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
     

3182 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   3001 – 3182 of 3182   Newer›   Newest»
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/

Unknown said...

A native or natural born citizen was never in doubt and minor court was exactly right in describing one. We are coming up on 227th anniversary of US Constitution and a NBC is the same today as it was in 1787. A NBC cannot be redefined, it is what it is and if Barry actually is the child of a alien father then he is clearly a fraud president and nothing can change that unless article 2 is amended to make someone with 2 forgerys and a fake social eligible for most powerful office in us. You cannot possibly be a us native if your father was a foreigner...the Founders obviously wanted a native only to be cic

Anonymous said...

"A NBC cannot be redefined"

You cannot "redefine" something that was never defined in the first place.
All that dick head wrote is true except the parting addition: "the Founders obviously wanted a native only to be cic"

You did not define what a native is so it is not reasonable to claim that the founders "obviously" wanted only a native cic".
What they obviously wanted is a natural citizen as cic, and that includes those born of foreigners who were remade into Americans by the oath of Allegiance & Renunciation.

Think about it; if the children of foreigners were included as eligible to serve as President, how much more acceptable would have been the children of men like John Adams, -having no foreign ancestors dating back to the first colonies, -and yet such sons would have been considered a "security risk"(?) if born abroad though born of a future President like John Quincy Adams was?

John Quincy spent a decade of his youth in Europe with his father. Did that make him unfit to be cic?
What if he had been born there but from a toddler was raised in America with no recollection of the foreign nation and no connection to its government or king? How exactly would that have tainted his undivided loyalty to his country?

A native is anyone born of native citizens even if they are not "native-born". They are native members of the country by their blood relationship to native parents.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Mr. Nash,

Would the Cherokee Indians have considered a child born in China to Cherokee parents a native?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Posted at Cafe Con Leche Republicans:

Bryan Gene Olson,

Not only are you incompetent in believing that there is no such thing as national common law (more of this later), but logic and telling the truth also escape you. You still fail to understand that with two sets, they are either equal or not, and cannot be both. You also continue to deny that you admitted (and correctly so) that natural born citizens is a proper subset of citizens at birth (born citizens). Natural born citizens being a proper subset of born citizens means that all natural born citizens are born citizens, but not all born citizens are natural born citizens. Now you lie and say that you made no such concession.

Here are your several comments which you (operating as Unknown) have not cared to re-post and explain in your defense, which is your usual style when you think you have something to gain by quoting yourself. Your comments appear on my blog at http://puzo1.blogs.com in my article, The Constitution, the Rule of Law, and the “Natural Born Citizen” Clause: A Response to Artsy Fartsy Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter:

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

“My position is, and has been for some years, that the Article II natural born citizens are the proper subset of United States citizens that gained their citizenship upon birth.

If you'll quote where I said that there is no difference I will be happy to correct.”
February 5, 2014 at 3:09 PM

“My position is, and has been for some years, that the Article II natural born citizens are the proper subset of United States citizens that gained their citizenship upon birth.”
February 10, 2014 at 11:33 PM

“What I've been telling you is that the natural-born citizens are the subset of citizens who received their citizenship at the moment of birth, and, as I've noted here before, it's a proper subset.”
April 19, 2014 at 4:50 AM

