the United States, were always and are today eligible to be President under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

Anonymous said...

Rose wrote: "Please don't perpetuate the myth that women weren't allowed to vote before the passage of the 19th Amendment."

It's a matter of semantics. Women were not allow to vote, but what does "women" mean? Does it mean "no women", or "some women"? It's ambiguous and nondescript. So it can be true both ways.

Mario wrote: "Hence, women, who could be natural born citizens,...were always and are today eligible to be President"

That views fails to take reality into account. Civic rights were a State issue, under State administration. Voting was one of them, and also running for public office. Civic rights only came to be nationally guaranteed with the passage of the 14th Amendment.

And yet what happened? Did women thereby acquire the right to vote? No, because they did not have that right at the establishment of the nation under the compact of the State republics.
It took a constitutional amendment to provide that their right be recognized.
It was the same with running for high office, or holding many positions in government (and society).
The prohibition securing the presidency is prohibitive in nature, stating that "no person except", instead of "all persons who are...", thus its words do not mean that ALL natural born citizens are eligible.
Female NBCs were excluded as unwritten law, as a convention, custom, tradition of human civilization at the time.

Only one such custom still remains, and probably always will, and that is the expectation that they engage, if called, in military service.
Their exemption from that duty was the moral basis of not granting them full citizenship rights, since they were not required to bear the full burden of citizenship.

ajtelles said...

John Jay & Article II

Mario,

Here is a "what if" possibility about males and females being implied in "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5.

My original John Jay original genesis and original intent question is simple.

What was John Jay's original genesis intent in 1787 before the first and subsequent naturalization acts and the 1868 14th Amendment?

1-Birth inside OR outside the U.S. to one OR two U.S. citizen parents?
2-Birth ONLY inside the U.S. to ONLY two U.S. citizen parents?

That's a simple question.
Right?

Well, how about males and females?

Maybe an exercise in possibilities will allow asking what John Jay and George Washington and ALL of the convention delegates implied by accepting John Jay's original genesis intent and inserting "natural born Citizen" into Article II.

Another and more complicated John Jay implicit original genesis original intent question that "one U.S. citizen parents" is good 'nuf birthers might ask if John Jay was not a no-go-zone for Obama-birthers is related. Were males AND females implied in "natural born Citizen?"

It has always been my 2000s understanding that male AND females were included in John Jay's 1700s implicit meaning inherent in "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5, although Jay's "Command in Chief" words in his note to George Washington were usually associated with men in 1787 America.

Would military veteran George Washington have concurred with John Jay if Jay was making an implicit reference to females as also eligible to have "Command in Chief" authority? Who knows for sure? Absolutely no one knows because male and female eligibility was not debated and recorded.

ajtelles said...

John Jay & Article II

2/

1-Was John Jay implying and was military veteran George Washington concurring with male OR female U.S. citizens as "... eligible to the Office of the President?"

2-Was John Jay implying and was military veteran George Washington concurring with ONLY male U.S. citizens as "... eligible to the Office of the President?"

If a "natural born Citizen" female, born inside the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents, could have had the support of the majority of the voting electorate, females and males, who supported John Adams or Thomas Jefferson and etc . for any of the following male presidents, would a female POTUS aspirant have been Article II Section 1 Clause 5 eligible in their minds?

Yes, according to the implicit meaning of "natural born Citizen" in Article II.

No, according to the implicit common law understanding that the citizenship of the husband determined the citizenship of the wife. Even though females voted in some states, would they have been accepted as "... eligible to the Office of the President" in all of the states as opponents of any of the males who were elected president?

Probably not, even though Article II did not explicitly deny females eligibility to the "Office of the President."

If eligibility of females had been debated and settled in the affirmative according to Article II and before 1868 and the 16th Amendment, John Jay's implicit meaning being debate today in 2000s America, birth ONLY inside the U.S. to ONLY two U.S. citizen parents, this would not be debated today.

As the debate stands today, we in 2000s America can point back to John Jay in 1787 and say that if the eligibility of females to the "... Office of the President" were debated and settled in the affirmative in the early years of the republic, the original genesis words "natural born Citizen" in Article II would have been interpreted to mean that BOTH males AND females were implied in John Jay's words because the U.S. Constitution did NOT explicitly deny POTUS eligibility to females, and what would have been settled in the negative is that Article II Section 1 Clause 5 did NOT explicitly include POTUS eligibility to ONLY "one U.S. citizen parent" citizen.

The simple John Jay implicit original genesis and original intent question, birth ONLY inside the U.S. to ONLY two U.S. citizen parents, is helpful in understanding other implicit original intent questions about male and female eligibility to the "... Office of the President."

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Adrien Nash,

You semantic game does not impress me. Are you serious, what does “women” mean? Please do not waste our precious time with such antics.

Also, the issue is did the Constitution prohibit women from being eligible to be President. You said: “There is no statutory allowance for women to be President, nor any constitutional provision defending such a privilege.” Clearly, you knew what “women” meant when you made that statement. You have been show that your statement is false and yet you persist in your game to try to convince us that you were right in what you said.

When will you ever admit to any of the countless mistakes that you have committed?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Art,

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is both inclusive and exclusive. The central and controlling point is that the text of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 includes women as being eligible to be President. There is nothing in the text which excludes them from such eligibility. As I have shown, they were “persons” and could be “natural born citizens,” at least 35 years of age, and at least a 14-year resident within the United States. Hence, they were included. Also, there is nothing about their nature which requires that they be excluded by the language of the Article.

ajtelles said...

Dittos Mario...

>> "Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 is both inclusive and exclusive."

Agreement.

The "what if" question is that it is an interesting exercise in logic looking back at 1787 and speculating what the debate may have produced in clarifying the original genesis meaning of "natural born Citizen" as related to both U.S. citizenship and male and female eligibility if both had been debated in the early years of the republic.


>> "The central and controlling point is that the text of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 includes women as being eligible to be President.

>> There is nothing in the text which excludes them from such eligibility.

>> "As I have shown, they were “persons” and could be “natural born citizens,” at least 35 years of age, and at least a 14-year resident within the United States.

>> "Hence, they were included.

>> Also, there is nothing about their nature which requires that they be excluded by the language of the Article.


Agreement x 4.

We can see the inclusive aspect of Article II clearly today in 2000s America, but the "what if" logical exercise is about what the 1700s and 1800s electorate might have said in their point-counterpoint if the issue of female eligibility was debated AND if John Jay's original genesis intent about citizenship had also been debated.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The point of the "what if" exercise is to point out that the "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birthers can NOT talk about female eligibility in 1787 and in future years without ALSO talking about Jay's original genesis intent about citizenship.

Jay's original genesis intent in underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" is a winner debate point, in addition to the historical record that you clarify so well. The Obama-birthers attempt to rebut and refute your analysis without success, but for some reason that they do not want to admit, they NEVER attempt to rebut and refute my emphasis on John Jay's ONLY original genesis and original intent about his ONLY meaning in suggesting "natural born Citizen" to George Washington. The brief point-counterpoint I had with Dave B. in the previous post here reveals the "one U.S. citizen parents" is good 'nuf birther lack of consistent logic and coherence.

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"

Anonymous said...

7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”

Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) provides that the term "naturalization" means "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever."

Persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the applicable statutory transmission requirements are not considered citizens by naturalization.

Let's see now... -they aren't citizens by naturalization, they aren't citizens by common law native birth, so that only leaves natural citizenship being transmitted to natural American children, which demolishes Mario's native-birth doctrine entirely.
Check Mate. Children of Americans are American regardless of birth location as every true American knows.

In 1862, Congressman John Bingham from Ohio, who is recognized as the father of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment, made the following statement during debate on the floor of the House:

“All from other lands, who by the terms of laws and a compliance with their provisions become naturalized, are adopted citizens of the United States; all other persons born within the Republic, of parents owing allegiance to no other sovereignty, are natural born citizens.
Gentleman can find no exception to this statement touching natural-born citizens except what is said in the Constitution relating to Indians.”

Four years later, Bingham stated:

“Every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.”

And where do Americans stop "owing" allegiance to the United States? No where. They are akin to members of the Armed Forces. They are under obligation to maintain loyalty wherever they are, including foreign lands where they may give birth while still subject to their own nation and thus so also is their child, exclusively, making them natural citizens, and not by naturalization.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

We have this from Slartibartfast at Café Con Leche Republicans directed to me with my response:

“Saying that all Americans are either natural born citizens or citizens of the United States is like saying, in your favorite analogy, all dogs are either poodles or dogs. Technically it is correct, but it is also misleading (unlike most of what you write which is incorrect and misleading). This is the very misrepresentation that led you to making statements which were demonstrably untrue with regard to set theory.

~~~~~

Animals come in different categories. Among those categories are dogs. Dogs come in different breeds. Each breed has a settled definition among those people who have knowledge about dogs and their breeds. A poodle is one type of breed. It is the definition of a poodle, as agreed upon by those people with knowledge about dogs and their breeds, which makes it a poodle and distinguishes it from all other dogs or breeds.

So if an animal is a dog, it must be either a poodle by satisfying its definition or another type of dog or breed. It cannot be any other way.

This means that by definition, the existence of which is documented through historical and legal sources, only a poodle is a poodle. Any dog that is not a poodle is some other type of dog or breed.

Get the hint? If not, let me help you.

This means that people are either citizens of the United States or they are not. Citizens of the United States are either natural born citizens or they are not. If they are natural born citizens, then they are natural born citizens. If they are not, then they are citizens of the United States. By definition, only a part of the citizens of the United States are natural born citizens. By definition that has been documented by historical and legal sources, those among them who were born in the United States to parents who were its citizens at the time of their birth are not only citizens of the United States, but also natural born citizens. Emer de Vattel, Section 212, The Law of Nations (1758) (1797); Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Any citizen of the United States who is not a natural born citizen is some other type of citizen of the United States. For example, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) held that a child born in the United States to permanently domiciled and resident alien parents who were neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders was a citizen of the United States by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Congress tells us that children born out of the United States to one or two U.S. parents are citizens of the United States at birth by virtue of its naturalization Acts. It also tells us that children born out of the United States to alien parents can naturalized if they qualify and thereby become citizens of the United States after birth by virtue of its naturalization Acts. Children born out of the United States to alien parents can also qualify to be citizens of the United States after birth by virtue of treaties.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

The point of all this is to understand that when John Jay wrote to then-General George Washington in July of 1787, so that the Commander in Chief of the Military not be psychologically conflicted by foreign influence, that no one except a natural born citizen be given the powers of the Commander in Chief of the Military, he did not have to explain to him in his letter what the definition of a natural born citizen was. The point is also to understand that the Framers during the Constitutional Convention did not debate the definition of a natural born citizen. Neither Jay nor the delegates addressed the definition of a natural born citizen because the definition was settled among the civilized nations of the world. Hence, a natural born citizen (poodle) has only one definition and that is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth (substitute the definition of a poodle). All other citizens of the United States (dogs), regardless of the means by which they acquire their citizenship status (their breed), not satisfying the definition of a natural born citizens (definition of a poodle), are citizens of the United States (dogs), but not natural born citizens (not poodles).

This means that assuming de facto President Barack Obama was born in the United States (a fact which he has not conclusively proven), not satisfying the definition of a natural born citizen because he was also not born to parents who were both U.S. citizens, he is at best a citizen of the United States at birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, but not a natural born citizen by virtue of its settled definition, i.e., by birth in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. Senator Ted Cruz, being born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban father, not satisfying the definition of a natural born citizen because he was neither born nor reputed born in the United States like John McCain and also not born to parents who were both U.S. citizens, is at best a citizen of the United States at birth by virtue of a naturalization Act of Congress, but also not a natural born citizen by virtue of its definition.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger/h2ooflife/Adrien Nash,

You provide the following source as evidence against my position that there is such a thing well documented throughout history as naturalization at birth:1

7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”

Section 101(a)(23) INA (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(23)) provides that the term "naturalization" means "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever."

Persons who acquire U.S. citizenship at birth by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent or parents who meet the applicable statutory transmission requirements are not considered citizens by naturalization.”

~~~~~

You have to understand that definitions in positive law given by that law must be understood within the context and for the purpose for which they are provided. That the FAM or some Act of Congress may define naturalization in such a limited way does not mean that that definition is applicable in all occurrences in which we need to define naturalization.
Simply stated, in its broadest and philosophical sense, naturalization is the removal of alienage with which one is born. The reality is that one who is born out of the United States, whether to U.S. citizen parents or alien parents, is born with alienage, by being born under and subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power. Being born under that foreign jurisdiction, that foreign nation has the sovereign right to declare that person born on its soil a citizen and in allegiance to it. Hence, that person is born with alienage which must be removed by U.S. law (with effect only in the United States) in order for that person to be a citizen of the United States at birth. Since our nation today (it can change its mind as it has done in the past) has made the policy decision to accept such persons as citizens of the United States at birth, it does in effect naturalize those persons from the moment of their birth to be citizens of the United States at birth. Since that U.S. naturalization law does not preclude the foreign nation on whose soil that child is born from holding that child to be its citizen and in allegiance to it, the citizenship and allegiance status of that foreign-born person continues as that foreign nation may wish.

We have seen a prime example of this reality with Senator Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and Cuban father. Under a naturalization Act of Congress, he is a citizen of the United States at birth. But under Canada law, he was also a Canadian citizen at birth. Cruz has recently renounced his Canadian citizenship which he has had since birth in his effort to market himself to unknowing members of the public as a natural born citizen of the United States.
________________

1. In Calvin’ Case (1608), Lord Coke naturalized Robert Calvin at birth to be an English natural-born subject. Calvin (postnati) had been born in Scotland after James IV of Scotland became James I of England, Ireland, and Scotland (the union of the English and Scottish Crowns), to Scottish parents (antenati) who were born before the union of the Crowns.

ajtelles said...

Citizenship & Naturalization
or
Every & Not Every & No


What silly word games about "natural born Citizen" by the "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birthers who insist that "birth inside OR outside the U.S. to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent" was ALSO implied by John Jay, as well as "two U.S. citizen parents," when Jay underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington.

_Every child born on earth is a "natural born" child at birth.
_Not every "natural born" child at birth is a U.S. citizen at birth.
_Not every "natural born" child at birth is a U.S. natural born citizen at birth.
_Every U.S. natural born citizen is a U.S. citizen at birth.
_Not every U.S. citizen at birth is a U.S. natural born citizen.
_Every U.S. naturalized citizen is a U.S. citizen, some at birth (See INA TITLE III, ACT 301 ) and some after birth.
_Every 14th Amendment citizen at birth is a U.S. citizen at birth.
_Not every U.S. citizen at birth is a 14th Amendment citizen at birth.
_No U.S. citizen after birth is a 14th Amendment citizen at birth.
_No U.S. natural born citizen at birth is a 14th Amendment citizen at birth.
_No U.S. natural born citizen at birth is a naturalized citizen at birth or after birth
_Etc.

There are more ways to articulate the citizen and naturalization scenarios. Except for the "natural born Citizen" references, all of the above possibilities about citizenship and naturalization, and more, are already addressed at USCIS.gov., VOLUME 12: CITIZENSHIP & NATURALIZATION

>> http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12.html

Why don't the "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birthers at Café Con Leche Republicans adduce the USCIS.gov info, word for word, before writing silly things like the comment that was directed at Mario.

The "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birthers are stuck in the citizen v naturalization dead end, chasing their tails going nowhere as long as they ignore John Jay and his 1787 original genesis perspective about the unity of citizenship and allegiance, AND as long as they ignore the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act while hanging out at the 14th Amendment water cooler as they gossip about the meaning and intent of words, and how the 1868 14th Amendment implied that "one U.S. citizen parent" was good 'nuf and was confirmed by the two Supreme Court decisions and dicta, Minor v Happersett in 1875 and U.S. v Wong Kim Ark in 1898, and are implicit historical proof that ONLY "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf for any "citizen" to be eligible to be POTUS, and by implication, they are saying that John Jay was affirming their "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birther theory.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

USCIS.gov
Home
[ http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual.html ]

Table of Contents
[ http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-TableOfContents.html ]

VOLUME 7: ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS
[ http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume7.html ]

VOLUME 8: ADMISSIBILITY
[ http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume8.html ]

VOLUME 9: WAIVERS
[ http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume9.html ]

VOLUME 12: CITIZENSHIP & NATURALIZATION
[ http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12.html ]

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act
[ http://www.uscis.gov/laws/immigration-and-nationality-act ]

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (Legal Code)
>> [ http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/act.html ]

Scroll down to INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH.

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"

Anonymous said...

"The reality is that one who is born out of the United States, whether to U.S. citizen parents or alien parents, is born with alienage, by being born under and subject to the jurisdiction of a foreign power."

For once in your life Mario, explain just what the hell that means in the real world. I don't understand it. Would you kindly enlighten my darkness cause I can't see how the hell it could mean a darn thing in the real world. I'll await your reply.

How is a baby born with foreignness because of geography, or artificial borders of nations, or the arbitrary martial power of dictators or governments?

How does their self-serving will cause the Unites States to surrender the sovereignty of its citizens over their own American children?
If you think that mere birth location alone nullifies an unalienable human right, then you are nuts, and very clearly a childless soul who understand nothing about how the real world works.

Americans are the equivalent of foreign kings. Our sovereignty goes with us wherever we go. We do not surrender it. The children of the American kings are natural born citizens of the realm regardless of the soil they are born on.
We have no regard for self-serving choices of other governments in regard to our children. They can stuff it.