“That little point appeared in this thread on Feb 5 when I wrote, ‘My position is, and has been for some years, that the Article II natural born citizens are the proper subset of United States citizens that [...].’"
April 25, 2014 at 12:56 AM

~~~~~

Notice that in your last comment you attempt to hide “gained their citizenship upon birth” which signifies the born citizen class.

You see, Mr. Olson, you think that you are real slick. But you are not as smart as you think you are. As we can plainly see, these quotes are more than clear on their face and demonstrate that you have conceded that natural born citizens is a proper subset of born citizens. These quotes also clearly show that you are both a liar and a weasel which makes you an Obot.

Will you acknowledge how you have lied or just ignore this post like you ignore my comments which destroy your position on what the Framers’ definition of a natural born citizen was?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

More from Cafe Con Leche Republicans:

Bryan Gene Olson,

You continue down your path of substituting reporting on the conclusion of a court for telling us what the rationale of the court was for arriving at its conclusion.

If you will go back and read your post, there is not one iota of refutation to my legal arguments. All you have included is the same old comments about the lower courts. Clearly you have no mental capacity to engage in legal argument and so you have to resort to such sophomoric tactics.

As I have already explained, you are not intellectual able to refute my arguments and so you are stuck just incessantly telling us about the conclusions of some lower courts which I have already explained to you do not trump decisions of our U.S. Supreme Court.

You have also dishonestly included the bit about the Third Circuit in Kerchner v. Obama, knowing the court’s ruling had nothing to do with the merits of the argument concerning the definition of a natural born citizen and that in any event, after hearing from me on the issue of standing the court discharged its order to show cause and assessed no damages. Your big lie is in failing to tell us that neither the District Court nor the Third Circuit Court of Appeals ever ruled on the merits of my argument concerning the meaning of a natural born citizen.

You are also out of your mind to suggest that a lawyer cannot give his or her opinion on how a court ruled. If a court got a ruling correct, its opinion should be able to sustain reasonable scrutiny by members of the profession and other knowledgeable members of the public. No, Mr. Olson, an attorney exercising his First Amendment right to freedom of speech by pointing out what errors a court made in its ruling is not disrespect of the court. Rather, it is learning from the analysis of others what to do and not to do when rendering legal rulings. That is the never-ending pursuit of justice.

No, no, Mr. Olson, as far as your hobby of debunking goes, may I suggest that you take up a new hobby like butterfly collection which better suits your persona.

Unknown said...

I think children of citizens are natives but it is still not enough, they must be born in country parents are from. It is also important that they are born and raised here by loyal, moral us citizens. Someone like Barry, who was raised in Hawaii and Indonesia, certainly would have a lot less attachment to us mainland than someone like me who is a true NBC, grew up red, white and blue and thinking of Washington and Lincoln as larger than life figures. I love my country and want what is best for it. Mario is Italian but his first loyalty is to US, not to the country of his ancestors. A vast majority of the European immigrants who came here were grateful for the opportunity provided by the new world and were very loyal to their adopted country but that did not make them eligible to be cic...being born in us is a necessary condition for a CiC

Anonymous said...

"Would the Cherokee Indians have considered a child born in China to Cherokee parents a native?"

That is not the right question. Ask the wrong question and you will not find the right answer. The right question is: Would the Cherokee Indians have considered a Cherokee child born outside of their traditional territory to be a natural Cherokee? Yes? or No? By what principle would it not be a natural Cherokee? Answer: None.

The question isn't whether or not a non-domestically born child is a native or not but whether or not it was born of native members of the tribe, -or was the child born of outsiders, aliens?

If it was born of outsiders, then it can never be entrusted with the position of Chief. Only one born of natives can be trusted with that authority, -assuming of course that he was also raised by natives, and preferably among natives.
One born of natives but then kidnapped, and raised by outsiders among outsiders would not grow up to be a natural member of the parents' tribe, even though natural born to be such.

So the supreme issue is not where one was born but to whom one was born.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Adrien Nash,

You do not get to change a perfectly framed question so as to give the appearance that you are the one in control.

Given the answer that you gave, your answer is that a child born in China to Cherokee parents is a native of the Cherokee nation.

Now assume this hypothetical scenario. The Cherokee child is born in China to Cherokee parents who are neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders. China has a law that says any child born on its territory, except for children born to foreign diplomats or military invaders, regardless of the citizenship of the parents, is a native of China and owes faith, loyalty, and allegiance to the motherland from the moment of birth and for his or her entire life. Let us also assume that China’s constitution provides: "It is a sacred duty of every citizen of China to defend his or her motherland and resist invasion. It is an honored obligation of the citizens of China to perform military service and to join the militia forces." Additionally, let us further assume that China has a law that provides: “Military service is a duty for all citizens without distinction of race or religion. Any Chinese citizen is a soldier and owes himself or herself to the defense of the nation. Therefore, all Chinese citizens shall perform 2 years of military service for the motherland. In time of war, all Chinese citizens regardless of sex, between the ages of 17 and 50 shall, serve in the military defense of the motherland.”

Given such a political and military reality, do you still consider that child a native of the Cherokee nation?

Anonymous said...

When the Naturalization Act of 1870
was written, the Wong opinion providing citizenship for the native-born of immigrants was 28 years in the future. It changed the dynamic of the 1870 Act which was focused solely on naturalization fraud to obtain citizenship illegally. It did so by making a mere State birth certificate something that it had never been, namely proof of citizenship. With that as the consequence, the seriousness of the penalties of the 1870 Act to obtain citizenship became logically reflected in the seriousness of birth certificate fraud. But in a real sense, they are quite different since one is for adults in the present, while the other is for children in the future.
Still, the seriousness of either sort of fraud is seen in the language of the Act, of which the following is a part:

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, that if any person applying to be admitted a citizen or appearing as a witness for any such person, shall knowingly personate any other person than himself, or falsely appear in the name of a deceased person, or in an assumed or fictitious name, or if any person shall falsely make, forge, or counterfeit any oath, affirmation, notice, affidavit, certificate, order, record, signature, or other instrument, paper, or proceeding required or authorized by any law or act relating to or providing for the naturalization of aliens;

or shall utter, sell, dispose of, or use as true or genuine, or for any unlawful purpose, any false, forged, ante-dated, or counterfeit oath, affirmation, notice, certificate, order, record, signature, instrument, paper, or proceeding as aforesaid; or sell or dispose of to any person other than the person for whom it was originally issued, any certificate of citizenship, or certificate showing any person to be admitted a citizen; or if any person shall in any manner use for the purpose of registering as a voter, or as evidence of a right to vote, or otherwise, unlawfully, any order, certificate of citizenship, or certificate, judgement, or exemplification, showing such person to be admitted to be a citizen, whether heretofore or hereafter issued or made, knowing that such order or certificate, judgement, or exemplification has been unlawfully issued or made;

...or if any person shall obtain, accept, or receive any certificate of citizenship known to such person to have been procured by fraud or by the use of any false name, or by means of any false statement made with intent to procure, or to aid in procuring, the issue of such certificate, or known to such person to be fraudulently altered or ante-dated; ... every person so offending shall be deemed and adjudged guilty of felony, and, on conviction thereof, shall be sentenced to be imprisoned and kept at hard labor for a period not less than one year nor more than one thousand dollars, or both such punishments may be imposed, in the discretion of the court, ~~~

Obama deserves at least a year at hard labor and a million dollar fine, or more.

Anonymous said...

Here's something I transcribed which reveals an absence of federal recognition of native-birth producing US citizenship.

5th Congress 1789 Chap. LXVI. -An Act respecting Alien Enemies

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That when ever there shall be declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies. ~ ~ ~

Since a family's nationality was derived from that of its head; -the father, -if the father was an alien then so were his children since they were just mini-versions of him. Even if they were born in America, they were not United States citizens until he became one, and hence no mention of native-born sons of aliens being exempted.

But they could be State citizens under State laws that granted State citizenship to their native-born children of immigrants.

If an immigrant traveled to Europe with his US-born children, they would not be considered to be US citizens by the US Office of Foreign Affairs, or the later Department of State regardless of them being State citizens. Hence the "doubts" referenced in Minor.