Americans are sovereign over their own children and you could not save your own life if you had to explain just how in God's name American children an born infected with any attachment to a foreign power which only comes via a blood connection.


"Being born under that foreign jurisdiction, that foreign nation has the sovereign right to declare that person born on its soil a citizen and in allegiance to it."

WE DON'T GIVE A DAMN WHAT OTHER NATIONS DECLARE IF IT VIOLATES OUR NATURAL SOVEREIGNTY. THEIR "RIGHTS" ARE IRRELEVANT TO OUR LIBERTY.

"Hence, that person is born with alienage which must be removed by U.S. law. PLEEEEASE EXPLAIN HOW. REMOVED HOW? ...uhhhh, well it's just another Mario mystery...

Anonymous said...

7 FAM 1131.6-3 Not Citizens by “Naturalization”

INA 8 U.S.C. 1101 provides that the term "naturalization" means "the conferring of nationality of a state upon a person after birth, by any means whatsoever."

Mario replied: That the FAM or some Act of Congress may define naturalization in such a limited way does not mean that that definition is applicable in all occurrences in which we need to define naturalization."

Mario, are you aware of what FAM stands for? For those who don't, it stands for FOREIGN AFFAIRS MANUAL Handbook Volume 7–
Consular Affairs

That means one thing only; it is the expressed position of the United States Government. No other position has any place in the conduct of foreign affairs. It is the law as it is understood and administered.

Mario's evasion that there are other legitimate positions besides that of the U.S. Government is absurd.
Mario's problem is that he agrees fully with its statement that naturalization is the conferring of nationality after birth by any means whatsoever!

Mario must love that statement, but equally hate what follows it: that children of Americans are not citizens by naturalization.

That statement and that fact demolishes his whole false native-birth doctrine, and his false "definition" of nbc (which includes the unnatural element of jus soli common law citizenship.

Natural citizens have no connection to jus soli since they inherit their nationality by descent, JUST AS THE GOVERNMENT MAKES PERFECTLY CLEAR!

But you can only lead a horse to water, you can't make him think.

Anonymous said...

Mario wrote: 1. In Calvin’ Case (1608), Lord Coke naturalized Robert Calvin at birth to be an English natural-born subject. Calvin (postnati)"

Why do you continue to peddle that falsehood when I've already explained to you why it is false? Can't you remember what you've read?
Calvin was born of subjects of the English king because he was their king long before he was the king of England.
Calvin was not born of aliens, foreigners, or immigrants. He was born of natural natives of the royal dominion. And as Lord Coke put it, was naturalized by procreation and birthright,(by blood and descent) -not by any law or judicial opinion or magical unexplained power of Lord Coke which in fact only Parliament possessed.
Mario, are you claiming that a mere judge was imbued with the unlimited power of the people's Parliament? Because is what you've written.
You need to justify it or weasel out of it somehow.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Adrien Nash,

You are a fool who is deluded by your need to serve your family interest. Did you not notice in Wong Kim Ark that Wong, born to Chinese parents became a citizen of the United States at birth by the simple fact of being born on the soil of the United States? Do you really think that the United States would be so dumb as you are to attempt to deny a foreign nation the same right that it asserts over children born in the United States to alien parents?

There isn’t one thing that you say that is correct. You espouse nothing but a product of your own selfish need to promote your family agenda.

P.S. You commentary on Calvin’s Case is hilarious.

Unknown said...

Women can be citizens or natural born citizens. Article 2 does not prohibit a woman from becoming president but a president does have to be a nbc....i think a nash is obsessed with mario. Maybe he should start counting the days to ending of nightmare fraud pres like i am.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

From Café Con Leche Republican, Bryan Gene Olson to Mario Apuzzo:

Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:

You provide the following quote from Akil Reed Amar, author of /America’s Constitution: A Biography/ Random House, 2005. ISBN-13 978-1400062621, as some formula of who is a natural born citizen:

“‘The Constitution’s rule that the president be ‘a natural born citizen’ focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date.’http://slate.com/id/2183588/ .”

Mr. Amar states the obvious which is that a natural born citizen must be born a citizen. The clause itself tells us that. It does not take a constitutional scholar to figure that much out. But then it takes a little more intelligence to ask the next question: by what means or mechanism is one to be a born citizen in order to be a natural born citizen?

~~~~~

Bryan Gene Olson wrote:

That’s what I love about Apuzzo. I say that Mr. Apuzzo rails against a theory he does not comprehend, and he comes right back proving what I just wrote. The /Slate/ article was aimed at a lay audience. It’s really not all that hard.

Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:

“It is here that Mr. Amar, like you and your coterie, fail.”
Check out who failed:

“The expression ‘natural born Citizen’ is not dependent on the nationality of the parents but reflects the status of a person born into citizenship instead of having citizenship subsequently bestowed. The distinction is eminently logical.” — Vermont Superior Court, Paige v. Obama, No. 611-8-12 WNCV, Sept. 21, 2012.

~~~~~

Your simpleton’s little pet theory, i.e., any born citizen is a natural born citizen, would work if Article II said "born citizen." But it says "natural born citizen." Hence, you lose.

I see that you also have to incessantly tell us in every one of your comments about those lower courts. I see why you do that. What you present as your constitutional argument surely does not come close to proving anything by whatever level of burden of proof you would like to use. In fact, you have no real legal argument, but only taunts at what others write. You figure that you will make up for your total failure in presenting an intelligent constitutional argument by bolstering your sophomoric foolishness with what you present as some court-provided definitive statement on the status of the constitutional meaning of a natural born citizen. The unsubstantiated opinions of those lower courts speak for themselves. You lose again.

Anonymous said...

"Do you really think that the United States would be so dumb as you are to attempt to deny a foreign nation the same right that it asserts over children born in the United States to alien parents?"

Mario, you are a disgusting imperialist, and anti-American Values.
Please explain, oh great one, how in God's name the United States "asserts" any "rights" over alien-born babies born of foreign transients, -or born of anyone at all???

What exactly does the US government assert over babies?????????????

NOTHING! Your totalitarian view is antithetical to all that America stands for, which is individual rights, -not government rights.

Plus, as usual, you are wrong about the 14th Amendment since you foolishly omitted the co-requirement of subjection to U.S. full sovereign jurisdiction, -which only legal immigrants are subject to.

Why is it that you have failed to ever once deny that fact, but avoid ever mentioning the subject? Why? Because it means that Obama is not a U.S. citizen.

That's something that you do not have the spine to acknowledge. After all, people might think you're nuts.
If they did, they'd be joining me, since I already know it for a fact.

And your reply to the truth about Calvin reveals the extent of your bankruptcy of understanding about the nature of nationality.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Adrien Nash,

You know darn well what I believe to be the holding of Wong Kim Ark. Regardless of those constitutional niceties, when is the last time you saw any U.S. Government official have the political courage to say that a child born to a transient or illegal alien in the United States is not a Fourteenth Amendment "citizen of the United States" at birth?

The only one that is nuts here is you.

P.S. Your fantasy-land reading of Calvin's Case is still hilarious.

Anonymous said...

Mario wrote: "The unsubstantiated opinions of those lower courts speak for themselves."

It's worse than that. We can say the same regarding the dunces and duffuses and traitors on the high court as well. Wearing a black robe does not change a jerk into a divine dispenser of truth.

They feel they are empowered to make law, to make their opinion law, to make their preference law. They are limitless and shameless. Exactly what the founders dreaded. An oligarchy of judicial tyrants.

Akil Reed Amar wrote: “‘The Constitution’s rule that the president be ‘a natural born citizen’ focuses not on where a person became a citizen, but when. To be eligible, one must be born a citizen rather than naturalized at some later date.”

What a moron. The truth is that both are WRONG! It is neither where nor when, it is HOW!
It's all about origin. Just as it is with recognition of nativeness for Native Americans and Hawaiians.
The question is: How did one become a citizen? By blood inheritance or by permission of law?
By descent or by the magnanimous concession of natives?
By common law or by natural law?

Natural born citizen = native-born citizen?
Natural born killer = native-born killer?
Natural blond = native blond?
Natural born athlete = native-born athlete?
Natural musical genius = native musical genius?
Natural insemination = native insemination?

Gee, when the heck does natural finally convert into meaning native? I can't seem to find where that happens. Maybe one of Barackla's minions can point me in the right direction.

Anonymous said...

"when is the last time you saw any U.S. Government official have the political courage to say that..."

Seriously? You know as well as I that none of them have any political courage at all! Otherwise this blog, and mine, and a many others would not need to exist. So your point is pointless.
Because it was purely an attempt to shift the spotlight from your lack of courage to theirs.
When was the last time that you acknowledge that Obama is not a 14th Amendment common law citizen of the United States since he was born subject to British jurisdiction via descent from a transient, non-immigrant, British subject father?
Answer: never. Why? No courage. You'll go so far but no farther. After all, you have a reputation to think about. Can't let truth get in the way of that. First things first.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

From Bryan Gene Olson to Mario Apuzzo at Café Con Leche Republicans with my reply:

“Mr. Apuzzo seems to forget who needed help on such simple concepts.

“The grandfather clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 said that any person born after the adoption of the Constitution who was a ‘citizen of the United States’ could no longer be President.” — Mario Apuzzo Esquire, January 15, 2011 http://www.caaflog.com/2010/11/28/this-week-in-military-justice-28-november-2010-edition/comment-page-6/

Mario Apuzzo asked an obot, “If that is all true and I have never seen anybody argue that it is not, then how could one be a ‘citizen of the United States’ and also be a ‘natural born Citizen’ at the same time?” — ibid.”

~~~~~

First, I see that you are still having a tough time reading. Article II says that for those born after the adoption of the Constitution, one must be a “natural born citizen” to be eligible to be President. If one is only a citizen of the United States, one is not eligible. Hence, today, a citizen of the United States, unless also a natural born citizen, is not eligible to be President. That reality makes my statement perfectly correct.

Second, let us put some context to my second statement. I have asked you this several times and you still have not answered me. Give me one example of one of the original “citizens of the United States” who was also a “natural born citizen.” Now you might provide me with a definition of a natural born citizen which allows you to provide such an example. But remember, my definition of a natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. So, granting me my definition, give me that example.

Third, I see that you are still lying about having said that natural born citizens is a proper subset of born citizens. By the way, what you said is correct, but you want to deny having said it. How is that going for you?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

From Slartibartfast (answering for Bryan Gene Olson who is missing in action) to Mario Apuzzo at Café Con Leche Republicans with my reply:

I asked Bryan Gene Olson:

“Second, let us put some context to my second statement. I have asked you this several times and you still have not answered me. Give me one example of one of the original “citizens of the United States” who was also a “natural born citizen.” Now you might provide me with a definition of a natural born citizen which allows you to provide such an example. But remember, my definition of a natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. So, granting me my definition, give me that example. “

Here is Slartibartfast’s response:

“Any of our Presidents who also served in Congress would be an example of what you seek. We have never had a President who was not a natural born citizen and every member of Congress must be a citizen of the United States.”

~~~~~

You said: “We have never had a President who was not a natural born citizen.” This is false. Being the first President who was born in the United States to parents who were its citizens at the time of his birth, the first natural born citizen President was Martin Van Buren. See Mario Apuzzo, The Citizenship Status of Our 44 Presidents , Published: February 14, 2011; Revised: February 16, 2011, accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2011/02/citizenship-status-of-our-44-presidents.html .

You said: “[E]very member of Congress must be a citizen of the United States.” Of course that is true. But they do not have to be natural born citizens.

ajtelles said...

Silly & Nonsensical...

Mario, you quoted Slartibartfast/aka Kevin/aka S...

>> “[E]very member of Congress must be a citizen of the United States.”

Mario, you said to S...,

>> "Of course that is true.
>> But they do not have to be natural born citizens.

So, maybe S... has the context now to answer this simple question.

S... and ALL "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birthers, what is the difference between a naturalized 9 and 7 year U.S. "citizen" who is eligible to be Senator or Representative, and a U.S. "citizen" from birth inside OR outside the U.S. to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent and a U.S. "citizen" from birth ONLY inside the U.S. to ONLY two U.S. citizen parents who is ALSO a "natural born Citizen" who alone is eligible to be President?

Of the three U.S. "citizen" differences which one, only one, would John Jay have approved in 1787 as the ONLY requirement to be eligible to be president?

These silly propositions by the "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birthers is really boring 'cause there is no intellectual depth and substance rebutting and refuting the unity of citizenship and allegiance that has NEVER been abrogated since John Jay underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington.

That reference to John Jay and George Washington is for new lurkers who may be seeing the essence of the debate for the first time. For the "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birthers who play silly 1868 14th Amendment word games and 1875 Minor v Happersett word games and 1898 U.S. v Wong Kim Ark word games, and who can NOT rebut and refute Jay's 1787 original genesis implication of birth ONLY inside the U.S. to ONLY two U.S. citizen parents, and who can NOT rebut and refute the implications about the explicit articulation of citizenship and naturalization in the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, the "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birther theory is a silly proposition and nonsensical.

VOLUME 12: CITIZENSHIP & NATURALIZATION
[ http://www.uscis.gov/policymanual/HTML/PolicyManual-Volume12.html ]

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act
[ http://www.uscis.gov/laws/immigration-and-nationality-act ]

1952 Immigration and Nationality Act (Legal Code)
>> [ http://www.uscis.gov/iframe/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/act.html ]

Scroll down to INA: ACT 301 - NATIONALS AND CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AT BIRTH.

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birthr" Document of the "Union"

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

The Obots say: natural born citizen means born citizen or any born citizen is a natural born citizen.

I say, a natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

The Obots are big talkers about Ockham’s Razor. Let us apply that razor to the Obot natural born citizen thesis versus the Anti-Obot one.

Ockham’s razor informs that we approach solving a problem by first having a hypothesis, theory, or explanation which is advanced as the solution to the problem. In the intellectual process, we are to first provide the simplest explanation when attempting to solve the problem. Under the theory, the simplest argument is one that has the least amount of assumptions. Once we solve one aspect of the problem with certainty, we are permitted to advance to another level of assumptions. We see this process at work in medicine when doctors rule out within an acceptable level of medical probabilities certain possible causes of disease or some medical condition and then having done that and the disease or condition still persists, move on to examining other probable causes for the disease or condition.

Let us first put the Obot thesis to the Ockham’s test. Again, their thesis is: natural born citizen means born citizen or any born citizen is a natural born citizen.

First, we are supposed to believe that before choosing the nomenclature “natural born citizen” rather than “natural-born subject,” the Framers forgot that they had a Revolution with England and that they created 13 separate free and independent republics out of the former monarchical English colonies.

Second, we are supposed to believe that when the Framers wrote the natural born citizen clause into the constitution, they really did not mean to write “natural born citizen.” Rather, they meant to write “born citizen.” We are supposed to believe this when John Jay in his July 1787 letter to then-General George Washington simply wrote the clause “natural born citizen” (underlying the word “born”) and did not also provide any explanation as to what a natural born citizen was and when General Washington wrote back to him shortly thereafter thanking him for his suggestion he did not ask him what he meant by a natural born citizen. We are supposed to believe this when there is no record of the Framers debating the meaning of a natural born citizen in the Constitutional Convention. We are supposed to believe this when Alexander Hamilton’s suggestion that the President be “born a citizen” was not adopted in the Convention, but rather “natural born citizen” was. We are supposed to believe this when there is no record of anyone debating the meaning of a natural born citizen in the state ratifying conventions.

Third, we are supposed to believe that the Framers really did not have any definition of the clause in mind. After all, saying that a natural born citizen is a born citizen does not tell us how or by what means or mechanism one becomes a born citizen. Rather, they would have expected future generations just to figure it out.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Fourth, we are supposed to believe that the Framers expected Congress to add to the people who the Framers accepted as natural born citizens. They were to desire that when we know that the Framers had no doubt that a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth was natural born citizen. Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Then we are supposed to believe that the Framers just left it up to future events for determining who else would be declared a natural born citizen. After all, Congress was given the power to naturalize persons and Congress using that power could always determine who and under what circumstances one would be “born citizen.” We are supposed to believe that the Framers really did not care who the future President and Commander in Chief was, provided that future Congresses made sure that they were born citizens.

Fifth, we are also supposed to believe that the Framers further left it up to Congress to add to the class of natural born citizens by declaring which children born in the United States to alien parents were supposed to be accepted as natural born citizens. This scenario falls under the Fourteenth Amendment which Wong Kim Ark interpreted to provide that a child born in the United States to alien parents who were permanently domiciled and resident in the United States and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders is a “citizen of the United States” at birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Now let us put the Anti-Obot thesis to the test. Again, our thesis is: A natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. That is it. We do not need any further assumptions or future events yet to occur in order to know who is a natural born citizen today or in the future. That statement provides everything we need to determine who is a natural born citizen for all time. After making the statement, there is no guessing or wondering what the clause means. Other nations can also accept such a definition without any conflict. Finally, our thesis accepts that it was the founding generation which decided who was going to be eligible to be President, not a future one which the Founders did not know.

So, who wins, the Obots or Anti-Obots. The choice is clear. The Anti-Obots win hands down.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

From Bryan Gene Olson to Mario Apuzzo at Café Con Leche Republicans with my reply:

“Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:
‘What a ridiculous statement, saying that here is no national common law.’