Anonymous said...

Mario asked: "Given such a political and military reality, do you still consider that child a native of the Cherokee nation?"

You failed to include the elephant in the room, which is "residency".

The laws of the sovereign nation of China are utterly irrelevant to people not living there. Your thinking is so infused with the perspective of legalities that you fail to grasp the real-world realities. A person has to grow up somewhere and you failed to include that fact in your scenario.
If the child is raised in Cherokee territory in America, what relevance does the law of China have? None.
If the child is raised in China, he is a member of Chinese society and owes it support to a degree, and two years of service is not too great of a degree, especially if intending to remain and live there perpetually.
Continued residence is the crucial factor, -not place of birth.

It would be the same even if not born there, as is the case in the US. US domiciled foreign-born children of immigrants must register with Selective Service at 18 even though they are still aliens.
Societal membership trumps everything, -both parentage and birth place. That is a law of human society. Those who live in the house have an obligation to preserve it from fire or attack.

Those only merely visiting do not.
Obama's father was only visiting and thus had no obligation to America, could not be drafted, nor charged with treason since he was subject to British jurisdiction by the law of nations and international treaty.

As for this: "You do not get to change a perfectly framed question so as to give the appearance that you are the one in control."

That is not a mature response. It was not a question of control nor how well framed your question was, but whether or not it was pertinent. It wasn't, as you already know: being native-born does not make one a native. -or else a hypothetical George Custer Jr., born in Sioux territory, would be eligible to be Chief of the Sioux Nation one day.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Adrien Nash,

You fail to understand how constitutional eligibility for the Office of President works in reference to the natural born citizen requirement. To determine eligibility in that regard, we look to see if the person was a natural born citizen at the moment of birth. The only factors that are relevant are whether the child is born to citizen parents in the country of which they are citizens. Hence, your bit about residency is not relevant on the question of determining that status at the time of birth.

Also, you are making up facts which I did not provide in my hypothetical. I did not say that the parents or child did not reside in China or that the child was not raised in China. You are just making those facts up so that you can give me the answer that you did and otherwise evade giving me a straight answer. In any event, where the parents reside is not relevant. The only relevancy is that a person who is a natural born citizen and at least 35 years of age, would have to reside at least 14 years in the United States. That does does not mean that the child has to be “raised” in the United States.

Why do you think that you have license to control how the laws of the world should be? You have a total disregard for the laws as they exist when they do not fit in with your agenda. Rather, what counts for you is the “law of human society,” provided that law suits your needs. Well, that is not the way the real world works.

As far as my question goes, you are only expected to answer it, not evade it by telling us what the ramifications of any answer may be.

Finally, you are terribly confused and naïve to think that nations work like houses and people’s beds.

MichaelN said...

Criteria for a native-born "citizen of the United States" = small degree of parental allegiance i.e. subject to the jurisdiction, not necessarily a US citizen parent.

Criteria for a native-born "citizen of the united States" to be eligible for POTUS = a higher degree of parental.

What would that be?

Anonymous said...

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

"Mr. Nash, Would the Cherokee Indians have considered a child born in China to Cherokee parents a native?"

I asked: "If the child is raised in Cherokee territory..."
"If the child is raised in Chinese territory..."

Mario mindless responded with: "-you are making up facts which I did not provide in my hypothetical. I did not say that the parents or child did not reside in China or that the child was not raised in China. You are just making those facts up so that you...blah, blah, blah.

No, Mario, you are the one making things up regarding what I supposedly made up when I only postulated with "if..."

You've made yourself look foolish again with your: draw, fire, aim! approach to discourse.

Then even worse, you complain about my lack of understanding regarding presidential eligibility. I've got a million dollars here on my desk and it is yours if you can show me where in your hypothetical that the subject of presidential eligibility is to be found. Yet you manage to make it appear out of the blue.

It's like you've done an invisible magic trick. No one can figure out how you did it because no one could see you do it.

Any thinking person would be ashamed of this statement: "The only factors that are relevant are whether the child is born to citizen parents in the country of which they are citizens."

Then we are to believe that it would be irrelevant if an American child was adopted at birth by a British couple, raised in Britain to be a loyal subject of the king and nation, and then one day ran for the US presidency.
In Mario-World it doesn't matter where or how or by whom the American child was raised? Only legal technicalities matter?
And he considers that to be "the real world". What a joke.

Finally, you are terribly confused and naïve to NOT understand the concept of Principles, and Purposes.

Anonymous said...

To understand the truth about citizenship and presidential eligibility, read my latest post at obama--nation.com, titled:

The Fat-Ass Presidential Eligibility Analogy

http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2014/08/13/the-fat-ass-presidential-eligibility-analogy/

It begins:
The naturalization acts of the young United States changed dramatically in less than a decade, from one extreme to another, and the result sheds light on the impact of the phrase “natural born citizen” and eligibility for the presidency. What comes to light is the fact that when the requirement was written into the Constitution, its impact on the sons of foreigners was going to be minimal, but in a short eight years, it became maximal, and that impacted multiple thousands of native-born Americans who were not born of citizens.

Initially, under George Washington, the first act required a mere two years of American residency before being allowed to be naturalized and become a United States citizen. Five years later that was increased to five years, and a mere three years later, to 14 years!

Here’s the problem: under the first act of the first Congress, a married foreigner who had children in America might only have one or two or none during the first two years of his residency, but under the presidency of the second President, John Adams, that two years shot-up to 14 years.

Imagine how many children a man might have in that time, and none of them would ever be considered eligible to serve as President regardless of how patriotic, and even heroic, their life as a United States citizen might have been since they were born and partially raised as an alien born of an alien who was not allowed to become an American for 14 long years.

The restriction never played out since it was changed back to the previous requirement of five years in the Naturalization Act of 1802.

MichaelN said...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/88/162#writing-USSC_CR_0088_0162_ZO

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court explained and held in Minor:

Additions might always be made to the citizenship of the United States in two ways: first, by birth, and second, by naturalization. This is apparent from the Constitution itself, for it provides [n6] that "no person except a natural-born citizen, or a citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President," [n7] and that Congress shall have power "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization." Thus new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.

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).

Then in 1898, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark held:

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.

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 704 (1898).

As Minor explained, “new citizens may be born or they may be created by naturalization.” Minor also held that persons who were born in a country to parents who were its citizens were citizens by birth. But these were not only citizens, for they were the natural born citizens by virtue of constitutional national common law.

Wong Kim Ark held that persons who were born in a country to qualifying alien parents were citizens by birth. Not being born in the country to citizen parents, these were not natural born citizens. Rather, they were citizens of the United States at birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.

This means that the definition of a natural born citizen is found in Minor and Wong Kim Ark. The definition of a citizen of the United States at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment is found in Wong Kim Ark.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

With respect to Minor’s definition of a natural born citizen, i.e., a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth, Wong Kim Ark did not say that how Minor defined a natural born citizen was in conflict with the views expressed by the Court that the English common law jus soli rule continued to prevail in the states after the adoption of the Constitution and therefore what Minor said was a natural born citizen was overruled. Nor did Wong Kim Ark say that what Minor said about a natural born citizen was dicta, and it was disavowed.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Adrien Nash said:

“Mario mindless responded with: "-you are making up facts which I did not provide in my hypothetical. I did not say that the parents or child did not reside in China or that the child was not raised in China. You are just making those facts up so that you...blah, blah, blah.

No, Mario, you are the one making things up regarding what I supposedly made up when I only postulated with "if..."

You've made yourself look foolish again with your: draw, fire, aim! approach to discourse.”

~~~~~

In case you did not know, a hypothetical is a “if” presentation of assumed facts. You do not get to change the hypothetical with more extraneous “ifs.” So do not tell me that you did not introduce new facts into my hypothetical which I told you are not pertinent to my question. I did not make up anything which you say you did not make up. You even admit that you introduced more facts into the hypothetical, but stupidly argue that they are not facts because you said “if.”

Adrien Nash said:

“Then even worse, you complain about my lack of understanding regarding presidential eligibility. I've got a million dollars here on my desk and it is yours if you can show me where in your hypothetical that the subject of presidential eligibility is to be found. Yet you manage to make it appear out of the blue.
It's like you've done an invisible magic trick. No one can figure out how you did it because no one could see you do it.

~~~~~

The whole subject of this blog is natural born citizen within the context of presidential eligibility. All your writings and that of others is the same. My hypothetical discussed the word “native” because we have been discussing whether native means the same as natural born citizen. So, if we know what native means we can know what natural born citizen is and therefore whether someone is eligible to be President. And you tell us that you did not know that my hypothetical had anything to do with presidential eligibility. Mr. Nash, may I suggest two things: a head examination and pay up on the one million dollars.

Adrien Nash said:

“Any thinking person would be ashamed of this statement: "The only factors that are relevant are whether the child is born to citizen parents in the country of which they are citizens."

~~~~~

I can see why you believe that. You considered yourself to be a thinking person.

Adrien Nash said:

“Then we are to believe that it would be irrelevant if an American child was adopted at birth by a British couple, raised in Britain to be a loyal subject of the king and nation, and then one day ran for the US presidency.
In Mario-World it doesn't matter where or how or by whom the American child was raised? Only legal technicalities matter?
And he considers that to be "the real world". What a joke.”

~~~~~

The joke is you not understanding the difference between being constitutionally eligible for the Office of President and whether or not the people would vote for any particular person for that office.

May I suggest to you that you stick to issues concerning houses and beds. Stay away from nations.

Anonymous said...

Mario wrote: "You even admit that you introduced more facts into the hypothetical, but stupidly argue that they are not facts because you said “if.”

Mario is quite overly loose with the use of the word "facts". I used it with its proper, formal, literal meaning. Mario used it as synonymous with "elements".

The elements of a hypothetical are not facts because facts are things that are real, but by definition no hypothetical is real. So by answering with two possible answers which depend on the overlooked conditions that Mario failed to include, I brought reality to his hypothetical, -not "facts".

btw, as I said, there is no authority that can disambiguate the term "native", so no solid answer to Mario's question can be made since the answer must depend on the meaning of the word.
One can assert that it has a particular meaning but they cannot do so authoritatively because of the cross-confusion due to nativity being linked both to birth-place and to native parentage.
Normally, natives and natural born citizens are born where their parents live, -which is normally in their own homeland, but nevertheless rare exceptions happen all the time and birth happens elsewhere. Hence the protection offered by the 1790 Nat. Act.

A Cherokee is a Cherokee no matter where born. All pure-blood Cherokees would be considered natives of their tribe regardless of whether or not they were born on the "reservation" or born in the White-man's hospital, or born in China. Location is irrelevant to membership.

MichaelN said...

Fact: US law, per US Constitution and supported by the SCOTUS, requires a native-born COTUS to be born to US citizen parents, to be eligible for the office of POTUS.

Fact: US law recognizes a child born off-shore to US citizen parents, as a naturalized COTUS, but NOT an Article II "natural born Citizen"

Fact: US law does not recognize birth to US citizens without native-birth in US, as sufficient to make one an Article II "natural born Citizen" of the US.

Fact: Adrien Nash refuses to accept these FACTS.

Fact: Adrien Nash uses Mario's blog as an instrument to promote his own incorrect, unfounded ad nauseam rants and his ridiculous web-blog.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

Adrien Nash,

You said:

“Mario wrote: ‘You even admit that you introduced more facts into the hypothetical, but stupidly argue that they are not facts because you said ‘if.’

Mario is quite overly loose with the use of the word ‘facts’. I used it with its proper, formal, literal meaning. Mario used it as synonymous with ‘elements’.

The elements of a hypothetical are not facts because facts are things that are real, but by definition no hypothetical is real. So by answering with two possible answers which depend on the overlooked conditions that Mario failed to include, I brought reality to his hypothetical, -not "facts".

~~~~~

This is the standard way to introduce a hypothetical question to a witness: “Dr. Smith, I am going to ask you to assume that the following facts are true.” The doctor is then given a set of facts and asked to give his opinion stated within a reasonable degree of medical probability regarding the nature and extent of the alleged injury, the cause of that injury, the capacity of the injury to cause pain and various limitations, and the prognosis for the future with respect to pain, bodily limitation, and expenses. In a courtroom, the facts which the lawyer inserts into the hypothetical have to have been established by competent evidence introduced into evidence during the trial or there has to be a representation that such facts will be so established and the facts actually proven at some point during the trial. Hence, the hypothetical is real in the sense the facts stated in the hypothetical have been or will be proven. In the non-court environment wherein one is just debating some point, such facts do not have to be proven with any such evidence. Such facts will be simply assumed so that a discussion can be had regarding the issue at hand. But even though such “facts” may not be proven in any scientific sense, we still call them the facts of the hypothetical. And if the hypothetical is going to have real meaning at some point, the facts assumed for sake of argument will have to be really proven with solid evidence. So you see Mr. Nash, you do not know what you are talking about as usual when you initially make statements and when you try to overcome and escape critique of your nonsensical statements.

Adrien Nash said:

“btw, as I said, there is no authority that can disambiguate the term "native", so no solid answer to Mario's question can be made since the answer must depend on the meaning of the word.
One can assert that it has a particular meaning but they cannot do so authoritatively because of the cross-confusion due to nativity being linked both to birth-place and to native parentage.

Normally, natives and natural born citizens are born where their parents live, -which is normally in their own homeland, but nevertheless rare exceptions happen all the time and birth happens elsewhere. Hence the protection offered by the 1790 Nat. Act.”

~~~~~

First,the Naturalization Act of 1790 was only retroactive. Second, the Naturalization Act of 1795 repealed it. Third, I do not understand why you should have so much trouble understanding what native and indigenous mean. Where and to whom are the native or indigenous people of the Arctic born? The answer is easy. They are born to Arctic people in their land which is the Arctic.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Adrien Nash said:

“A Cherokee is a Cherokee no matter where born. All pure-blood Cherokees would be considered natives of their tribe regardless of whether or not they were born on the "reservation" or born in the White-man's hospital, or born in China. Location is irrelevant to membership.”