Losing attorneys do not get to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court.”

~~~~~

I do not have to overrule the U.S. Supreme Court. Do you really believe that the Court in Wong Kim Ark meant that there is no national common law when our nation has always been full of it? Clearly, the Court did not mean what you think it meant. Your position is patently absurd given the history of our Federal Courts creating national common law in areas involving the national interest which it continues to create to this day. You really are off your rocker.

ajtelles said...

Control the Conversation...

Mario, I really like your essay today, July 25, 2014 at 6:15 PM, because in it you take control of the conversation, the language, and the words, in a way that forces the "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birthers to think like John Jay in 1787, before they write their silly 1868 14th Amendment water cooler gossip.

If the "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birthers don't like Article II Section 1 Clause 5 with John Jay's implicit original genesis intent of meaning ONLY birth inside the U.S. to ONLY two U.S. citizen parents, amend it.

If the law is there in Clause 5 with John Jay's original genesis intent meaning of birth inside the U.S. to two U.S. citizen parents, originalist constitutionalists need to enforce it. Enforce and strengthen Clause 5 by amending it with clarifying language before another I-I-I-Managed-to-OCCUPY-America and the oval office usurper president happens again as a "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birther.

In court, Mario presented and defended a natural born citizen as a child born inside the U.S. to parents who are citizens of the U.S.

In court, the lawyers of the "one U.S. citizen parent" is good'nuf birthers' position did NOT defend one vs. two, they simply asserted that "one U.S. citizen parent" was good 'nuf.

Why?

'Cause Obama only had one U.S. citizen parent, and the "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birther judges simply uttered the words that Obama is a natural born citizen because he was born to at least one U.S. citizen parent. THAT is incoherent because it does NOT adduce the original genesis intent of John Jay and George Washington and ALL of the convention delegates who accepted and adopted the words "natural born Citizen" in 1787.

So, just because a judge said so, the perception of the recalcitrant Obama-birthers on Cafe Con Leche Republicans and ObamaConspiracy.org and Fogbow etc. is that the "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birther lawyers and judges are telling the American people that John Jay was implying NOT two but ONLY "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf for a person to be eligible to be president.

Mario did not lose ANY of the court decisions, he was sucker punched by incoherent incompetence under the cover of law that is without foundation. John Jay, a lawyer, would stand shoulder to shoulder with Mario and put his right arm around Mario's shoulders, and Jay, a lawyer and U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, would be ashamed of the "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birther lawyers and judges.

All the "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birthers need to do to refute the above paragraph is to cogently articulate why the lower hurdle of only "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf and why the higher hurdle of "two U.S. citizen parents" is NOT the ONLY original genes intent of John Jay.

Simple. Right?

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"

MichaelN said...

Parental allegiance is a consideration in determining US citizenship of the native-born to alien parents.

Parental allegiance is a consideration in determining US citizenship of the off-shore born to citizen parents.

Why would parental allegiance not be a consideration in determining a native-born US citizen's eligibility for the office of POTUS?

ajtelles said...

On Point Dittos...

MichaelN's asked an excellent on point question on July 26, 2014 at 5:43 PM.

>> "Why would parental allegiance
>> not be a consideration
>> in determining a native-born US citizen's eligibility for the office of POTUS?"


To add a 1787 John Jay lemon twist flavor to the allegiance question, I ask -

Why would two U.S. citizen parent's allegiance not be THE primary consideration for POTUS eligibility by the "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf birthers in 2000s America?

Why?

'Cause Obama had ONLY one U.S. citizen parent.

John Jay's higher hurdle of "two U.S. citizen parents" historical original genesis intent is irrelevant 'cuz the lower hurdle of birth inside the U.S. to ONLY "one U.S. citizen parent" is good 'nuf—until a Democratic POTUS aspirant arises who has a different lineage, maybe birth inside the U.S. to "zero U.S. citizen parents" OR maybe birth outside the U.S to one OR two U.S. citizen parents. You never know with people who do not care about the original intent of the original writers, unless their own "original intent" is ridiculed.

'Nuf said, right?

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Art,

You are correct. The Maskell/Obots use a time machine to interpret the Constitution. What they do is take current events, get in their time machine, and go back to the time of the Framing of the Constitution. They then act as though today’s events not only existed then but were actually considered by the Framers when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. They use this absurd approach with the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark, acting as though the Framers knew all about being born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof," and that they accepted such Fourteenth Amendment language, which according to Wong Kim Ark allowed a child born in the United States to alien parents who were permanently domiciled and residents in the United States who were neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders to be a citizen of the United States at birth, as sufficient to define not only a citizen, but also a natural born citizen.

And regarding children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents, they simply turn a blind eye to all the real changes that early Congress made to its Acts which determined the citizenship status of those children which hurt their position, and pick those parts which suit their interest.

In short, the Maskell/Obot position on a natural born citizen is nothing but a fraud.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I just posted this at Cafe Con Leche Republicans:

Bryan Gene Olson,

I need for you to answer the following question:

The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court explained in Minor the following:

"The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens."

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

The Court said that this was an expression of “common-law.”

Is what the Court said an expression of the English common law? Yes or No. Please explain your answer.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I just posted this at Cafe Con Leche Republicans:

Slartibartfast,

The problem that you and the rest of your Obot coterie have is not understanding basic logic.

If I need to prove that I am a dog (citizen), I can do it by proving that I am a poodle (Article II natural born citizen as universally defined). But I can also prove that I am a dog (citizen) by proving that I meet some positive law definition of a dog (citizen). Hence, I can also prove that I am a dog (citizen) by proving that I am a German Shepherd (Fourteenth Amendment born citizen), Beagle (Act of Congress born citizen), or Collie (Act of Congress or treaty after birth citizen). Now, the poodle (citizen), German Shepherd (citizen), Beagle (citizen), and Collie (citizen) are all dogs (citizens), but only the poodle is a natural born citizen.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

At Café Con Leche Repulicans we have Bryan Gene Olson’s answer to my question regarding what type of “common-law” was Minor speaking of when it defined a natural born citizen.

Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:

“I need for you to answer the following question:”

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

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

The Court said that this was an expression of “common-law.”

Is what the Court said an expression of the English common law? Yes or No. Please explain your answer.

~~~~~~

Why does Mr. Apuzzo need me to answer that? Perhaps it’s to celebrate the one year anniversary of when I answered it for him the first time. One year ago today, in the comments on Mr. Apuzzo’s blog, I answered:

“In answer to your query, the quote there is considering multiple bodies of law and multiple authorities.” — Me, July 27, 2013

I answered over and over.

“Minor was referring to all the law that the Framers would have known. Some followed jus soli; others jus sanguinis. Some granted either. Maybe some required both. The Minor Court focused on the one issue of the case, and thus found no need to resolve just what our law of birthright citizenship is.” — January 28, 2014

“The framers were familiar with a variety of legal systems and theories. There’s no serious doubt of the fact that the one they knew best was the English.” — March 26, 2014

“I don’t see why it should confuse you so. For a case *never* to have been doubted it has to mean all which the Framers were familiar. Obviously it includes English law.” — April 3, 2014

~~~~~

You did not first answer “yes” or “no” to my question whether what Minor explained about a natural born citizen was an expression of English common law. Rather, you evade answering the question and in place of an answer you provide a tortuous explanation regarding to what type of common law Minor was referring that makes absolutely no sense.

This means that you, Mr. Olson, when asked a direct question on the matter, are not willing to concede that Minor’s expression of the meaning of a natural born citizen was not an expression of English common law. You know that you cannot say that it was, for if you did, you would be laughed off the internet. Yet, when flying under the radar and unchecked, you and your Obot coterie all maintain that the Framers got their meaning of a natural born citizen from the English common law which defined an English natural-born subject. In place of honestly and intelligently answering my question, you feed us your B.S. about some eclectic common law to which you claim Minor referred, but never identifying what exactly that multi-sourced super common law is that you say is made up of so different laws or from where that law came.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

So, Bryan Gene Olson, you tell us there is no such thing as national common law. Yet you refuse to tell us whether how Minor defined a natural born citizen was an expression of English common law. Now you tell us that Minor relied upon a common law that was made up of all these laws that produced some super-duper common law which you claim is the law to which Minor referred. (But yet according to you we have no national common law). But when left unchecked, you also maintain that the Framers defined a natural born citizen by referring to the English common law and giving to the clause the same meaning that that law gave to an English natural-born subject. Poor, Bryan Gene Olson, just so mixed up. What a joke you are and what an embarrassment to what it means to be an educated person.

Your behavior is typical of the Obots. You talk a big game when running lose and unchecked, especially when enjoying the safety of your own blogs and peanut galleries (e.g. at Dr. Conspiracy’s and at Fogbow’s blogs). But when asked specific questions, you either refuse to answer or crumble and fail miserably trying to answer the questions.

So, Mr. Olson, you lose again. It is more than evident from your answer that you cannot dispute the fact that Minor did not use the English common law to define a natural born citizen. Rather, it used principles of citizenship found in the law of nations which principles were incorporated at the Founding into our common law. The Framers relied upon that common law for their definition of a natural born citizen when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. Hence, that common law became a part of the supreme law of the land and was therefore transformed into American constitutional national common law, which can be changed only by duly ratified constitutional amendment. This means that still to this day, the constitutional definition of an Article II natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898).

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Here is more from Café Con Leche Republicans, Slartibartfast to Mario Apuzzo and my response:

"Here’s another question for you, given that Wong Kim Ark specifically references the full definition (including the part that you ignore) and that subsequent court cases supersede prior ones, doesn’t that mean that the SCOTUS definition of “natural born citizen” as laid out in Minor and amended in Wong is something along the lines of:

All children born in the United States of parents who were subject to its jurisdiction became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.

No court has ever made a ruling contrary to this definition and it is nigh certain that no court ever will. Just as it is nigh certain that your frivolous argument against President Obama’s eligibility will never be made to a court. You could, of course, try to litigate the eligibility of Rafael Cruz, but that would require you to be honest and competent and care more about the Constitution (or your mistaken understanding of it, anyway) than delegitimizing President Obama since even if you got Rafael off the ballot (which, statistically speaking, is also so unlikely as to be impossible), the ruling wouldn’t apply to someone in President Obama’s situation.
Sorry Mario, but the sum total of all of your bloviations doesn’t even amount to a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

~~~~~

There is a huge constitutional difference between an Article II natural born citizen and a Fourteenth Amendment born citizen. You impermissibly conflate, blend, and confound the two, thereby writing the natural born citizen clause out of the Constitution without duly ratified constitutional amendment.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Here is more from Café Con Leche Republicans:

Slartibartfast said to Mario Apuzzo:

"Furthermore, your dishonesty is ironic because you claim that the Framers changed the definition of “natural born” which had been well understood for two centuries without once mentioning it. I guess once you squandered any integrity you might have had, you probably don’t even notice such blatant hypocrisy."

~~~~~

It is so much fun debating with you. The harder you try, like your Obot partner, Bryan Gene Olson, the deeper you dig yourself into failure.

The one that is dishonest is you and has always been you and your Obot coterie. Why did you write just “natural born” in your question when you know that the Framers wrote “natural born citizen” as distinguished from “natural-born subject?” You did that because you know the Framers wrote “natural born citizen” which by how the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor defined the full clause, we know has a different meaning than a “natural-born subject.” Even Justice Noah H. Swayne said: “The constitution uses the words 'citizen' and 'natural born citizens;' but neither that instrument nor any act of congress has attempted to define their meaning. British jurisprudence, whence so much of our own is drawn, throws little light upon the subject . . . . Blackstone and Tomlin contain nothing upon the subject.” United States v. Rhodes, 27 F. Cas. 785, 788 (Cir. Ct. Ky 1866).Id. at 788.
So, when the Framers wrote natural born citizen rather than natural-born subject, they, indeed, told us that they were using a different standard as that expressed by a natural-born subject for who was to be recognized in the new America as eligible to be President and Commander in Chief. And we know that they made that conscious choice and what that choice was because early Congress, in the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, all statutes in pari materia, treated children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and in need of naturalization.

So, the hypocrisy, lying, cheating, manipulating, obfuscating, and all the rest of it is all yours, pal.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

From Cafe Con Leche Republicans. By response to Slartibartfast:


Mario Apuzzo to Slartibartast:

This is rich, too. You offer:

“Lynch v. Clark ( Lynch v. Clarke, 1 Sandf. Ch. 583, 659)—a case in which the court explicitly said that native-born children of transient aliens were eligible for the presidency.”

~~~~~

The New York Legislature in 1869 overruled the Lynch decision:

Political Code of the State of New York (1860)

Sec. 5. The citizens of the state are:
1. All persons born in this state and domiciled within it, except the children of transient aliens and of alien public ministers and consuls;

2 All persons born out of this state who are citizens of the United States and domiciled within this state.

As you concede, Lynch’s parents were “transient aliens.” Hence, under this statute, Lynch would not have been a citizen of New York, let alone a natural born citizen. If the children of transient aliens were not even considered citizens of the State of New York, they surely would not have been considered national Article II natural born citizens.

Finally, Lynch’s super dicta definition of a natural born citizen was also overruled by the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875), who said that a “natural-born citizen” was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Lynch had said that parental citizenship was not relevant. The last time that I looked, the U.S. Supreme Court trumps a state court decision. So it looks Vattel got it right and Lynch got it wrong.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Slartibartfast is a laughing stock. Too bad I do not have a time machine that can take me back to the time of the Constitutional Convention. I would love to be able to tell the delegates that the “native-born children of transient aliens were eligible for the presidency.” Ha, Ha, Ha!

MichaelN said...

Bryan said ..... “Minor was referring to all the law that the Framers would have known. Some followed jus soli; others jus sanguinis. Some granted either. Maybe some required both. The Minor Court focused on the one issue of the case, and thus found no need to resolve just what our law of birthright citizenship is.” — January 28, 2014
-----------------------------------

So what particular "common law" do you suppose it was which the Minor court was referring to where it recognized unsolved doubts as to whether a native-born in US to alien parents was a US citizen at all?

Unknown said...

Point:

Naturalization Certificates included the names, ages and place of residence of minor children.

http://home.comcast.net/~thursam/Cert%20of%20Naturalization.jpg
The family history of the previous:
http://home.comcast.net/~thursam/site/
Mr. Smyk married and his children were born in the US.

http://www.volgagermans.net/portland/rev_bitter.html
Rev. Bitter's five minor children were all born in the US.

One important thing to note is that the wife's name is not on the Naturalization Certificates. Both of the respective wives were alive and well at the time of the husband's naturalization, but since the husbands were naturalized after 1922, the wife was not automatically made a naturalized citizen upon the naturalization of her husband, so her name was not on the certificate. She had to naturalize on her own. (Both wives were also immigrants.)

My point here is that other names are not included on the naturalization certificate unless these persons are also being naturalized.

The father's naturalization certificate also documents the naturalization of his minor children, no matter where they were born.

Who was it that wanted to see the Naturalization Certificate of a person born in the US?

Well, there ya go.

MichaelN said...

Wilted Rose.

Here's an excerpt from the page you pointed to.....

"Marko received a Certificate of Naturalization for all of the children issued by the US Department of Labor. Even though Olive, Vera, and Margaret were definitely born in the US, they were still naturalized citizens.

"In 1943, Antonina became a Naturalized US citizen. I'm not sure why she waited so long after Marko and the children were naturalized, but I'm guessing that she did it to show her patriotism during the war."

Carlyle said...

@Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I would love to be able to tell the delegates that the “native-born children of transient aliens were eligible for the presidency.”

---------------------------

That is really THE POINT, isn't it?!

Given that the world has evolved, there is a LEGITIMATE debate as to whether presidential qualifications are too restrictive and whether a constitutional amendment should be considered.

Where the debate becomes ILLEGITIMATE is in just making stuff up, insane interpretations, and just plain ignoring and flouting the law because you think it ought to be different.

To me, all the arguments on this blog seem to be talking right past each other. The OBOTs are talking about how things should be (in their opinion) and how they can interpret things to protect The One.

The constitutionalists are talking about what the constitution actually says and means. And most expecially what it meant to the founders.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

Here is living proof of what a sham Bryan Gene Olson is. From Café Con Leche Republicans:

Bryan Gene Olson said:

The truth is that I already, a year ago, conceded that Minor’s expression, “At common-law”, was not *exclusively* on English common law. On the other hand, excluding the English from, “common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar”, is absolute crank nonsense. The common law and nomenclature with which the framers were by far the most familiar was the English.

Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:

“You know that you cannot say that it was, for if you did, you would be laughed off the internet.”
To the extant that anyone gets “laughed off the internet”, perhaps Mr. Apuzzo will share with us how that feels.

Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:

“Yet, when flying under the radar and unchecked, you and your Obot coterie all maintain that the Framers got their meaning of a natural born citizen from the English common law which defined an English natural-born subject.”