~~~~~

That is a straw man argument. I do not maintain that someone born out of the country to citizen parents is not a member of the country. Vattel in Section 212 explains that a citizen is a member of a country. Vattel in Section 215 also states that children born out of the country to citizen parents by the law of nature alone are members of their parents’ country. But Vattel cautioned that nations pass positive laws that may provide otherwise. On the question of if such children are citizens, he said that a nation’s positive laws must be followed. But the issue is not whether someone is a member or who Vattel called a citizen. The issue is whether someone is a native or natural born citizen.
So, Mr. Nash, the harder you try, the more you show yourself to be wrong.

Anonymous said...

Mario, it is delusional of you to fail to distinguish between actual facts and fictional "facts".

Every instance in which a fictional "fact" is given, the word fact needs to be encased in parenthesis otherwise one is abusing and distorting the clear and actual meaning of the word.

Obviously, you have no problem with engaging in such abuse.

You are also unable to maintain a context of discussion. I wrote:

“A Cherokee is a Cherokee no matter where born. All pure-blood Cherokees would be considered natives of their tribe regardless of..."
but you incorrectly diverted to discussion of citizenship.

Tribes do NOT have citizens. Citizenship is a legal matter relating to nations only. What Vattel wrote was about legal citizenship. It had nothing whatsoever to do with natural citizenship.

Why are you incapable of grasping the difference? (because of your ingrained bias toward your dogma)

Vattel wrote:
"children born out of the country to citizen parents by the law of nature alone are members of their parents’ country."

Why does that truth fly right over your head? "by the law of nature alone are members".

What sort of members are they "by nature"? Legal members or natural members? Please explain to us all Mr. Legal Scholar. Legal? or Natural?

You cannot answer because it is a Check-mate question.

If you answer "legal" then you defy Vattel's statement and truth.

If you answer "Natural" then you defy your own delusional dogma about native-birth being an adjunct factor in being a natural citizen.
You are trapped by your own illogical rationalizations.

You cannot and will not explain what Vattel meant and yet you cannot dismiss him either. Your dogma has boxed you into a corner from which there is no escape except by doing what you will do, and simply pretend that there's nothing to see here, just move along to your homes, folks.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

Adrien Nash,

Like I said, the more you fight, the more you show yourself to be wrong.

Adrien Nash said:

“Mario, it is delusional of you to fail to distinguish between actual facts and fictional 'facts'.

Every instance in which a fictional 'fact' is given, the word fact needs to be encased in parenthesis otherwise one is abusing and distorting the clear and actual meaning of the word.

Obviously, you have no problem with engaging in such abuse.”

~~~~~

Here you go again with your straw man argument. The issue is not whether there exists a difference between actual facts and fictional facts. The issue is your ignorance of how a hypothetical works. My hypothetical did not use the word “fact.” I basically asked: “Now assume this hypothetical scenario.” You are the one who introduced the word “fact” into the discussion to justify your adding facts to the hypothetical and telling us that what you added is not a fact because you said “if.” The more you go on with the hypothetical bit, the more you make yourself look like a fool.

Adrien Nash said:

“You are also unable to maintain a context of discussion. I wrote:

‘A Cherokee is a Cherokee no matter where born. All pure-blood Cherokees would be considered natives of their tribe regardless of...’ but you incorrectly diverted to discussion of citizenship.

Tribes do NOT have citizens. Citizenship is a legal matter relating to nations only. What Vattel wrote was about legal citizenship. It had nothing whatsoever to do with natural citizenship.

Why are you incapable of grasping the difference? (because of your ingrained bias toward your dogma).”

~~~~~

So now you are hoist by your own petard. You are the one arguing all the time that your world “natural member” is a natural born citizen and eligible to be President. But now you want to argue that there is a distinction between your natural member, who you tell us has nothing to do with citizenship and nations (even though you call your brand of natural membership “natural citizenship”), and a citizen and natural born citizen, who has all to do with citizenship and nations. When you need your person to be a natural born citizen he is, and when you need him not to be, he is not. So which way does your confused mind want it, Mr. Nash?

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Adrien Nash said:

“Vattel wrote:

'children born out of the country to citizen parents by the law of nature alone are members of their parents’ country.'

Why does that truth fly right over your head? 'by the law of nature alone are members'.

What sort of members are they 'by nature'? Legal members or natural members? Please explain to us all Mr. Legal Scholar. Legal? or Natural?

You cannot answer because it is a Check-mate question.

If you answer 'legal' then you defy Vattel's statement and truth.

If you answer 'Natural' then you defy your own delusional dogma about native-birth being an adjunct factor in being a natural citizen.
You are trapped by your own illogical rationalizations.

You cannot and will not explain what Vattel meant and yet you cannot dismiss him either. Your dogma has boxed you into a corner from which there is no escape except by doing what you will do, and simply pretend that there's nothing to see here, just move along to your homes, folks.”

~~~~~

Vattel in Section 212 explained the difference between a citizen and a natural born citizen. He said that a citizen is simply a member of a nation. He also defined a natural born citizen. So as to create a universal definition of a natural born citizen, the law of nations 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. This is the definition that Vattel gave of the clause.

I am the one who told you in my comment that Vattel added in Section 215 that a child born out of the country to citizen parents is by nature alone a “citizen” of his or her parent’s country (Vattel did not say natural born citizen). Now you act like you are telling me. But I also told you that Vattel cautioned that nations are free through their positive laws to change what nature ordains. Again, on the question of if such children are citizens, he said that a nation’s positive laws must be followed.

So the issue regarding Presidential eligibility is not whether someone is a member or who Vattel called a citizen. The issue is whether someone is a native or natural born citizen of the United States.

Having been put in check-mate is all yours, Mr. Nash.

Anonymous said...

You reply is pure evasion and obfuscation. I asked you a specific question and said that you could not answer it because the answer would destroy your doctrine, and just as I predicted, you did NOT answer it nor come close.

We do not need you to tell us that a child born out of the country to citizen parents is a “citizen” of his or her parent’s country.

You need to learn to be honest with yourself and answer my question as to the meaning of "by nature alone". What kind of citizens are they????

Natural citizens or legal citizens?

You cannot answer the question. All you can do is a song & dance around it because it boxes you into a corner from which there is no ideological way out for your dogma of native-birth.

How can I ask that question more plainly without you avoiding it? Answer: There's no way.

Your delusional dogma produced this fantasy reply: "He also defined a natural born citizen. So as to create a universal definition of a natural born citizen,"

Anyone with a brain can read what he wrote and see the he defined nothing, and that the use of the term: "les indigenes" does not mean "natural born citizen" by any sane translation.
But you pretend that an insane translation is reality and that Vattel wrote in English. Why do you try to convince everyone else that your delusion is reality?

For what you claim to be true, he would have had to have used words equivalent to "citizen", "natural" and "born" but all he used was "les indigenes" -meaning the indigenous population or inhabitants.
And then in addition, he would have had to have proclaimed by his own non-existent authority that here is the definition of what those three words mean.

He proclaimed no definition of anything as you well know.

He merely described the then current sociological and legal reality of the time and did so in regard to the natives of a country or nation.
What he said was the same as what the Minor court observed, regarding a fact that no one doubted or disputed. That fact was an observation, not a definition since it included no exclusionary language.
To be a definition requires stating that "ONLY" such-&-such are such-&-such.

I've got a million dollars for you just as soon as you can show us where the word "only" is found in any statement by any court or in Vattel's writing.

That is a clear enough challenge for you, but you will fail it before you can even begin since you can't find what doesn't exist.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

Adrien Nash,

I see that in your desperation you have adopted the Obot argument about Vattel not giving any definition of a natural born citizen and Minor not giving any definition of the clause because it did not say “only.”

I have already been through this with you many times. I have cited and quoted the several U.S. Supreme Court decisions which specifically cite and quote Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a natural born citizen. I have demonstrated how Minor v. Happersett’s definition of a natural born citizen is paraphrase of Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a natural born citizen. I have also demonstrated that Minor’s affirmative words are to be interpreted as excluding those the words did not include, especially given that the Court explained that at common law all people who did not meet the common law definition of a natural born citizen were “aliens or foreigners” who could be naturalized by law at birth or after birth.

With you it is not a matter of showing you time and time again that you are wrong. You just ignore each time that your rear is handed to you and just keep repeating your same tripe.

You said to me: “You need to learn to be honest with yourself and answer my question as to the meaning of "by nature alone". What kind of citizens are they???? Natural citizens or legal citizens?” So you want me to educate you so that you can run off and write another one of your articles. Vattel said in Section 215:

§ 215. Children of citizens born in a foreign country.

It is asked whether the children born of citizens in a foreign country are citizens? The laws have decided this question in several countries, and their regulations must be followed.(59) By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights (§ 212); the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot, of itself, furnish any reason for taking from a child what nature has given him; I say "of itself," for, civil or political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise. But I suppose that the father has not entirely quitted his country in order to settle elsewhere. If he has fixed his abode in a foreign country, he is become a member of another society, at least as a perpetual inhabitant; and his children will be members of it also.

In order to fully understand what Vattel meant in Section 215, we have to first understand what he wrote in Section 212 and 213 where he said:

§ 212. Citizens and natives.
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.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

§ 213. Inhabitants.

The inhabitants, as distinguished from citizens, are foreigners, who are permitted to settle and stay in the country. Bound to the society by their residence, they are subject to the laws of the state while they reside in it; and they are obliged to defend it, because it grants them protection, though they do not participate in all the rights of citizens. They enjoy only the advantages which the law or custom gives them. The perpetual inhabitants are those who have received the right of perpetual residence. These are a kind of citizens of an inferior order, and are united to the society without participating in all its advantages. Their children follow the condition of their fathers; and, as the state has given to these the right of perpetual residence, their right passes to their posterity.

In Section 215, Vattel said about children born in a foreign country to citizen parents that they “follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights.” At the end, he adds what happens when parents quit their country and become members of that foreign country. He said that the children of those parents who quit their country and who are born in their new adopted country become “members” of that foreign country. Given what he wrote in Section 213, if those parents were only inhabitants of that foreign country, the children would become inhabitants and not citizens of that foreign country. If the parents became citizens of the foreign country, then the children born in that foreign country to parents who became citizens of that foreign country would also become not only citizens like their parents, but also natural born citizens of that foreign country given his definition of the clause in Section 212.

Hence, in Section 215, Vattel is talking about when those parents have not quit their country and they give birth to children in a foreign country. He explains that children born to those parents in foreign countries inherit by nature the membership of the parents in their home country and inherit all the rights of the parents held through such membership. But he did not say that such membership was natural born citizenship. And he could not because if he did, it would have contradicted the definition of a natural born citizen that he gave in Section 212 which was “those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.” Moreover, Vattel cautioned that nations through their positive laws can determine if those foreign born children shall be citizens of the nation of the parents. He says that those positive laws must be followed. Hence, Vattel told us that a nation can define the nature of the membership of a foreign-born child through positive law. That positive law can proclaim that such a child shall be considered as a citizen of this parents’ nation. It does not have to say that such a child shall be considered as a natural born citizen. Positive laws can also act retroactively or prospectively. See the Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795. Whatever the legislature says that child is will determine the national character of that foreign-born child born to citizen parents. Hence, that child can treated as an alien (see the Naturalization Act of 1802) or be a citizen, at birth or even after birth, but that child cannot be a natural born citizen under the common law definition of a natural born citizen found in the law of nations which we adopted into our common law and which served as the source of our definition of a natural born citizen, for that child is not born to citizen parents in the nation of which they are members.

Anonymous said...

" I have also demonstrated that Minor’s affirmative words are to be interpreted as excluding those the words did not include,"

Mario, guess what? We don't need anyone telling us how to "interpret" plain English. Anyone can say, and with far more logic than you, that those words do not exclude anyone other than those stated; foreigners.

That's how language actually works. You say what you mean and others do not attempt to make your words mean more than what you say. No exclusion occurs without stating who is excluded. The court did not say: "as distinguished from aliens or foreigners or American Indians, or foreign-born Americans. Were Indians therefore natural born citizens simply because they were natives????

Please, read the mind of the court for us oh great swami.

And there is the answer to your question, sir. Natives and natural born citizens are not synonymous.

Foreigners are excluded but foreign-born AMERICANS are not foreigners. Hence, they are not excluded.

You need to take a citizenship lesson from the Supreme Court which eventually made it clear that the government cannot presume things not in evidence when it comes to expatriating an American. It must prove conclusively beyond a doubt that a person intentionally committed an act with the purpose of rejecting their US citizenship. Otherwise they remain a citizen.

You similarly need to prove positively that foreign-born Americans are excluded by their own free will from being that which they are born as: natural born citizens via citizen parents alone, as is their birth right.

"the Court explained that at common law ALL people who did not meet the common law definition of a natural born citizen were “aliens or foreigners”

Same challenge. ONE MILLION DOLLARS for Mr. Apuzzo to show where the key word "ALL" is found!

"These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners." -all must be hiding...

What these examples demonstrate is that Mario's entire dogma is grounded on a falsehood of definitions existing which in fact do not exist and were never offered or even attempted.

He knows that what he calls "definitions" are not that but he must insist anyway because everything is built on that lie.
Well, not everything.

He has my full support all the day long regarding the one and only criterion of natural citizenship; that which Vattel repeated and singly asserted: a citizen father.

Anonymous said...

Nat. Act 1802:
"and the children of persons who now are or have been citizens of the United States shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States".

Superficial minds misinterpret those words based on a false assumption. That assumption is that its meaning & application of the word "now" is fixed at the date of passage of the act.
That is a stupid and false assumption.

The word "now" is not tied to that date nor to any date. It is an eternal now, a perpetual present. It means now, today and now tomorrow whenever anyone reads the statute.
The meaning is tied not to the date of the writing nor the date of the passage, nor the date of the President signing it. It is tied to the date that a court reads it.
"Now" always means the current present, not a past present.

That is seen by what follows it in the same sentence: "or have been citizens of..."
By the brain-dead interpretation of Binney, that would mean that if your parents were Americans long after 1802 but died before your foreign-birth, then you would be a citizen, -but you would be an alien if they were alive.

I dare anyone to prove they are foolish enough to defend such an interpretation.
How about Mr. Apuzzo?

To avoid the ambiguity trap that Binney fell into, (with Mario and many others assuming that since it can be viewed in that manner that it must therefore have been intended to be viewed in that manner), one must re-arrange the language, something like this:

"and the foreign-born children of US citizens who have died before their birth, as well as those of U.S. parents still living, are considered as citizens..."
Or...
"...and the children born abroad of citizens of the United States who are living (or who died before their birth), are considered as citizens..."

It's simple, straight-forward common sense, but the anal-retentive, like Binney, have to read a meaning into it that was never even conceived of when authored and passed.

thalightguy said...

Mario,

Any comments on Ruby v. Lee? (No. 14-36)

http://www.lawandfreedom.com/site/constitutional/Rudy%20v%20Lee%20USJF%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf

It could possibly be the next topic for your blog:

"Ruby v. Lee: Why SCOTUS Should Grant Cert and Why Congress Must Demand Kagan and Sotomayor be Recused"

Unknown said...

Sometimes Nash will bring something to the table but I mainly read Mario's comments. He writes in a direct, logical way that is easily understood and gives historical evidence to back it up

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Adrien Nash,

You personally insist, although without historical or legal evidence, that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents are natural born citizens. Yet we have this:

7 FAM 1131.1-1 Federal Statutes
(CT:CON-349; 12-13-2010)

a. Acquisition of U.S. citizenship by birth abroad to a U.S. citizen parent is governed by Federal statutes. Only insofar as Congress has provided in such statutes, does the United States follow the traditionally Roman law principle of “jus sanguinis” under which citizenship is acquired by descent (see 7 FAM 1111 a(2)).

Surely, such foreign-born children cannot be natural born citizens if they need an Act of Congress to give them citizenship status. If is a contradiction to say on the one hand that a child is a natural born citizen and then on the other hand to say that such child has a citizenship status only if Congress through its naturalization grace extends such a status.

So, Mr. Nash, again, I have demonstrated (I have lost count how many times already) that you are wrong.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

Adrien Nash:

You said:

Nat. Act 1802:
"and the children of persons who now are or have been citizens of the United States shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States".

Superficial minds misinterpret those words based on a false assumption. That assumption is that its meaning & application of the word "now" is fixed at the date of passage of the act.
That is a stupid and false assumption.

The word "now" is not tied to that date nor to any date. It is an eternal now, a perpetual present. It means now, today and now tomorrow whenever anyone reads the statute.

The meaning is tied not to the date of the writing nor the date of the passage, nor the date of the President signing it. It is tied to the date that a court reads it.

"Now" always means the current present, not a past present.

That is seen by what follows it in the same sentence: "or have been citizens of..."

By the brain-dead interpretation of Binney, that would mean that if your parents were Americans long after 1802 but died before your foreign-birth, then you would be a citizen, -but you would be an alien if they were alive.

I dare anyone to prove they are foolish enough to defend such an interpretation.

How about Mr. Apuzzo?