Whereas Mr. Apuzzo maintains the Framers got it from Prussian-Swiss legal philosopher Emer de Vattel defining “Les Naturels ou indigènes”. Mr. Apuzzo cited a fine source on Vattel’s influence on the Founders and Framers: a book by law professor and constitutional scholar Robert G. Natelson titled, /The Original Constitution: What it Actually Said and Meant/. In Mr. Apuzzo’s reference, on page 127 in the second edition, we read:

“Most importantly, the President and Vice President had to be natural-born citizens or citizens at the time of ratification. We know exactly what the Founders meant by the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ because they adapted it from the English legal term, ‘natural born subject,’ which in Britain defined who could serve in Parliament or the Privy Council.”

~~~~~

What is amazing is that you really believe that you are saying something which makes sense. First, you and your Obot gallery told us that the Framers got their definition of a natural born citizen from the English common law and its natural born subject. Now, after my question regarding Minor v. Happersett (1875) and how it defined a natural born citizen under the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution, i.e., a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth and that under that same common law all the rest of the people were “aliens or foreigner” who could be naturalized under Acts of Congress or treaties, and that it added “there have been doubts” that a child born in the United States to alien parents was a citizen (surely the English common law did not require that a child born in the King’s dominions be born to citizen parents or present any doubts that a child born in the King’s dominion and under his allegiance to alien parents was a natural born subject), you refuse to tell us that it was the English common law to which the Framers looked for their definition of a natural born citizen. Rather, now you say that it was some amalgamation of law for which you are not able to provide any source. But then, thinking that we forgot that you just admitted that what Minor said about a natural born citizen was not an expression of English common law, you still try to convince us that it was the English common law upon which the Framers relied to define a natural born citizen, telling us that it was that law which the Framers knew best and citing Professor Robert G. Natelson who you say tells us that "we know exactly" where the Framers got their meaning of a natural born citizen which he says was from the English common law (clearly a shameless political plug for Mr. Obama). Here is the living proof of what Professor Natelson said and upon which you rely: "We know exactly what the Founders meant by the phrase ‘natural born citizen’ because they adapted it from the English legal term, ‘natural born subject,’ which in Britain defined

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

who could serve in Parliament or the Privy Council.”

Now, Mr. Olson, do you really believe that anything you said makes any sense? First you said that it is the English common law that defined a natural born citizen. After my question to you asking you to explain how the Framers could have relied upon the English common law to define a natural born citizen in light of what Minor v. Happersett (1875) said the common law to which they looked defined the clause, i.e., a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth and that all the rest of the people were "aliens or foreigners," and that under that common law “there have been doubts” whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was a citizen (hence Minor could not possibly have been saying that the Framers relied upon the English common law), you said that it was not the English common law, but some phantom Frankenstein law upon which they relied to define a natural born citizen. Then thinking that the reader has forgotten that you conceded that Minor did not provide a definition of a natural born citizen which was an expression of the English common law (your got yourself off the hook having to say something that is absurd), head back to trying to convince us that the Framers relied upon the English common law as the source for their definition of a natural born citizen by telling us that it was that law which the Framers knew best and by relying upon Professor Natelson and his knowing exactly what the Framers meant by the clause because they got their meaning of the clause from the English common law.

Mr. Olson, do you really believe that you can have it both ways? You must admit that Minor did not say that the Framers relied upon the English common law to define a natural born citizen because it is in the Court’s plain words that they did not. But then you cannot leave it there, for you would concede defeat. Despite what the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor told us was the Framers’ definition of a natural born citizen which was not based on the English common law and which you cannot deny, you then still want us to believe that the Framers used the English common law to define a natural born citizen by telling us that the Framers knew that law best and giving us the Professor Natelson malarkey. Who do you think you are fooling? Do you not have any self-respect? Again, you are an embarrassment to American education. Can you not see that it is right before your eyes that you lose again? Why do you not simply admit that the Framers relied upon citizenship principles expressed by the law of nations, which during the Founding were incorporated into American common law and that it is that law to which the Framers looked to define a natural born citizen as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth? Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898).

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of V

From Café Con Leche Republicans:
Bryan Gene Olson said:

Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:

“There is a huge constitutional difference between an Article II natural born citizen and a Fourteenth Amendment born citizen.”

Wow. He’s right. Ted Cruz is an Article II natural born citizen, but not a Fourteenth Amendment born citizen.

Mr. Olson also responded to Wilted Rose:

I think your point backfires on you, Wilted Rose. “If a natural born citizen is simply someone who was a citizen at the moment he or she was born” then Hamilton’s proposal was adopted, not changed. John Jay and Alexander Hamilton were in agreement and Jay’s wording made it into Article II (though without Jay’s underlining of “born”).

~~~~~

Of course, Mr. Olson has nothing to back up his empty words. Actually, not only does he not have anything which demonstrates that what he just wrote is nothing other than a bunch of bunk, the law is clearly against him.

We have this teaching from our U.S. Supreme Court in Weedin v. Chin Bow which more than adequately shows that Mr. Olson is wrong. In Weedin the Court gave an insightful analysis of the common law that defined a natural born citizen and our early naturalization acts as follows:

The Act of March 26, 1790, entitled "An act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization," 1 Stat. 103, c. 3, came under discussion in February, 1790, in the House, but the discussion was chiefly directed to naturalization, and not to the status of children of American citizens born abroad. Annals of First Congress, 1109, 1110, et seq. The only reference is made by Mr. Burke (p. 1121) in which he says:

"The case of the children of American parents born abroad ought to be provided for, as was done in the case of English parents in the 12th year of William III. There are several other cases that ought to be likewise attended to."

Mr. Hartley said (p. 1125) that he had another clause ready to present providing for the children of American citizens born out of the United States. A select committee of ten was then appointed to which the bill was recommitted and from which it was reported. But no subsequent reference to the provision of the bill which we are now considering appears. The bill as passed was as follows:

"An Act to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization."

"Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that any alien, being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law court of record in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court that he is a person of good character and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer;

Page 274 U. S. 662

and the clerk of such court shall record such application and the proceedings thereon, and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons 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 citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond sea or out of the limits of the United States shall be considered as natural-born citizens:Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States: Provided also, that no person heretofore proscribed by any state shall be admitted a citizen as aforesaid except by an act of the legislature of the state in which such person was proscribed."

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of V

This Act was repealed by the Act of January 29, 1795, 1 Stat. 415, § 4, but the third section of that act reenacted the provisions of the Act of 1790 as to children of citizens born beyond the sea, in equivalent terms. The clauses were not repealed by the next Naturalization Act of June 18, 1798, 1 Stat. 566, but continued in force until the 14th of April, 1802, when an Act of Congress of that date, 2 Stat. 153, repealed all preceding acts respecting naturalization. After its provision as to naturalization, it contained in its fourth section the following:

"That the children of persons duly naturalized under any of the laws of the United States, or who, previous to the passing to 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

Page 274 U. S. 663

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."

No change was made in the law until 1855. Mr. Horace Binney had written an article, which he published December 1, 1853, for the satisfaction of fellow citizens and friends whose children were born abroad during occasional visits by their parents to Europe. 169 U.S. 169 U. S. 665. He began the article as follows:

"It does not probably occur to the American families who are visiting Europe in great numbers, and remaining there frequently for a year or more, that all their children born in a foreign country are aliens, and when they return home will return under all the disabilities of aliens. Yet this is indisputably the case, for it is not worthwhile to consider the only exception to this rule that exists under the laws of the United States,viz., the case of a child so born whose parents were citizens of the United States on or before the 14th day of April, 1802."

"It has been thought expedient, therefore, to call the attention of the public to this state of the laws of the United States that, if there are not some better political reasons for permitting the law so to remain than the writer is able to imagine, the subject may be noticed in Congress and a remedy provided."

Mr. Binney demonstrates that, under the law then existing, the children of citizens of the United States born abroad, and whose parents were not citizens of the United States on or before the 14th of April, 1802, were aliens because the Act of 1802 only applied to such parents, and because, under the common law, which applied in this country, the children of citizens born abroad were not citizens, but were aliens. Mr. Binney was not interested

Page 274 U. S. 664

in the citizenship of the second generation of children of citizens of the United States born abroad, and nothing in this article was directed to the question of the meaning of the words contained in the Act of 1802, "provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States."

The Act of February 10, 1855, 10 Stat. 604, passed presumably because of Mr. Binney's suggestion, was entitled "An act to secure the right of citizenship to children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits thereof," and read as follows:

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of V

"That persons heretofore born, or hereafter to be born, out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States whose fathers were or shall be at the time of their birth citizens of the United States shall be deemed and considered and are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States: Provided, however, that the rights of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers never resided in the United States."

"Sec. 2. . . . That any woman who might lawfully be naturalized under the existing laws, married, or who shall be married to a citizen of the United States, shall be deemed and taken to be a citizen."

The part of the Act of 1855 we are interested in was embodied in the Revised Statutes as § 1993.

It is very clear that the proviso in § 1993 has the same meaning as that which Congress intended to give it in the Act of 1790, except that it was then retrospective, as it was in the Act of 1802, while, in the Act of 1855, it was intended to be made prospective as well as retrospective.

Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 661-664 (1927).

Poor Bryan Gene Olson, the law just is not on his and Senator Cruz’s side. Weedin informed that these early acts of Congress which provided for the children of U.S. citizens born out of the United States were “Act[s] to establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." It explained that the right of these foreign-born children to be U.S. citizens was conditioned upon their fathers having to have resided in the United States before or at the time of their birth. It is hard to imagine that a child could be a natural born citizen and the Congress and the Court qualify his citizenship by his or her father having to be resident of the United States before or at the time of the child’s birth. And note that a father’s residency in the United States was required for both children born in the United States and those born out of it. So, we could not have alien fathers impregnating alien women and then remaining behind and sending them off to America to have birth and expect that their children would be citizens of the United States. We also could not have fathers, who were U.S. citizens but never having resided in the United States, procreate children born in their foreign nations and expect those children to be U.S. citizens. Now none of these scenarios could be anything that would describe the fate of a natural born citizen.

Note how the Court explained how all the subsequent Acts of Congress repealed the former ones, but still provided “in equivalent terms” for the same citizenship model. And what were those equivalent terms? That the father’s residency was a condition of the citizenship of these children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents and that these early naturalization laws were all written by Congress to be retroactive and not prospective. That means that under the Naturalization Act of 1790, 1795, and 1802, children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents were made citizen only if their fathers were residents at or before their birth and only retroactively. That means that if their parents were not qualifying citizens at the time the acts were passed and the child not in being, future children born out of the United States to qualifying U.S. citizen parents were aliens.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

IV of V

The Court explained how Mr. Binney maintained that it was “indisputably the case” that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents who acquired their status after April 14, 1802 were aliens (“all their children born in a foreign country are aliens”). The Court also explained how Mr. Binney maintained that “under the common law, which applied in this country, the children of citizens born abroad were not citizens, but were aliens.” See William Blackstone, 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England, Chapter X, p. 372 (1765) ("When I say that an alien is one who is born out of the king's dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so, with only a few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, 'for the naturalization of children of his Majesty's English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles.'"). Now it hardly seems possible that a child who was born an alien could be a natural born citizen. In fact, the Court explained that it was not until the Naturalization Act of 1855, “[a]n act to secure the right of citizenship to children of citizens of the United States born out of the limits thereof,” that Congress changed it naturalization Acts to be both retrospective and prospective. Now I cannot imagine that a natural born citizen would need an Act of Congress to “secure” his or her rights to be a U.S. citizen. Furthermore, Congress still insisted that the citizenship of such children was still conditioned upon the fathers being residents of the United States on or before the child’s birth abroad. Again, it does not look like Congress viewed such children to be natural born citizens, for natural born citizens never in our history had their U.S. citizenship qualified by any conditions other than just being born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of their birth.

Minor v. Happersett (1875) informed that the Framers looked to the common law the nomenclature with which they were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution for their definition of a natural born citizen and that that common law provided that a natural born citizen was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth and that under that common law all the rest of the people were “aliens or foreigners.” Now we also have Weedin telling us that Mr. Binney maintained that “under the common law, which applied in this country, the children of citizens born abroad were not citizens, but were aliens.” So, if Congress and Minor did not drive the last two nails into your coffin, Weedin and Mr. Binney did.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

V of V

So, it more than clearly appears from what Minor told us how the Framers defined a natural born citizen, from how “under the common law, which applied in this country, the children of citizens born abroad were not citizens, but were aliens,” from what Congress wrote in its naturalization acts from time to time and always changing their fate regarding whether they were to be recognized not as aliens, which is what they were at birth, but rather naturalized as U.S. citizens, and from what both Mr. Binney and the U.S. Supreme Court in Weedin explained, that Mr. Cruz, being born out of the United States to a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban father, if it were not for the grace of Congress extended to him by a current naturalization Act, would have been an alien at birth. He would not have been a natural born citizen in the eyes of the Framers and early Congress (Remember that Congress’s early naturalization acts were only retrospective, regardless of whether Congress said such children “shall be considered as natural born citizens” (the 1790 Act) or “shall be considered as citizens of the United States” (the 1795 Act).) As we have seen, at common law, which provides the only definition of a natural born citizen, Senator Cruz, being born out of the United States, was an alien. That Senator Cruz is a citizen at birth under a current positive law such as a naturalization Act of Congress does not make him a natural born citizen, for he fails to satisfy the Framers one and only common law definition of the clause which Minor confirmed was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

Finally Mr. Olson, your Hamilton argument is one big begging the question fallacy. How nice of you to be so gracious and tell us “[i]f a natural born citizen is simply someone who was a citizen at the moment he or she was born,” then your argument is correct. Apart from your poor logic, Weedin and the sources it cites clearly demonstrate that Hamilton’s “born a citizen,” which Congress can make through a naturalization act as it pleases and which it can attach whatever conditions it may desire to acquiring or even maintaining that status, does not equate to a “natural born citizen,” who as Minor explained needs no Act of Congress or even the Fourteenth Amendment for his or her existence and surely is not conditioned by any naturalization act of Congress for acquiring or maintaining that birth status.

So, Bryan Gene Olson, you again lose miserably.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

From Café Con Leche Repubicans:

Bryan Gene Olson,

You said:

Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:
“The Obots just don’t get it that born citizen is not a definition.”

The United States Supreme Court quoted the definition to British jurist A.V. Dicey:

“‘Natural-born British subject’ means a British subject who has become a British subject at the moment of his birth.'” U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898)

That’s a definition. Note the words “means”. That’s what a definition is. A definition tells what a term means. Is the concept really too hard for Mr. Apuzzo?

Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
“Just how is one to be a born citizen?”

None of the Constitution’s three citizenship requirements for federal office specify how or where one became a citizen, only when. For the House, seven years a citizen; for the Senate, nine years a citizen; for President, natural-born citizen which means citizen from birth.

~~~~~

Now all this is really asinine. It is time to educate Mr. Olson again with Beagles and Poodles. Maybe Mr. Olson can wrap his brain around this one: I have a Beagle. That “means” that I have a dog. But just saying that something is a dog does not define what a Beagle is. Rather, the statement only says that if the animal is Beagle, then it must be a dog. Applying this logic to a natural born citizen, hence it means that if one is a natural born citizen, one must have been born a citizen. But that is no definition of a natural born citizen.

Hence, saying what something “means” something does not necessarily provide any definition of the word being addressed. We can only conclude that what is stated is a real definition from the context of the statement. In the context of a natural born citizen, saying that being a natural born citizen “means” that one was a citizen from birth does not define a natural born citizen. Rather, it does nothing more than tell us that in order to be a natural born citizen, it is necessary to be a citizen from birth. How do we know that just saying that a natural born citizen is a born citizen is no definition of a natural born citizen? The statement does not tell us by what means or mechanism one is to be a citizen from birth so that one may be recognized as a natural born citizen. But then all this is just too difficult for Mr. Olson to grasp. He just does not get it that born citizen is only a temporal status (occurring at the time of birth) and not a definition (does not tell us how the temporal status is obtained).
Hence, we can see that your point that the Constitution only addresses when one becomes a citizen in reference to eligibility for Congress and the Office of President makes absolutely no sense. With that statement you make as much sense as someone answering the people’s question of how someone died with the answer only telling them when the person died.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

For knowing the definition of natural born citizen, we have to look to the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. That common law does provide the means or mechanism the Framers relied upon to produce a natural born citizen. That means or mechanism was (1) born in a country (2) to parents who were its citizens (3) at the time of the child’s birth. Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-80 (1898). Hence, the three necessary and sufficient conditions are (1) birth in the United States, (2) birth to two U.S. citizen parents, and (3) the parents both being U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth. The unity in the child of these three conditions at the time of birth produces unity of citizenship and allegiance which cuts off any claim by any foreign power to the allegiance and citizenship of the child occurring at the time of birth. Hence, with such unity of citizenship and allegiance, there is no dual or conflicting allegiance created in the child at the time of birth. This is the trait that a natural born citizen has and the reason the Framers chose a natural born citizen as that national character to be possessed by all future Presidents and Commander in Chief of the Military. Indeed, the Framers demanded that future Presidents and Commanders have allegiance only to the United States from the moment of their birth and by requiring that they be natural born citizens, they imposed that requirement as part of the eligibility to be President and Commander.

So, Mr. Olson, what else do you have for me to debunk?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

From Café Con Leche Republicans, my response to Bryan Gene Olson:

Bryan Gene Olson,

You said regarding the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795:

In part:
Why the change from “natural born Citizens” to “citizens”? Well, obviously, because those are correct terms. Contrary to Esquire Apuzzo’s assertions, there’s no sign of mistake or change of mind. In the sentence from the 1790 act, the subject is children granted citizenship upon birth, and in that case Congress used “natural born Citizens”. In the sentence from the 1795 act, the subject is both citizens upon birth and children who acquire citizenship later, up to the age of 21, so in that case they used the term “citizens”.

How clearer could it be? The set of people granted citizenship upon birth are considered “natural born Citizens”. The set of people granted citizenship either upon birth or later are “citizens”.

~~~~~

First, Mr. Olson you completely missed my point regarding the changes that Congress made to the early naturalization acts. In the 1790 Act, the First Congress, with President George Washington’s approval, treated children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents as a single class and said that those children “shall be considered as natural born citizens.” This was a set containing only one class of children who Congress considered as “natural born citizens.” In the Naturalization Act of 1795, the Third Congress, under the leadership of then-Representative James Madison first repealed in its entirely the Act of 1790. Then again with the approval of President Washington, it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 in which it joined the class of children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents with the class of children born in or out of the United States to alien parents which parents naturalized during their minority and while they shall be dwelling in the United States. The latter children acquired their citizenship after their birth. This was a new set which contained these two classes of children. Hence, Congress removed the natural born citizen status from children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen children who in 1790 enjoyed their own special set. Congress grouped those children with the class of children who acquired their citizenship after their birth and thereby created a new set that contained both classes of children. Congress then said that all those children in that new set were to be considered as “citizens of the United States.” The question is why would Congress group those children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents, who it had said in 1790 “shall be considered as natural born citizens,” with those children who acquired their citizenship after their birth who without any doubt were not natural born citizens and who Congress had always treated as citizens of the United States? After all, if Congress really meant that the former were really natural born citizens, there would have been no reason for Congress to alter what it had said about them in the 1790 Act, remove them from their own natural born citizen set, group them together in a new set which included children who acquired their citizenship after birth and who were not natural born citizens, and call all of them “citizens of the United States.” How clearer could it be?” The only reasonable explanation is that Congress, being well aware of the constitutional distinction in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 between a “natural born Citizen” and a “Citizen of the United States” and how that distinction impacted on presidential eligibility, knew what it was doing and it signaled that, while children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents during the troubles of the American Revolution were to be considered as “natural born citizens” (sort of like providing a grandfather clause for those children who happened to be born out of the United States after the adoption of

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

the Constitution, like it did in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 for persons born in or out of the colonies and who became citizens of the United States as of the time of the adoption of the Constitution), those who were born out the United States to U.S. citizen parents after that tumultuous time were only to be considered as “citizens of the United States.” Your point about the 1790 Act containing only one subject and the 1795 Act containing two does not address this at all and that is why I say to you that you missed the point completely.

Second, regardless of what Congress meant in the 1790 and 1795 Act, it only granted citizenship status to children born out of the United States retroactively. I covered this in my comments on Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 US 657 (1927). See the Naturalization Act of 1855 for language by Congress that was both retrospective and prospective. You have also not addressed my point that if early Congress saw children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents as natural born citizens, why it gave them that status only retroactively, i.e., it did not given that status to children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents in the future.

Third, in the applicable provisions of the Naturalization Acts of 1795, 1802, 1855, the Civil Rights Act of 1866, and all the modern naturalization statutes that followed to this day, the subject is children granted citizenship upon birth. But in none of those Acts did Congress call those children natural born citizens. Rather, it always used the nomenclature “citizen of the United States.” Now, in the applicable provisions of those Acts, the subject was only children who became citizens at birth (i.e., not those who acquired their citizenship status after birth). But yet Congress only called those children citizens of the United States and not natural born citizens. How do you explain the word choice Congress has made in light of your comment about why the Third Congress used citizen of the United States in place of natural born citizen (two subjects versus one subject)? If what you say that all citizens at birth are natural born citizens and surely if that were true Congress would know that, why has Congress never again called them “natural born citizens” even though Congress has for years placed these at birth citizens in a class all of their own?”

Fourth, if what you say that all citizens at birth are natural born citizens and surely if that were true Congress would know that, why did Congress in the Fourteenth Amendment not separate children born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” who are citizens at birth and therefore according to you natural born citizens, from children who are “naturalized” in the United States, who are citizens after birth, and which you say are deserving to be called just citizens of the United States? After all, according to you, Congress in the 1790 Act knew how to separate the citizens at birth and call them natural born citizens from the citizens after birth and call them citizens of the United States. Why did Congress not follow your simple scheme when it wrote the Fourteenth Amendment and simply tell us who the natural born citizens are?

I’ll be expecting a responsive answer rather than your usual empty rhetoric about how I am the losing attorney and about how those lower courts have already ruled against me.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

My response to Slartibarfast at Cafe Con Leche Republicans:

Do you believe that refuting my legal arguments is done by presenting some boggledygook twisted account of what you characterize as a birther movement? If you do, then you are nothing more than a miserable failure and embarrassment to your Ph.D degree in Mathematics and American education in general.

Furthermore, you got your natural born citizen arguments mixed up which is par for the course for someone befuddled like you. Arguing that it is both necessary and sufficient that a person is born in the country to two citizen parents in order to be a natural born citizen (my position) is different from merely arguing that it necessary that one is born in the country to a citizen father in order to be a natural born citizen (I have never argued the latter). Our U.S. Supreme Court, since Chief Justice John Marshall in the Venus (1814), to Justice Daniel in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875), to U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) all said that a natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. In our U.S. Supreme Court there never has been any indication that birth in the country to a citizen father was sufficient to make one a natural born citizen. The Court has always used the word “parents,” and never just “father.”

Addressing your natural born citizen argument, there surely is no suggestion in those U.S. Supreme Court pronouncements that being born in the country to one or two alien parents or being born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents was ever sufficient for one to be an Article II natural born citizen (which existed before the Naturalization Act of 1790). The Courts affirmatively stating that a natural born citizen was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth excludes the cases not included within the affirmative statement. See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137, 174 (1804) (“Affirmative words are often, in their operation, negative of other objects than those affirmed, and, in this case, a negative or exclusive sense must be given to them or they have no operation at all. It cannot be presumed that any clause in the Constitution is intended to be without effect, and therefore such construction is inadmissible unless the words require it.”). And if there is any doubt that such statement excluded all those not included within its affirmative words, any such doubt is removed by Minor stating that under the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution a natural born citizen was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth and that under that same common law all the rest of the people were “aliens or foreigners” who could be naturalized under Acts of Congress or treaties. Hence, your argument that the courts did not rule that only children born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth and that in 1898 Wong Kim Ark held a child born in the United States to permanently domiciled and resident alien parents who were neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders was a “citizen” at birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment and who you maintain is therefore also included as a “natural born citizen” rather than just a “citizen” under that Amendment is contrary to the proper construction to be given to Minor’s affirmative words as to who is included as a natural born citizen (which excluded all those not included) and only conflates, blends, and confounds an Article II “natural born citizen” with a “citizen” at birth under the subsequent Fourteenth Amendment or Congressional Act which interpretation gives no effect to the natural born citizen clause and is therefore inadmissible. Marbury.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Indeed, there is a significant constitutional difference between the nomenclatures Article II “natural born citizen” and “born citizen” or “citizen at birth,” which is nothing more than a “citizen” from the moment of birth. Your great failure is in not appreciating the significance to the Framers of the process by which one becomes a citizen or member of the nation. As we have seen above, our early U.S. Supreme Court Justices and the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett have informed that in the minds of the Framers the process by which one becomes a natural born citizen is birth in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Minor explained that any person satisfying such a process is without any doubt a “citizen” of the nation. Hence, at the adoption and ratification of the Constitution, birth in the nation to its citizens was the necessary and sufficient process by which a natural born citizen was made. This process was constitutionalized through Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 and became part of the supreme law of the land subject to change only by duly ratified constitutional amendment. Since a natural born citizen becomes a citizen from the moment of birth, there is no doubt that such a citizen is also a “born citizen” or “citizen at birth” (a “citizen” from the moment of birth). But surely, basic logic instructs that merely being a citizen from the moment of birth does not necessarily make one a natural born citizen.

The Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868, well after the adoption and ratification of the Constitution. The Amendment neither repealed nor amended Article II’s natural born citizen clause.

The U.S. Supreme Court in 1898 in Wong Kim Ark informed that one may be a “citizen” from the moment of birth also by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment’s provision of being born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” which the court said was satisfied by the process of a child being born in the United States to alien parents who were permanently domiciled and residents in the United States and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders.

Since 1790, Congress has also informed, among other things, that one may be a “citizen” from the moment of birth by virtue of its Acts of Congress which Congress and the courts have said is satisfied by a child being born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents.

But becoming “citizens” from the moment of birth under either the Fourteenth Amendment or Acts of Congress by satisfying their processes does not satisfy the requirements of the process by which one becomes a natural born citizen which again according to the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution was birth in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Nor is there anything stated in these other laws’ text which suggests that they define a natural born citizen, for the only nomenclature used in these laws is “citizen” at birth and not “natural born citizen.” Hence, the inescapable conclusion is that being a “citizen” from the moment of birth only by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment or Act of Congress does not make one a natural born citizen because those positive laws do not provide the Framers’ constitutional standard to be met by one claiming to be a natural born citizen which is a child born or reputed born in the United States to parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

Should you have anything to add to your position by way of rebuttal, I will be more than happy to destroy that too.

Anonymous said...

"if early Congress saw children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents as natural born citizens, why it gave them that status only retroactively, i.e., it did not give that status to children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents in the future."

You are failing to grasp the nature of reality & language and how they inter-relate. You cannot give someone something in the future because it never exists. Only the present exists.

In the present we recognize certain facts are true or false. Congress mandated that all officers of the government recognize children of Americans as being Americans also, regardless of where they were born.

Any American son born abroad, and whose citizenship would be considered in the future by State election officials for scrutiny regarding presidential eligibility would have to be recognized as being a natural born citizen and therefore eligible to be President.

The future was irrelevant because it never comes. Only the present ever exists, and determination of presidential eligibility occurs in the present, not the future.

Also, you fabricate a falsehood by promulgating the idea that Congress gave foreign-born American children something, -a status, a natural born citizen status, yet you can show no authority whatsoever for the first Congress to have thought it had such authority, with it being the same Congress that wrote or passed the Bill of Rights, which included the 9th & 10 Amendments limiting the power of Congress.

How could the founders and framers in that Congress have gotten wrong something so fundamental?
Well, the didn't. You are the one getting it wrong.

They knew exactly what they were doing, -and that was simply following natural law, jus sanguinis, citizenship by patrilineal descent, by blood relationship, Partus sequitur Patrem, and that has never changed, although it was supplemented by the 14th Amendment common law citizenship for immigrants' children.

Unknown said...

From Minor (1875) once more:

"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."

What did they mean by "as distinguished from aliens or foreigners"?

Let us look to the literature of the time for definitions of these words.

From "English Synonyms and Antonyms, with Notes on the Correct Use of Prepositions
By James Champlin Fernald, (1896)

http://books.google.com/books?id=bjlAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA29&dq=foreigner+alien+difference&hl=en&sa=X&ei=xtjeU4SXEufU8AGk4IHgAw&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=foreigner%20alien%20difference&f=false

"Foreign refers to difference of birth, alien to difference of allegiance."

So,
" These were natives. or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners."

Means:
"These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from 'those whose allegiance is not to the United States' (aliens) or "those who were born outside of the United States' (foreigners).

You may note that the court effectively reiterated the original definition that they gave for Natural born citizen. Natural born citizens were "all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens."
They were not aliens because their only possible allegiance was to the United States. They were not foreigners because they were born in the United States.

The definition of "natural-born citizen" given in Minor is solid and self-consistent.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Wilted Rose,

I totally agree.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

The Maskell/Obot position that all born citizens are natural born citizens is absurd on its face.

How can we deny that there are born citizens (made so by some process) and there are natural born citizens (made so by some other process). If that were not the case, the Framers would have simply written born citizen rather than natural born citizen.

What this means is that all natural born citizens are born citizens, but not all born citizens are natural born citizens.

What this also means is that natural born citizens is a proper subset of not only citizens, but also born citizens.

Unknown said...

Slatfest is not befuddled just a blatant liar like Barry and rest of gangsters around fraud cic. It is easy to prove what a NBC is after about 10 minutes research. We are not talking about how God created the universe and all life in it. There are very simple bulletproof explanations for what a article 2 NBC really is and it is appalling that not one member of congress will talk about this subject or barrys forgerys honestly

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

From Café Con Leche Republicans:
Bob Quasius asked Mario Apuzzo:

“Mario, can you provide us with a complete list of court cases birthers have won, specifically those where judges rules someone born in the U.S. of one or more non-citizens are NOT natural born citizens? A list of court cases you and other birther lawyers have won will help settle this. Thank you.”

~~~~~

Mario Apuzzo response:

So I see Bob, you cannot refute my arguments so you adopt the Bryan Gene Olson tactic of ignoring my arguments by telling us about what some lower courts have done. In any event, I am able to meet your challenge:

Here is the first case on my list (there are other cases):

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

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

Did you see that, Bob? The Court said that the Constitution, which then already included the Fourteenth Amendment, did not define a natural born citizen. The Court said that the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution provided them with the definition of a natural born citizen. It said that under that common law, a natural born citizen was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. It also demonstrated that "someone born in the U.S. of one or more non-citizens are NOT natural born citizens.” In fact, the Court said that such persons were “aliens or foreigners.” The most the Court was willing to do for such persons was to say that "some authorities" maintained that they were "citizens" (which does not mean natural born citizen.). So where the Anti-Obots won is in the Court telling us that the Fourteenth Amendment did not define a natural born citizen. We also won when the Court told us that the common law definition of a natural born citizen was a child born in a country to citizen parents. We also won when the Court said that under that common law persons who did not satisfy that definition were "aliens or foreigners," who could be naturalized by Acts of Congress or treaties. The Anti-Obots also won when the Court did not define a natural born citizen under the English common law, but rather under citizenship principles of the law of nations which were incorporated into national common law. Finally, we won when the Court said that "there have been doubts" whether a child born in the jurisdiction to alien parents was even a citizen. Clearly, such a child could not be a natural born citizen, for the Court explained that if someone was a natural born born citizen, there never was any doubt that such a person was a citizen.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

And then in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898), the U.S. Supreme Court held that a child born in the United States to alien parents who were permanently domiciled and resident in the United States and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders was a "citizen" (the Court did not say "natural born citizen") from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. So again, we have confirmation that “someone born in the U.S. of one or more non-citizens are NOT natural born citizens." However, the Court now was willing to hold that they were "citizens" from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. But where the Anti-Obots won is that the Court acknowledged several times that there was a distinction between an Article II natural born citizen child born in the country to citizens parents and a Fourteenth Amendment citizen child born in the country to alien parents. The Anti-Obots also won in that the Court did not hold that the latter child was an Article II "natural born citizen." See also Inglis v. Trustee of Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. 99 (1830) (the Anti-Obots won there too where the Court held that a child born to British parents in New York after July 4, 1776 but before September 15, 1776, during which time New York remained under American control, was born a British subject. So there too, “someone born in the U.S. of one or more non-citizens are NOT natural born citizens.").
So you see Bob, the Anti-Obots won in Inglis, in the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor, and in the Court in Wong Kim Ark. Inglis, Minor, and Wong Kim Ark are still good law as to what a natural born citizen is.

Now it’s your turn to give us a list of court cases which top the U.S. Supreme Court in Inglis, Minor, and Wong Kim Ark which the Obots won. Anticipating that you will not be able to provide any such cases, based on what you said, the Anti-Obots win.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides, in addition to the age and residency requirements, that today one must be a natural born citizen in order to be eligible to be President. The burden of proof is on a presidential candidate to sufficiently prove that he is so eligible.

If de facto President, Barack Obama, was not born in the United States, he surely would not qualify to be a natural born citizen. Being born to a U.S. citizen mother but an alien father out of the United States, he would not have been born in the country to parents who were both its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Minor v. Happersett (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.”). Additionally, he would not qualify to be a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, for he would not have been born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. Finally, he also would not be a citizen under any Act of Congress, for he who would not have been born out of the United States to a qualifying U.S. citizen parent (his father was not a U.S. citizen and his mother was too young to transmit U.S. citizenship to her son).

Even though Barack Obama for many years prior to being elected President maintained through his publicist that he was born in Kenya and African newspapers stated the same, we have this from Wiki Answers:

“Barack Obama was born on Friday, August 4, 1961, at 7:24 pm in Kapi'olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital, in Honolulu, Oahu, Hawaii, USA. Note: Some earlier reports indicated the hospital was named the Queen's Medical Center. The name Kapi'olani is the same name as one of the Hawaiian queens, and the women's hospital was named for her. So the hospital has been called both names informally, but the proper name and the name on the official Barack Obama birth certificate is Kapi'olani.”
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/In_what_hospital_was_Barack_Obama_born

Note the explanation that this “answer” gives for Obama’s sister having said that he was born in Queens’s Medical Center. Rather than engage is such wild speculation, does it not make better sense to have simply asked her why she said her brother was born in Queen’s Medical Center rather than in Kapi'olani Maternity and Gynecological Hospital?

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

As evidence for Obama’s alleged birth in Hawaii, the Obots have produced a computer image of both a birth certificate and a birth announcement. They have also produced ambiguous after-the-fact hearsay statements of Hawaii Health Department officials made as public announcements and on web sites.

But the Obots have not come close to producing the best evidence. Kapi’olani was a modern hospital in 1961 and would have maintained good medical records in one form or another. The doctors who would have attended to both Stanley Ann Dunham and baby Obama would also have maintained records. Obama’s mother would also have been seeing a doctor (maybe more than one) and have been attending to some type of pre-natal health care prior to giving birth. And let us not forget insurance companies and/or government agencies who would have paid the bill for Obama’s and his mother’s medical treatment, if they could not afford to pay for the care. Despite all this expected evidence of a patient being treated within our health care system and a birth occurring in a modern hospital in 1961, we have not seen one shred of contemporaneous medical or other evidence of such a birth occurring in that hospital in Hawaii. Nor am I aware of the birth announcement ever having been produced as a record other than as a computer image. Maybe such contemporaneous records no longer exist because of the passage of time. But there is no evidence that any good faith due diligence search for such records was ever made. Additionally, in the many law suits which challenged Obama’s place of birth, not in one did he produce any such evidence or demonstrate (or even just state) that he made a good faith effort to obtain such evidence.

The Obots tell us that Obama has convincingly proven that he was born in Hawaii and that he is a natural born citizen. Given the quality and quantity of evidence that Obama has presented to the American people of his place of birth, has he really convincingly proven that he was born in Hawaii? Obama may very well have been born in Hawaii. But he surely has not made any significant good faith effort to demonstrate it to the American people. In all fairness, we must therefore credit him with not having carried his burden of proof that he was born in Hawaii. But even if he was born in Hawaii, having been born to a non-U.S. citizen father, he still is not a natural born citizen.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of III

From Café Con Leche Republicans:

Bryan Gene Olson responded:

“Mario Apuzzo Esq. wrote:
‘We have this teaching from our U.S. Supreme Court in Weedin v. Chin Bow which more than adequately shows that Mr. Olson is wrong. In Weedin the Court gave an insightful analysis of the common law that defined a natural born citizen and our early naturalization acts as follows:’

That’s a fine example of Mr. Apuzzo talking himself into nonsense. Weedin v. Chin Bow is clear on what law applies here:

‘The very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray, speaking for the Court in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, establishes that, at common law in England and the United States, the rule with respect to nationality was that of the jus soli, — that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute; that by the statute of 7 Anne, (1708) c. 5, § 3, extended by the statute of 4 George II, (1731) c. 21, all children born out of the ligeance of the Crown of England whose fathers were or should be natural-born subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children respectively, were deemed natural-born subjects of that kingdom to all intents and purposes whatsoever.’ Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 US 657 at 660.”

Mario Apuzzo replies:

Bryan Gene Olson continues to mix up his common laws. Both Wong Kim Ark and Weedin referred to the English common law that prevailed in the colonies and then in the states and as both courts explained could be changed by statute. The common law that defined a natural born citizen was national common law which was incorporated into the Constitution as part of the supreme law of the land. That common law could not simply be changed by a statute, but rather only by a duly ratified constitutional amendment.

++++++++++

Bryan Gene Olson responded:
“The Weedin opinion goes on to use ‘natural born citizen’ in citation of Fullers dissent in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark:

‘The attitude of Chief Justice Fuller and Mr. Justice Harlan was, that at common law the children of our citizens born abroad were always natural-born citizens from the standpoint of this Government’ At 670.”

Mario Apuzzo replies:

Bryan Gene Olson has himself mixed up between what the Framers believed and what Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan personally believed the then-current government believed. Weedin referred to Chief Justice Fuller’s and Justice Fuller’s statement about children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen children being natural born citizens as being merely their “attitude” based on what they believed the current government believed (“from the standpoint of this Government”). We do not even know what the Justice’s meant by “this government.” Who in the government? How many in the government? How was such sentiment expressed by “this government?” What the Justices said and Weedin commented upon is far from a statement that the Framers defined an Article II natural born citizen to include children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents. For sure, if such a position was only Chief Justice Fuller’s and Justice Fuller’s “attitude” which was based on what they believed “this government” believed, it could hardly be what the Framers believed which is what controls the constitutional definition of an Article II natural born citizen.

++++++++++

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of III

Bryan Gene Olson responded:
“And in quotation of the Naturalization Act of 1790:

‘And the children of citizens of the United States, that may be born beyond sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born citizens: Provided, That the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States’ At 662.

Those are the only uses of the term in the Opinion and they contradict Mr. Apuzzo’s theory.”

Mario Apuzzo replies:

Bryan Gene Olson does not read the text properly and also only selectively reports on the acts of Congress. As Weedin explained, the 1790 language was only retroactive. Hence, children born in the future were not be considered as natural born citizens. Moreover, the Third Congress in 1795 repealed the 1790 Act and again as Weeding explained, using only retroactive language, said that those children “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” So, Mr. Olson lost his natural born citizen both retroactively and prospectively.

++++++++++

Bryan Gene Olson responded:
“Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
‘It is hard to imagine that a child could be a natural born citizen and the Congress and the Court qualify his citizenship by his or her father having to be resident of the United States before or at the time of the child’s birth.’

So instead of imagining it read it in the text of the Naturalization Act of 1790.”

Mario Apuzzo replies:

No, as we have seen, it is Bryan Gene Olson who needs to do some reading of the early naturalization acts.

++++++++++

Bryan Gene Olson responded:
“Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
‘Note how the Court explained how all the subsequent Acts of Congress repealed the former ones, but still provided ‘in equivalent terms’ for the same citizenship model.’

Mr. Apuzzo doesn’t seem to grasp who’s argument that supports.”

Mario Apuzzo replies:

No. Bryan Gene Olson does not comprehend that Weeding’s use of “in equivalent terms” referred to the statutes being retroactive rather than prospective.

++++++++++

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of III

Bryan Gene Olson responded:
“Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
‘So, it more than clearly appears from what Minor told us how the Framers defined a natural born citizen.’

Mr. Apuzzo loses when judges actually read Minor. The Minor court did not find the Framers defining natural-born citizen.”

Mario Apuzzo replies:

No. Bryan Gene Olson actually needs to read Minor v. Happesett (1875) which in plain and simple words said in reference to who was a natural born citizen (not to be conflated, blended, and confounded with who could possibly be a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment as Mr. Olson and his Obot coterie do): “At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction, without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.” This is a clear definition of a natural born citizen, which was also consistent with how Emer de Vattel in The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797), Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus (1814), and Justice Daniel in Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) expressly defined a natural born citizen, not to mention how Inglis, Shanks, and The Slaughterhouse Cases implicitly defined one. This definition also clearly distinguished a natural born citizen from a possible citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. This distinction became important because in 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) made that same distinction and held that a child born in the United States to alien parents who were permanently domiciled and residents in the United States and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders were “citizens” from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. It did not hold that he was a natural born citizen by virtue of the common law which Minor informed the Framers relied upon for their definition of a natural born citizen.

So, Bryan Gene Olson strikes out again.

Robert said...

Reading the arguments presented by Bryan Gene Olson it would appear that he has conclusively proven that Mr. Barack H. Obama, Jr. is, like his father, a natural born subject -- of Great Britain!!

[...that by the statute of 7 Anne, (1708) c. 5, § 3, extended by the statute of 4 George II, (1731) c. 21, all children born out of the ligeance of the Crown of England whose fathers were or should be natural-born subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children respectively, were deemed natural-born subjects of that kingdom to all intents and purposes whatsoever.’ Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 US 657 at 660.”]

As this is also consistent with US law (including the British Nationality Act)and the Law of Nations, perhaps we should thank him for his contributions to this blog which so clearly dispel the myth that Mr. Obama is in any way a citizen of the USA.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Robert,

I of II

Your comment on the Bryan Gene Olson contradiction is a good one.

As I have long ago said, the Obots are full of contradictions with the reason being that they advocate a theory of the meaning of a natural born citizen that is fundamentally flawed.

They tell us that with respect to children born in the United States the Framers got their definition of a natural born citizen from the English common law jus soli rule of citizenship (place of birth being sufficient). Then they tell us that with respect to children born out of the United States, they got it from the English statutes jus sanguinis rule of citizenship (inheritance from one’s parents being sufficient). Well, what is a total contradiction in all that with respect to defining a natural born citizen is that the English common law could make a child born in the United States to British parents a natural born citizen of the United States, but then the English statutes also made that same child a natural born subject of England. See the statute of 7 Anne, (1708) c. 5, § 3, extended by the statute of 4 George II, (1731) c. 21, all children born out of the ligeance of the Crown of England whose fathers were or should be natural-born subjects of the Crown of England, or of Great Britain, at the time of the birth of such children respectively, were deemed natural-born subjects of that kingdom to all intents and purposes whatsoever” (as cited and quoted in Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 US 657 at 660).

So, how could the Framers have chosen a legal system that created such a contradiction? How could a natural born citizen of the United States also be at the time of his or her birth also an English natural born subject? Philosophically and legally, there could not be any dual allegiance at birth. In fact, the Founders viewed dual allegiance as a monstrosity. House Report No. 784, dated June 22, 1874, stated: “The United States have not recognized a ‘double allegiance.’ By our law a citizen is bound to be ‘true and faithful’ alone to our government.” And from William Blackstone: “When I say, that an alien is one who is born out of the king’s dominions, or allegiance, this also must be understood with some restrictions. The common law indeed stood absolutely so; with only a very few exceptions: so that a particular act of parliament became necessary after the restoration, for the naturalization of children of his majesty’s English subjects, born in foreign countries during the late troubles. And this maxim of the law proceeded upon a general principle, that every man owes natural allegiance where he is born, and cannot owe two such allegiances, or serve two masters, at once.” William Blackstone, 1 Commentaries on the Laws of England, chap. X, p. 372 (1765).

The answer is that the English law which provided various definitions of a natural-born subject was flawed and that is why the Framers chose the more logical and reasoned rule of citizenship under the law of nations which provided that a natural born citizen was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth and that all the rest of the people were aliens or foreigner who could be naturalized under Acts of Congress or treaties. Minor v. Happersett (1875). Under that more logical rule of the law of nations, a natural born citizen of the United States was under U.S. law a citizen at the time of birth only in the United States. If a child was born with any foreign allegiance or citizenship (by being born in the United States to alien parents), that child, being born with alienage, could not be a natural born citizen. Rather, that child could under the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, or 1802, as the case may be, become a citizen after birth either through the naturalization of the parents which had to be completed during the years of the child’s minority and upon the time that the child shall be dwelling in the United States or upon his or her own naturalization petition upon reaching the age of majority.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

As to children born out of the United States, the First Congress under those same Acts grandfathered the first children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents first as natural born citizens (1790 Act) and then the Third Congress changed their grandfathered status to just citizens of the United States at birth (the 1795 Act). The Naturalization Act of 1802 kept the retroactive status of citizen of the United States (not natural born citizen) and made it clear that such status was not to be prospective. Then the Naturalization Act of 1855 based acquiring the status of being a citizen of the United States at birth on factors which were both retrospective and prospective (when the child was born and when the parents became U.S. citizens). See my four-part comment on this thread on July 31, 2014 on Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 661-664 (1927).

Of course, the Obots do not honestly address any of this. They simply twist it or ignore it and prey on low information public officials and members of the media and public.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Here is more from Weedin:

“It is said that it would be illogical and unnatural to provide that the father, having begotten children abroad before he lived in the United States at all, and then having gone to the United States and resided there and returned and had more children abroad, should have a family part aliens and part citizens. As this is entirely within the choice of the father, there would seem to be no reason why such a situation should be anomalous. As the father may exercise his option in accordance with the law, so citizenship will follow that option.”

Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 669 (1927).

So, applying the Obot rule of natural born citizenship, i.e., any born citizen is a natural born citizen, the first set of children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents would not be natural born citizens (they were not born citizens because their father did not reside in the U.S. prior to or at their birth), but the second set, also born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents, would be (they were born citizens because their father resided in the U.S. prior to their birth regardless of how brief that residency may have been). Now we can accept the naturalization law working on such grounds. But can we expect that the Framers would have accepted such flimsy grounds for making one a natural born citizen which was the citizenship standard to be possess by all future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military?

MichaelN said...

US Supreme Court majority opinions.

Minor v Happersett.

Held that the US Constitution, which includes the 14th Amendment, does NOT SAY who shall be "natural born Citizens".

Held that only those born native to US and to US citizen parents, are "natural born citizens of the US.

Recognizes unsolved doubts whether native birth suffices to make a born citizen of the US.

Wong Kim Ark.

Held that the US Constitution, which includes the 14th Amendment, does NOT SAY who shall be "natural born Citizens".

Cited favorably, with no objection to the Minor court holding that only those born native to US and to US citizen parents, are "natural born citizens of the US.

Opined that native-birth in US to permanently domiciled alien parents, subject to the jurisdiction of the US, sufficed to make a born "citizen of the United States" under the 14th Amendment, which BOTH courts recognized did NOT SAY who shall be natural born citizens.

Cited favorably to, with no objection to, and recognized the Binney opinion saying "the child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen" of the US, thus holding that the term "natural born" was pertinent to native-born children of US citizen parents, to the exclusion of alien parents.

Opined and affirmed that Wong Kim Ark was a "citizen of the US", but NOT a "natural born Citizen" of the US.

These SCOTUS opinions and holdings trump any other lower courts opinions and holdings, which do not and can not overturn SCOTUS opinions and holdings.

Proven fact = Barack Obama, whether black, white or pink, or any other racial mix, does not qualify as an Article II "natural born Citizen" and is thus NOT eligible to hold the office of POTUS.

Unknown said...

Good point Robert, the obots certainly proved the child of a British colonial subject father would indeed be a natural born British colonial subject. Bryan Olson will not be able to sleep knowing he actually wtote something honest..I cannot find British colonial subjects being eligible in a2 but of course I am just a simple birther who cannot grasp minor v happersett, law of nations or a2

MichaelN said...

From the benchmark English common law, Calvin's case.....

"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"

"....and so in case of an alien born, you must of necessity have two several ligeances...."

http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/911/106337#lf0462-01_head_084

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

From Cafe Con Leche, my comment to Bryan Gene Olson:

Bryan Gene Olson,

I presented that the U.S. Supreme Court in Weedin explained that the early naturalization acts (1790 and 1802), which made children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents citizens, were retroactive and that it was not until the Naturalization Act of 1855 that Congress made its naturalization acts both retroactive and prospective. You said that the 1790 and 1795 Acts were not retroactive and that only the Naturalization Act of 1802 was. Our U.S. Supreme Court does not agree with you. Here is what Weedin said on the matter:

“It is very clear that the proviso in section 1993 [found in the 1855 Act] has the same meaning as that which Congress intended to give it in the Act of 1790, except that it was then retrospective as it was in the Act of 1802, while in the Act of 1855 it was intended to be made prospective as well as retrospective.”

Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 664 (1927).

The 1795 operative language was the same as that of the 1790 Act. So, the U.S. Supreme Court in Weedin informed that all these acts except that of 1855 were retroactive only. It added that it was not until the 1855 Act that the act become both retroactive and prospective.

I then ask you, how could the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802 provide any definition of a natural born citizen for the future as you contend they do if they were only retroactive? Also, if those children were natural born citizens as you maintain, why did Congress make their citizenship status only retroactive?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of III

From Café Con Leche Republicans:
Bryan Gene Olson said:

"Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
'Likewise, in order to prove one is a natural born citizen one has to prove that one satisfied a means to become a natural born citizen which is prescribed by the Constitution.'

There is no means to become a natural born citizen prescribed by the Constitution. That’s why scholars are discussing this hundreds of years later. There is not a reasonably broad consensus, among people who know what they are talking about, that Article II natural born citizens are those that received their U.S. citizenship at birth.

Losing attorney Mario Apuzzo wrote:
'People are not born citizens by magic. There exists a preestablished standard that has to be satisfied in order to take on that status. That standard is the means, or mechanism, or sufficient producing cause of the status. Get it now?'

I get that Mr. Apuzzo doesn’t get the rather simple thesis. I do not know whether that’s because [he] is incapable of getting his head around it or whether he’s willfully ignorant."

In refutation of my position that Minor v. Happersett (1875) provided how the Framers defined a natural born citizen, Mr. Olson offers this sole quotation from a recent state court which was asked to rule on whether de facto President Obama is a natural born citizens:

'Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.' Allen v Obama, et. al. Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona 2012."

~~~~~

Let us now examine if there is any merit to Mr. Olson’s arguments.

First, Bryan Gene Olson protests much about my definition of a natural born citizen, which is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. I have not invented this definition from whole cloth as Mr. Olson would like people to believe. Rather, I have obtained it from the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) which stated in plain and simple words:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”

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

Mr. Olson says that in that statement, the Court did not provide the Framer’s definition of a natural born citizen and therefore I am wrong. Rather, Mr. Olson would have us believe that the Framers did not see the natural born citizen clause as having any boundaries (the boundaries being that the child be born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth) when they used the clause specifically for creating the future standard to be met by persons wanting to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military. He says that the Framers defined a natural born citizen as any born citizen, regardless of the past, present, or future means by which one may acquire that status, meaning regardless of whether one at any given time in history or in the future was or was not or will be accepted as a born citizen under the then-prevailing law. In essence, Mr. Olson argues that the Framers did not give us one

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of III

settled definition of the clause. In other words, Mr. Olson argues that natural born citizens can be made and unmade, turned on and off, simply by past, present, or future Congressional Acts. He also adds that the Framers left open the possibility that a natural born citizen could be defined under some future law such as the Fourteenth Amendment, which was not ratified until 81 years after the Framers adopted the Constitution, which both Minor and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) informed does not define a natural born citizen, and which our courts have told us did not repeal or amend, expressly or by implication, Article II’s natural born citizen clause. Mr. Olson’s position suffers not only from not having any textual or structural support in the Constitution. His position also does not have any historical and legal sources that support it. If he had such sources, he would provide them and his reasoned analysis rather than just sit back and throw little stones at what I maintain on the matter.

Second, Mr. Olson has argued that Wong Kim Ark holds that the Fourteenth Amendment provides operative language (a means by which a natural born citizen is created) which also defines a natural born citizen, i.e., born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. But now he tells us that there is “no means to become a natural born citizen prescribed by the Constitution.” The last time I looked the Fourteenth Amendment was part of the Constitution. It would be nice if Mr. Olson could make up his confused mind. Furthermore, Mr. Olson needs to learn that, as Minor teaches, there is a difference between what the Constitution says “in words” versus what its meaning is. How absurd is it to contend as Mr. Olson does that there is “no means to become a natural born citizen prescribed by the Constitution.” In order for Mr. Olson to be correct, we would have to conclude that the natural born citizen clause has no meaning, even outside the Constitution. So, Mr. Olson says that I am not correct in my definition of a natural born citizen because the Constitution does not define one at all (denying that the clause “natural born citizen” had a specific meaning to the Framers that existed outside the Constitution and giving him what he thinks is license to just make up whatever definition of the clause which serves his purpose). But then he tells us that the Fourteenth Amendment defines one. Like I said, Mr. Olson is so confused.