~~~~~

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


II of II

I see you are really high on your nonsense horse. This should take care of anyone such as you who may harbor such absurd notions:

The U.S. Supreme Court in Montana v. Kenney explained:

In 1874, Congress reenacted two statutes which seem to defy complete reconciliation. R.S. § 2172, a reenactment of § 4 of an Act of April 14, 1802 (2 Stat. 155), provided that

"children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States, shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens thereof. . . ."

(Emphasis added.) R.S. § 1993, substantially a reenactment of § 1 of an Act of February 10, 1855 (10 Stat. 604), provided that

"All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States."

(Emphasis added.)

***

In 1854, Horace Binney, one of the country's leading lawyers and a recognized authority on the immigration laws, published an article entitled "The Alienigenae of the United States" [Footnote 3] in which he argued that the words "who now are, or have been" in the 1802 predecessor of R.S. § 2172 had the effect of granting citizenship to the foreign-born children only of persons who were citizens of the United States on or before the effective date of the 1802 statute (April 14, 1802), in other words, that the statute had no prospective application. Foreign-born children of persons who became American citizens between April 14, 1802 and 1854, were aliens, Mr. Binney argued. In 1855, Congress responded to the situation by enacting the predecessor (10 Stat. 604) of R.S. § 1993. [Footnote 4] The provision had retroactive, as well as prospective, effect, but was clearly intended to apply only to children of citizen fathers. [Footnote 5]

The view of Mr. Binney and the 1855 Congress that the Act of 1802 had no application to the children of persons who were not citizens in 1802 has found acceptance in the decisions of this Court. See United States v. Wong Kim Ark,169 U. S. 649, 169 U. S. 673-674; Weedin v. Chin Bow,274 U. S. 657, 274 U. S. 663-664; see also Mock Gum Ying v. Cahill, 81 F.2d 940. The commentators have agreed. See 2 Kent, Commentaries at 53; 3 Hackworth, Digest of International Law, § 222; cf. Matter of Owen, 36 Op.Atty.Gen. 197, 200. Finally Congress has repeatedly stated and acted upon that premise. See, e.g., H.R.Rep. No. 1110, 67th Cong., 2d Sess. at p. 3. Indeed when, in 1934, Congress finally granted citizenship rights to the foreign-born children of citizen mothers, 48 Stat. 797, it not only specifically made the provision prospective, but further made clear its view that this was a reversal of prior law. See H.R.Rep. No. 131, 73d Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2, and S.Rep. No. 865, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 1.
Montana v. Kenney, 366 U.S. 308, 309-12 (1961).