Third, Mr. Olson tells us that “scholars are discussing this [the meaning of the natural born citizen clause] hundreds of years later.” But according to Mr. Olson, the definition of the clause is so easy, simply any born citizen, regardless of how or when the status may have been or will be acquired, is a natural born citizen. Mr. Olson states: “I get that Mr. Apuzzo doesn’t get the rather simple thesis. I do not know whether that’s because [he] is incapable of getting his head around it or whether he’s willfully ignorant.” I wonder what these scholars have been debating about for all this time if the answer has always been right in front of their eyes. I know the answer to my question. Scholars (“some authorities”-Minor) in the past did not debate what the settled definition of a natural born citizen was, which has always without any doubt been a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. Minor v. Happersett (1875). Rather, they debated as Minor explained whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was even a citizen (let alone a natural born citizen). Minor explained that “there have been doubts” whether such children were citizens and rightfully so given that The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) said that such a child was not included as a citizen under the

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of III

Fourteenth Amendment and the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 all treated such children as alien born and in need of naturalization after birth. Hence, those children were not citizens, were not born citizens, and were surely not natural born citizens. At best, they could be citizens after birth through derivative naturalization upon their parents’ naturalization if done during their minority and if the children shall be dwelling in the United States or upon their own naturalization upon reaching the age of majority. It took Wong Kim Ark to finally settle the question of whether they were citizens (not to be conflated, blended, and confounded with natural born citizens), and the Court used the Fourteenth Amendment to do so. So, the only “simple thesis” that has ever existed in our nation regards the settled definition of a natural born citizen. It does not concern Mr. Olson’s born citizens, manufactured by whatever means and in whatever time, past, present, or future.

Fourth, Mr. Olson tells us that the definition of a natural born citizen is so easy, just any born citizen, by whatever means, in whatever time, past, present, or future. He calls this position a “simple thesis.” Yet, he adds that “[t]here is not a reasonably broad consensus, among people who know what they are talking about, that Article II natural born citizens are those that received their U.S. citizenship at birth.” So, the definition is so easy, but yet there does not exist “a reasonably broad consensus” (whatever that means; he must have gone out who knows where and conducted some sort of poll) among people who know what they are talking about. Also, notice how Mr. Olson proclaims to know who the people are who know what they are talking about. I do not know how he could possibly know who they are, for he himself does not know what he is talking about.

Maybe Bryan Gene Olson can offer us something more than his manufactured definition of a natural born citizen and the Arizona state court’s conclusory statement (provided without historical and legal sources and without a shred of reason or explanation): “Arizona courts are bound by United States Supreme Court precedent in construing the United States Constitution, and this precedent fully supports that President Obama is a natural born citizen under the Constitution and thus qualified to hold the office of President. Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874), does not hold otherwise.” Allen v Obama, et. al. Pima County Superior Court, Tuscon, Arizona 2012. Indeed, the Arizona courts are bound by the United States Supreme Court precedent such as Minor. Minor in plain and simple language explained how the Framers defined a natural born citizen and for the court simply to state without any explanation or reason that Minor “does not hold otherwise” is neither authoritative nor binding on any court honestly examining the issue. Any more authoritative or binding should it be on the American people.

So, Mr. Olson, if you have anything else to support your position, I will be more than happy to consider it.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

From Café Con Leche Republicans:

Dunstvangeet commented to David Farrar:

“Since you agree that the term is not defined in the Constitution, then, according to the Supreme Court, we must take a look to English Common Law for the definition (Smith v. Alabama, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, among others). “

~~~~~

My response:

dunstvangeet,

An Article II natural born citizen is not defined under English common law. Rather, it is defined under American national common law.

MichaelN said...

From Café Con Leche Republicans:

Dunstvangeet commented to David Farrar:

“Since you agree that the term is not defined in the Constitution, then, according to the Supreme Court, we must take a look to English Common Law for the definition (Smith v. Alabama, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, among others). “
---------------------------

WRONG....... AGAIN, Here I will fix it for you.....according to the Supreme Court of the US per Wong Kim Ark in the question of what makes a "citizen of the US" per the 14th Amendment (which, as a part of the US Constitution, BOTH Minor AND Wong courts held does not say who shall be a NBC of US), we must look to the English common law for guidance as to what should be considered as criteria for "citizen of the United States", NOT for a what should be considered as criteria for NBC of the US.

The Minor court DEFINED a NBC of US and held that according to the "common law" (could not possibly have been English common law) referred to by the Minor court, that there were unsolved doubts as to whether native-birth alone sufficed to make a "citizen of the United States".

English common law would have no such doubts.

The Wong Kim Ark court also recognized the Minor court's definition of a NBC of the US, which was based on a "common law" (not necessarily the English common law)then the Wong Kim Ark court looked to the English common law for guidance for what makes an entry level "citizen of the United States".

Ergo: the Wong Kim Ark court only looked at the English common law for GUIDANCE as to what might make a COTUS, but not what would make a NBC of the US, as the majority opinion reflects.

Wong Kim Ark (opinion)...

"The evident intention, and the necessary effect, of the submission of this case to the decision of the court upon the facts agreed by the parties were to present for determination the single question stated at the beginning of this opinion, namely, whether a child born in the United States, of parent of Chinese descent, who, at the time of his birth, are subjects of the Emperor of China, but have a permanent domicil and residence in the United States, and are there carrying on business, and are not employed in any diplomatic or official capacity under the Emperor of China, becomes at the time of his birth a citizen of the United States. For the reasons above stated, this court is of opinion that THE question must be answered in the affirmative.

Order affirmed.
"

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


From Cafe Con Leche Republicans:

Slartibartfast,

You keep insisting, basically ignoring everything that I have written on this subject, that how Minor v. Happersett (1875) defined a natural born citizen somehow has something to do with the English common law. I have a challenge for you which if you meet it, you will finally prove me wrong and I will declare you the winner of the natural born citizen debate. The challenge should be easy for you to win given your statement that Minor in some way relied upon the English common law to define a natural born citizen.

Please provide for us any part of the Minor decision that is an expression or uses the language of the English common law. Be sure to provide quotes from the decision and not just your general statements.

After providing that part of the decision that is an expression or the language of English common law, provide for us the citation and quote from the actual English common law which is the source of what you claim to be the English common law statements made by Minor.

This exercise should not be difficult for you to complete given that if I asked you the same questions about the Wong Kim Ark decision, you would have no difficulty providing what I am asking. Hence, treat the Minor decision as you would the Wong Kim Ark decision and provide what you claim to be its English common law statements and their sources as existing in the actual English common law.

Just think, your completing this simple exercise will finally earn you the winner’s circle.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

From Cafe Con Leche, my response to Slartibartfast:

Slartibartfast,

You said to me:

“Just to randomly point out another of your fallacies, the 14th Amendment doesn’t define the term “natural born citizen”. This is very different from saying (or implicitly assuming, as you do) that natural born citizens are not covered by the 14th Amendment, which is most certainly false. Every person you claim to be a natural born citizen can be truthfully called a “14th Amendment (born) citizen”. In other words (paraphrasing the SCOTUS, James Madison and the Framers of the 14th Amendment), Ms. Minor and Mr. Wong both became citizens by the principle of jus soli which was the law under the Constitution as originally ratified and was explicitly codified by the 14th Amendment.”

~~~~~

You cannot refute my real arguments so you just have to set up straw men which cannot withstand the slightest wind. A natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Minor v. Happersett (1875). Consequently, I have always maintained that all natural born citizens are citizens, but not all citizens are natural born citizens. If you do not understand what that means, it signifies that all natural born citizens are Fourteenth Amendment citizens at birth (i.e., born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof), but not all Fourteenth Amendment citizens at birth (some are born in the United States to one or two alien parents) are natural born citizens. So you can pick up your dead straw man and bring him home with you.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of III

From Café Con Leche Republicans, from me to Bryan Gene Olson:

Bryan Gene Olson,

You act like you are some authority around here not only in law but also in mathematics.
Are you not the guy who said that there is no such thing as national common law? Now that is hilarious.

And what is also hilarious is that you do not understand that with two sets, they can either be equal or not equal, but not both. What is also dishonest of you is your conceding that natural born citizens is a proper subset of citizens from birth, and then denying that you made the concession.

So, the Obot world ignores me. That is really good news. Yes, I have reduced the Obots to silence. Not being able to refute my arguments, they are now at the point that they believe that silence is the best means to evade the truth. The error that the Obots make is that the more silence they want, the more noise they will hear.

You complain that I ignore you. What I ignore is your big-lie fallacy and your tactic to just make me angry. As you may not know, the big-lie fallacy is committed when one repeats a result, lie, slogan, or half-truth incessantly until people believe it without questioning what proof or evidence exists for the position. Do you honestly expect that you should not be ignored when you tell us and continue to do so in virtually every comment that you have and continue to publish on the internet in every forum imaginable about how the lower courts ruled during the election on Obama’s eligibility to be President? You fail to understand that how those lower courts ruled during his election does not adequately establish under our legal standards the truth about what is an Article II natural born citizen. Simply repeating the courts’ rulings over and over again does not add to how those courts arrived at their conclusions. Where you fail is in just telling us about the results without discussing how those courts arrived at those results.

No, Mr. Olson, my efforts and results have not been so bad, for I have proven what an Article II natural born citizen is and the decisions of your lower courts do not change any of that. You tell us that the great state of New Jersey where I practice law (like that is supposed to give the court’s decision more force) found Obama to be eligible to run for President. Maybe you forgot that Judge Jeffrey Masin agreed (with Obama’s lawyer’s concession) that Obama’s birth certificate released on the internet was legally worthless, but that that did not matter because in the great state of New Jersey even Mickey Mouse can run for President and that Obama did not need to present any evidence at all to the great state of New Jersey that he was eligible to run for President. You also forgot that even though Judge Masin found that Obama presented absolutely no evidence of who he is or where he was born to the great state of New Jersey (again with the concession of Obama’s lawyer), he still ruled that he was born in Hawaii in order to find him, although without any historical and legal constitutional analysis, to be a natural born citizen. See http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/04/10/constitution/obama-eligibility-nj-alj-ducks-issues/ for more entertaining reading and video viewing. Now let us move onto more competent institutions.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of III

What was the Framers’ definition of an Article II natural born citizen is the controlling question. The answer to that question is found in the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision of Minor v. Happersett (1875) where the Court said:

“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient for everything we have now to consider that all children born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction are themselves citizens.”

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

But there is more in Minor that instructs how much weight we should give to your lower court decisions. What is also relevant to our natural born citizen debate and in addressing your ad nauseam reminder about how some lower courts have ruled on Obama’s eligibility to be President is how Minor explained that its constitutional task was to declare what the law was and to apply that law to the facts of the case, not to change the law.The Court explained:

“The argument is, that as a woman, born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, is a citizen of the United States and of the State in which she resides, she has the right of suffrage as one of the privileges and immunities of her citizenship, which the State cannot by its laws or constitution abridge.”

Id. at 165.

The Court went on to first examine the question of whether women were citizens. After it held that women could be citizens as much as men could and that Virginia Minor was without any doubt a citizen by virtue of being a natural born citizen (she was born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents), it examined the question of whether being a citizen carried with it a fundamental right to vote (a privilege or immunity to vote) which given the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment no state could abridge. The Court held that the privileges and immunities of citizens did not include any right to vote and that the states could decide who should be allowed to vote. So the Court ruled that given the then-currently existing Constitution, the federal government had no right to tell the states who should or should not be allowed to vote.

The Court then closed by saying:

“We have given this case the careful consideration its importance demands. If the law is wrong, it ought to be changed; but the power for that is not with us. The arguments addressed to us bearing upon such a view of the subject may perhaps be sufficient to induce those having the power, to make the alteration, but they ought not to be permitted to influence our judgment in determining the present rights of the parties now litigating before us. No argument as to woman's need of suffrage can be considered. We can only act upon her rights as they exist. It is not for us to look at the hardship of withholding. Our duty is at an end if we find it is within the power of a State to withhold.”

Id. at 178.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of III

So the Court said that its hands were tied by the Constitution and the law. It added that if the law is wrong, it ought to be changed, but it was not within the Court’s constitutional authority to change the law. We know that the nation eventually took the Court’s advice. The Nineteenth Amendment was first introduced to Congress in 1878. On Aug. 18, 1920, the states finally ratified the Nineteenth Amendment after decades of advocacy by women's rights groups. The Amendment provides: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.”

The same is true about the natural born citizen clause. The law is more than sufficiently clear as to what the meaning of a natural born citizen is. Minor stated the constitutional rule succinctly, explaining that a natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth and that all the rest of the people were “aliens or foreigners” who could be naturalized by law, either at birth or after birth. The historical and legal record (e.g. see, among the much evidence that I have provided, the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855), supports Minor’s definition of a natural born citizen and the naturalization of people through the operation of law to be citizens, either at birth or after birth. Hence, as our constitutional law has always and currently stands, Obama is not a natural born citizen. If he was born in the United States, he is at best a citizen from the moment of birth, naturalized at birth, under the Fourteenth Amendment. Some may view such a conclusion to be unjust and that the law ought to be changed. But any such argument cannot influence our judgment as to the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment and Obama’s current limited constitutional rights thereunder. That judgment should not be corrupted by a person such as Obama needing to be eligible to be President. It is not up to the courts to consider the hardship occasioned upon Obama or his supporters should the court rule that, while he may be a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, he is not an Article II natural born citizen. The court’s constitutional duty is to act on Obama’s constitutional rights as they currently exist under Article II and the Fourteenth Amendment. If the Constitution permits the court’s ruling, then whatever hardship the court’s ruling may occasion is of no moment. In such case of perceived hardship, what is needed is an amendment to the Constitution, either to Article II or to the Fourteenth Amendment, not a unilaterally change of the Constitution by a court to arrive at a politically, economically, or socially correct result. Indeed, that is how a real constitutional republic, a nation of laws, works.

So as you can see Mr. Olson, I have not ignored your arguments. Now why do you not stop putting your loyalty to some political cause above truth and reason? It does not matter how many elections Obama wins, he will never be a natural born citizen.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Mario,

You don’t seem to understand what the victory conditions are from my point of view. Every day in which President Obama remains in office is another success for me and a failure for you. If President Obama leaves office on January 20th, 2017, then the game is over and I win. In the meantime, I have no need to present a legal argument—although I do from time to time—because many people, far more knowledgable than myself, have done so already. In any case, there’s really no risk that you will convince anyone, let alone anyone important (like a Senator or Congressman or Judge) that you are right and 400 years of jurisprudence are wrong.

I am interested in the meta-argument—identifying the flaws in your statements and your dishonest tactics. To put it in simpler terms, you keep tasking trick questions and I like explaining why they are trick questions. Case in point, you said: “You keep insisting [...] that how Minor v. Happersett (1875) defined a natural born citizen somehow has something to do with the English common law.”

First, since I recognize the the definition given in Minor includes doubts that were resolved (with the inclusion of the native-born regardless of parentage) by Wong Kim Ark, which, as you admit, references the English common law, I have met the spirit of your challenge—something which, if history is any guide, you will never acknowledge.

On another level, your question is as dishonest as a rigged carnival game, because you know that Minor itself makes no reference to the English common law so that, while I’ve already answered the spirit of the challenge, their is no way that I can possibly meet the letter of it to your satisfaction, since you misrepresent my position by implying that Minor contains the complete definition, something clearly false in light of the holding in Wong Kim Ark .

Underneath all of that is the fallacious assumption that you need to ignore at all costs: the court in Minor gave a complete and well-researched definition of “natural born citizen”. Minor, as you well know, was a case about voting rights, not a case about how citizenship is obtained. While the justices certainly would have researched the rights of citizenship (necessary to making their ruling), there is no reason that they would have needed to research how people became citizens, and, in fact, it is highly unlikely that they would have expressed doubts or refused to address points had they researched the matter extensively (which would have ultimately lead them to the English common law and Calvin’s case).

Another thing you are desperate to cover up is that since every country in the history of the world recognizes citizenship either by descent, birth on the soil, or some combination of the two, saying that “it was never doubted” that children with both were citizens (indeed, they would be citizens in every single nation on the Earth) in no way implies that both are necessary, just that the justices felt no need to research the matter carefully as there was no question that someone in Ms. Minor’s position was a citizen and anything they said beyond that was dicta in any case.
On the other hand, in Wong Kim Ark, the only question was whether or not Mr. Wong was a citizen. The justices needed to fully research the relevant law and, for some reason, all of the authority that they cite and all of the discussion in their opinion has to do with natural born citizens rather than naturalized citizens.

Anyway, you already accepted all of the premises of my argument and your rebuttal (that I conflated “natural born citizen” and “citizen at birth”) was wrong and irrelevant to my reasoning in one case and contained an absurdity (that there were completely distinct mechanisms by which to determine whether or not someone was a citizen by birth and whether or not someone was a natural born citizen) in the other. In other words, you agreed with my assumptions and failed to invalidate my logic, which, if I recall how rational debate is conducted, pretty much makes me the winner—whatever you might think.

Slartibartfast

Robert said...

Sfast
Unfortunately, as we can see from current events, and as we have seen over the past 6+ years, every day that Mr. Obama remains in office is a loss for our Constitution, the Rule of Law, for our nation, and for the world.

You are like an arsonist reveling in his diabolical art while being completely unaware that he is himself about to be consumed by the very fire he has set.

Neither Minor nor Ark give any support to Mr. Obama. Nor has any other argument put before us by any of Obama's misguided and delusional minions. In fact, in the past 7+ years of research there has not been found a single piece of evidence or legal history that supports Mr. Obama as being a natural born citizen of the USA. And there is a lot of evidence that suggests that he is not even a citizen.

Minor not only recognized the fact that a natural born citizen is one born in the country to citizen parents but established it as binding legal precedent in our body of law. This definition is simply the only definition that has been recognized and accepted without question by every nation in the history of the world. It is every other definition that "has doubts". It is also the only definition that the founders could have intended without offending all of the other people on this continent who were not and did not intend to become, much less have their children become, citizens of the USA.

Ark suggested that children of Chinese descent who were born here of resident Chinese parentage who were also engaged in business could also be considered as citizens. It doesn't apply to Mr. Obama at all. His parents were not Chinese. His father was merely a sojourner in this nation and was certainly not engaged in any business. Further, Mr. Obama, Jr., if he was even born here, was governed by our British Nationality Act at his birth and not by any treaty with the Chinese Emperor.

With the Ark decision the court wrongfully went beyond its authority and ignored our Constitution and our lawful treaties and created a new class of citizens purely out of thin air. The authority for naturalization rests with Congress, not the courts.

Had the Chinese Emperor been unaware of the causes and events leading up to the Texas revolution, he would most likely would have challenged their decision as an act of war much like we did the British in the War of 1812 for their very similar foolishness. As it was, the Emperor was not interested in having too many freedom loving and Constitutionally enlightened Chinese returning to his country where they might cause him lots of trouble. So, he saw an out and took it; writing off a few million possibly problematic subjects was no big deal for him and much less of a risk. He still had plenty of willing subjects to keep him fat and happy.

In closing I would like to thank you, though, for confirming what I have long thought; that you and your treasonous ilk really don't care about the truth. You just want to extend the discussion with the hope that it will become moot after Mr. Obama leaves office. Thus, you continue to present your constant flood of unsubstantiated, inane, circular arguments. Well, you're going to fail in this too. In fact, failure is your only option. Because, even (and especially) if you "useful idiots" "win" - you lose. As he has treated his own family and closest friends, Mr. Obama won't hesitate to throw you under the bus as soon as you are no longer "useful".

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

From Café Con Leche Republicans, dunstvangeet comment to me and my question to him:

Mario, here’s the thing…

You want to conflate the adjective to meaning something completely different when it’s applied to citizen, than when it is applied to subject. That’s not the case (especially when the Supreme Court has said directly that subject and citizen are interchangable terms, that one is just more towards a republic, while the other is towards a monarchy).

Just wondering. If I apply an adjective to two different words, does that mean that the adjective suddenly means the exact opposite? Does the word “black” in a Black Car, mean the exact opposite of a Black Kettle? What you’re saying is that the word “Natural Born” means jus soli when applied to “subject”, but means the exact opposite (jus saguinis) when applied to “citizen”.

No court would ever uphold your view, Mario. And in fact, no further than 10 seperate courts within the last 6 years have ruled directly against your view.

Tell me, which courts within the last 6 years have ruled for your view?

~~~~~

dunstvangeet,

You maintain that the Framers defined a natural born citizen the same as the English and colonist defined an English natural-born subject under the English common law. When defining a natural born citizen, the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) explained that the Constitution, which then already included the Fourteenth Amendment, did not define a natural born citizen and that the Framers got their definition of the clause from the common law the nomenclature with which they were familiar when they drafted the Constitution and that under that common law the natural born citizens were children born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth and that all the rest of the people were "aliens or foreigner" who could be naturalized under law, either at birth or after birth. The Court even added that "there have been doubts" whether a child born in the jurisdiction to alien parents was a citizen.

I think that you will agree with me that what the Court said about how that common law defined a natural born citizen (not only born in the country, but also born to citizen parents) and about doubts existing regarding whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was a citizen (no such doubts existed under English common law) is not an expression of English common law.

How do you reconcile your theory that the Framers used the English common law to define a natural born citizen with the fact that the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) made absolutely no reference or reliance upon it?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

From Cafe Con Leche Republicans:

Slartibartfast,

Providing the same Vattelian definition without citing Vattel, and not in any way referring to the English common law, the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor held:

The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens.

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

The Court plainly and clearly said that the Constitution, which then already included the Fourteenth Amendment, did not define a natural born citizen. It also said that the meaning of a natural born citizen could be found in the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. It further added that under that common law, the natural born citizens were children born in a country to parents who were its citizens and that all the rest of the people were “aliens and foreigners” who could be naturalized under law, at birth or after birth. It further explained that a different class of persons, i.e., those born in the United States to alien parents, might possibly be citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment, but that “there have been doubts” whether that was so.

Now you might have a need to tell us things which are not in reality included in what the Court said, like the Court did not define a natural born citizen or left open the question of whether members of that other class of persons could be natural born citizens by satisfying the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. But the reality is that the plain words of what the Court wrote show that the Court did, in fact, define a natural born citizen as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens. It also said that at common law, any person not born in the country to citizen parents was an alien or foreigner who could be naturalized by law at birth or after birth. It also added that there could be a person, born in the United States to alien parents, who could maybe establish his or her status as a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. But the Court in no way said that that Fourteenth Amendment possible citizen could be a natural born citizen, especially given the definition that it had just confirmed of the clause and after having just said that “there have been doubts” whether that person was even a citizen.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

We have confirmation from U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark that Minor’s possible Fourteenth Amendment citizen was not and was not to be a natural born citizen and that Wong Kim Ark itself did not hold that he was a natural born citizen. Wong Kim Ark said:

Mr. Binney, in the second edition of a paper on the Alienigenae of the United States, printed in pamphlet at Philadelphia, with a preface bearing his signature and the date of December 1, 1853, said: ‘The child of an alien, if born in the country, is as much a citizen as the natural born child of a citizen, and by operation of the same principle.’ [p666] P. 22, note. This paper, without Mr. Binney's name and with the note in a less complete form and not containing the passage last cited, was published (perhaps from the first edition) in the American Law Register for February, 1854. 2 Amer.Law Reg.193, 203, 204.”

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 666-67 (1898).

The Court in Wong Kim Ark distinguished a common law natural born citizen child who the Court said was born in the country to citizen parents from a child of an alien born in the country who the Court held was a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. It explained that they were both citizens, the former by virtue of being a natural born citizen under the common law by being born in the country to citizen parents, and the latter by being a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment by being born in the country and subject to the jurisdiction thereof. So there you have it, the clear constitutional distinction between an Article II natural born citizen and a Fourteenth Amendment citizen at birth.

Whatever your political needs might be to have to add or take away from what Minor and Wong Kim Ark plainly and clearly confirmed about the meaning of an Article II natural born citizen and a citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, I do not think that the average American has the same needs. That means that in the final grand scheme of things, you lose.

MichaelN said...

242
dunstvangeet said:

"You want to conflate the adjective to meaning something completely different when it’s applied to citizen, than when it is applied to subject. That’s not the case (especially when the Supreme Court has said directly that subject and citizen are interchangable terms, that one is just more towards a republic, while the other is towards a monarchy).

Just wondering. If I apply an adjective to two different words, does that mean that the adjective suddenly means the exact opposite? Does the word “black” in a Black Car, mean the exact opposite of a Black Kettle? What you’re saying is that the word “Natural Born” means jus soli when applied to “subject”, but means the exact opposite (jus saguinis) when applied to “citizen”."
-------------------

Wonder about this..........

Wong Kim Ark.

"The term "citizen," as understood in our law, is precisely analogous to the term "subject" in the common law"

English common law (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: therefore for a native-born in US to be a US citizen/subject, then the child would by necessity have to be born "under the ligeance of" a citizen/subject.

Furthermore the English common law says, per Calvin's case....

"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.

Barack Obama is of foreign allegiance, therefore according to the common law, he is alien born.

Anonymous said...

"An alien born is of foreign birth or foreign allegiance,.. A stranger is a subject who is born outside the land, that is, outside the king’s power."

That statement is pure foolishness. What could be a greater oxymoron than to call a stranger a "subject"? Stupid and inane.
Also, an alien is one born of foreigners. What does that mean? Does it mean "foreign-born"? What exactly does "foreign-born" mean? No one can tell you because it is just another of many great ambiguities of language.
No authority ever got everyone to understand or agree that it means born in a foreign land of foreign parents.

What no one every agreed to is that it only means born of foreigners and not merely being born outside of the Kings dominion.

"for if enemies should come into the realm,... and have issue there, that issue is no subject to the King..."

Notice, it doesn't say that children of subjects are not subjects if born in a conquered territory. It only refers to children of enemies, -not subjects.
What does that teach us? That it didn't really matter where you were born but to whom you were born; -an enemy? or a subject?

Were you born under the subjection of one loyal and obedient to the king or to one in rebellion against him? It was all about allegiance, -not birth place.

The SCOTUS in Wong, in effect, changed the dynamic in America by declaring that domiciled immigrants owe allegiance to the land that is their home, (per the common law of the States and their citizenship requirements) and just as they could be drafted to defend it, they could also be executed for treason against it.

Obama's father could not because he was not an immigrant, -because he owed allegiance to Kenya and Great Britain and was not domiciled in the United State, and so he was not subject to the jurisdiction that is applicable to all citizens and immigrants, and thus his son was also not subject and thus not born as a citizen.

see: "Why Obama Is an Alien by U.S. Law" at obama--nation.com
It expounds on what is on the books regarding citizenship.

Anonymous said...

Which is worse: to be a liar or to be an ignoramus? I see one heck of a lot of both in comments here. Each side fires their big cannon of truth and then follows it with their smaller cannon of lies.

"It further added that under that common law, the natural born citizens were children born in a country to parents who were its citizens."

That statement is a deliberate falsehood since no such thing was ever conveyed by the court. Perversion of language is accompanied by perversion of logic.

The court "defined" nothing whatsoever. But it observed an indisputable fact: native-birth plus native parents = natural citizens by birth, NOT the reverse!

An Analogy: All babies born of your mother's own womb in her own bed are her children. They are your direct kin, or natural born siblings.

The Apuzzo Perversion: The definition of your natural born siblings is all babies born of your mother's womb in your mother's bed.

Hmmmmm... -but what about those siblings born in a hospital??? They are not your natural born siblings?

How can a sane person proffer such a transparently delusional dogma?

What if the Minor paragraph had instead said: "These were natives or natural citizens,..."?

It would mean the very same thing but the dogma would evaporate as the golden term lost its sole anchor in a SCOTUS opinion. Poof! goes Mario's dogma since "natural born citizen" would then not have it vaunted "definition" which is a backward perversion of what was actually written.

Mario cannot counter these facts but he can minimize the truth by resorting to Alinskite dismissal and mockery. But that won't make the truth go away. It is what it is, and not what he wants it to be.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

Emer de Vattel’s French,“Les naturels, ou indigenes” (The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758)) was first translated into English as “The natives, or indigenes.” See the early Vattel English translations prior to the English translation of 1797. It was also translated into “The natives or indigenes.” See The Venus, 12 U.S. 8 Cranch 253, 289 (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring) (“Vattel, who, though not very full to this point, is more explicit and more satisfactory on it than any other whose work has fallen into my hands, says ‘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 indigenes [having equivalent meaning to "natural born citizens”] are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not being able to subsist and to perpetuate itself but by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights.’”).

Native or indigenes, standing alone, are not legal words which inform as to the type of member a nation has. For example, in a monarchy, a native or indigene is called a subject. But in a republic, a native or indigene is called a citizen. It made perfect sense, therefore, that the Framers in Article II wrote natural born citizen, for they were drafting a constitution for a republic whose members are called citizens, and not simply native or indigene which words do not inform as to the type of member the Framers had in mind for the new republic.

Vattel's “Les naturels, ou indigenes” were for the first time translated into “The natives, or natural-born citizens” in a 1797 English translation done by an anonymous translator in London. Since this translator was in a position to know that the Framers in the U.S. Constitution used the clause “natural born citizen,” to know how the Framers defined a natural born citizen and/or what the public meaning of natural born citizen was in 1787 and in the years that followed, and to know the source from which the Framers got their meaning and/or that public meaning came, he was also in a position to know whether that meaning came from Vattel’s Section 212 of The Law of Nations.

The 1797 English translator changed the words “The natives, or indigenes” to “The natives, or natural-born citizens.” This can only mean that the translator knew that the Framers got their definition of a natural born citizen from Vattel and/or that Vattel was the source of the public meaning of the clause, and that is why the translator went back to the English translation of Vattel’s treatise and surgically changed the words to “The natives, or natural-born citizens.” Indeed, if it was good enough for the Framers and/or the public to call Vattel’s native or indigene a “natural born citizen” and so indicate in their Constitution of the United States, it was good enough for the translator to do the same in the new English translation of Vattel’s treatise. Indeed, the use of the clause “natural-born citizens” in his 1797 translation shows that the translator linked the Constitution’s use of the clause natural born citizen to Vattel. By producing a new English translation in 1797 which specifically included this change, the translator saw it important enough that Vattel be credited with the Constitution’s use of natural born citizen and that all future generations know where to find the meaning of that clause.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Finally, we have confirmation from the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) that the Framers got their definition of a natural born citizen from Vattel. The Court held:

"The Constitution does not in words say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first. For the purposes of this case, it is not necessary to solve these doubts. It is sufficient, for everything we have now to consider, that all children, born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction, are themselves citizens."

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

As we can see, how the Court defined a natural born citizen under the common law is a paraphrase of how Vattel defined one. This is understandable given that the law of nations when incorporated into a nation’s laws became part of its common law. The Court went even further and added that at common law persons who did not meet that definition were “aliens or foreigners,” thereby excluding as natural born citizens any persons who were not born in a country to parents who were its citizens. The Court did explain in its decision that persons who were not natural born citizens could still become citizens at birth or after birth, by satisfying Acts of Congress or treaties, as the case may be. The Court also left open the possibility that a person could be a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment by birth in the United States to alien parents (not to be conflated and confused with the Framers’ natural born citizen), cautioning that in the past “there have been doubts” whether that was so. If such doubts existed in the past as to whether such children were even citizens, the Framers surely could not have viewed them as natural born citizens which Minor said presented no doubt as to who were its citizens.

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) in 1898 answered the Fourteenth Amendment question left open by Minor and thereby added to the citizens at birth who are not natural born citizens by holding that a child born in the United States to alien parents who were permanently domiciled and resident in the United States and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders were “citizens of the United States” from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. Note that the Court specifically said that such a child was a citizen from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment; it did not say by virtue of the common law which for the Framers defined a natural born citizen. Hence, Wong Kim Ark did not disturb the meaning of a natural born citizen as explained by Vattel and as confirmed by Minor and Chief Justice Marshall in The Venus.

What this means is that today the meaning of a natural born citizen continues to be as explained by Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations, which meaning Minor said was incorporated into the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. With that common law being incorporated into the Constitution, that common law became constitutional national common law which upon ratification of the Constitution became part of the supreme law of the land. Therefore, that common law still provides the definition of an Article II natural born citizens today which is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Adrien Nash,

In your opinion, what are all the birth circumstances that Mr. Obama is missing which prevents him from being a natural born citizen? In your answer, be sure to cover factors such as place of birth, father, mother, and any other factor which you consider as necessary for one to be a natural born citizen.

MichaelN said...

Mario Apuzzo said....
"What this means is that today the meaning of a natural born citizen continues to be as explained by Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations, which meaning Minor said was incorporated into the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. With that common law being incorporated into the Constitution, that common law became constitutional national common law which upon ratification of the Constitution became part of the supreme law of the land. Therefore, that common law still provides the definition of an Article II natural born citizens today which is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth."

This confirms....

"Franklin sent Dumas a letter, Dec. 9, 1775, thanking him for the gift. Franklin stated, ``I am much obliged by the kind present you have made us of
your edition of Vattel. It came to us in good season, when the circumstances of a rising state make it necessary frequently to consult the law of nations. Accordingly, that copy which I kept, has been continually in the hands of the members of our congress, now sitting ...|.''
http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id3.html

Anonymous said...

The SCOTUS in Wong, in effect, changed the dynamic in America by declaring that domiciled immigrants owe allegiance to the land that is their home, (per the common law of the States and their citizenship requirements) and just as they could be drafted to defend it, they could also be executed for treason against it.

Obama's father could not because he was not an immigrant and only owed allegiance to Kenya and Great Britain. He was not domiciled in the United State, and so he was not subject to the jurisdiction that is applicable to all citizens and immigrants and is required by the 14th Amendment in order for citizenship to be awarded to the child of alien parents, and thus his son was also not subject either, and therefore was not born as a U.S. citizen since his mother was too young to convey her citizenship.

But regardless of her age, there is no statute by which American women convey citizenship to their children born in the U.S. within matrimony.

see: "Why Obama Is an Alien by U.S. Law" at obama--nation.com

http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/foreign-birth-and-acquisition-of-u-s-citizenship/

Delusional Citizenship Views of the Left & Right
http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2014/08/09/delusional-citizenship-views-of-the-left-right/

«Oldest ‹Older   2801 – 3000 of 3179   Newer› Newest»