So that puts an end to your manufactured “eternal” and “perpetual” “now” argument. It also removes all doubt as to who has a “superficial mind[]” or who is “brain-dead.” And another one (Adrien Nash) bites the dust.

By the way, Mr. Nash, do not feel so bad. Bryan Gene Olson made a similar argument that you made just a few days ago at Café Con Leche Republicans. He argued that “may be born” in the Naturalization Act of 1790 also included the future. He made the argument even though the U.S. Supreme Court in Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 663-64 said that the 1790 Act was retrospective only like that of 1802.

Anonymous said...

Mario, I'm almost certain that you trotted out the same quote about a month ago and I pointed out your obvious error, which, were it not for your ingrained bias, you would not have overlooked.

As you know, I have never defended a belief that "a U.S. citizen parent" (SINGULAR!) produces a natural born citizen. Every child born of one US parents is a statutory citizen as you point out.

But I can't tell if you are mentally defective and didn't notice that flaw in your own quote or that you are falsely brilliant in your own eyes and thought that no one would notice it, including myself.
A foreign-born child of "a" US citizen has a foreign mother or father. End of discussion.

Mario, your thinking is so sycophantic that you are unable to dissect anything uttered by any elite lawyer, especially those sitting on the Supreme Court, unless it goes against your beliefs.
Understand this: the truth is the truth whether an imbecilic proclaims it or an angel proclaims it. It does not matter what men say, no matter who they are.

If you want to retain any respect, you have to stop deferring to non-authoritative authorities who made the very mistake that has been pointed out to you.

You have to defeat the logic that reveals their error. The thinking of the Congress that wrote the 1802 Act cannot be mind-read by anyone, so one must resort to pure logic to determine which of two possibilities is correct.
Neither Binney nor the lawyers of the court did so. They choose to examine only one possible meaning to the language and completely ignored the other, even though it was the true explanation of what Congress intended.

There is no quote or record anywhere that will ever be found that supports the brain-dead view of Binney and those who swallowed his error.
You can't prove anything contrariwise just as they couldn't, and didn't even think about their knee-jerk assumption.

"Now" meant what I said it meant. The statute was not written for nothing but the day it was signed. Its words were written to be understood just as written when read by any officer of any branch of the government on the day that they read it or heard it quoted to them as being the law. On that day, that officer would make a decision based on what legal reality was at that moment, -in other words: "now".
It was not "now" to Congress or the President on the day he signed it, but "now" to the officers of the government to whom it was addressed.
It was not written for civilians or angels but for officers of the government in order to instruct them how to treat the persons mentioned.

If you want to attempt to argue against that pure common sense, then you need quotes from the 1802 Congress. Quotes from anyone else's opinion are useless.

Anonymous said...

"[Olsen] argued that “may be born” in the Naturalization Act of 1790 also included the future. He made the argument even though the U.S. Supreme Court in Weedin v. Chin said that the 1790 Act was retrospective only like that of 1802."

Mario, you are guilty of the very same dogmatic declaration that you accuse your opponents of, -proclaiming that something is so because someone said it is so but not offering a scintilla of logical explanation as to why it is so.

There is a reason for your failure to do that, -it is that there is zero logical explanation for what you claim the court declared to be factually correct as if with the blessing of Heaven.

"~the court said..." Who cares what the court said? They only question is WHY??? did it say it? What was the logical, (not dogmatic) reason?
There was never one given and none can ever be given. Neither you nor they have any explanation for Congress to do what Binney claimed they did. None.

You have no business promoting such tripe without a single reason to back it up. You have no right to hid behind the skirts of average fallible men in black robes as if their word is that of an oracle.

What you, and Binney, asserted is 100% anti-American because it did not refer to children of an American but children of an American father and mother.
The problem is that, as we see in all of the acts, their child,like them, possessed an unalienable RIGHT OF CITIZENSHIP BY DESCENT (unless they had never lived in America).

Would you care to explain what you've done with that right? Where the heck did it go? When and where and how and why was it made to disappear from among the long list of natural rights that Americans possess?

You have no answer because it did not disappear; Congress did not unconstitutionally attempt to cancel it, but those who think that they did, need to rethink the way that they think, and what they believe, because it sure as hell is not something that came from the founding fathers.

It came from error. That error springs from failing to understand fundamental principles of American freedom and individual rights.

Every American man had the right to pass his nationality on to his progeny, -the next generation of Americans. They didn't need the permission of government to be considered that which they were by birth, by right, by blood.

They were born as natural American citizens, and the wording of Congress was not intended to imply that the opposite was true.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

Adrien Nash,

Horace Binney published three editions of his 1853 essay “The Alienigenae of the United States Under the Present Naturalization Laws.” All three editions may be read here:

http://pds.lib.harvard.edu/pds/view/4393418?n=1&printThumbnails=no (first edition);

http://naturalborncitizen.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/binney-2d.pdf (second edition);

The Alienigenæ of the United States, The American Law Register (1852-1891), Vol. 2, No. 4 (Feb., 1854), pp. 193-210, The University of Pennsylvania Law Review, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3301752 (third edition).

The word alienigenae is a Latin word meaning aliens or strangers. In the singular, it has been defined as one of foreign birth; an alien. 7 Coke, 31. Hence, Binney’s title indicates that he is writing about the aliens or foreigners of the United States under the then-current naturalization laws.

With respect to children born in the United States, Binney took the position that a child born in the United States to alien parents was a “natural-born citizen” . . . “absolutely.” See page 25 in the first edition, 26 [sic: 22] in the second edition, or 206 in the American Law Register, identified by John Woodman in his article at http://www.obamabirthbook.com/http:/www.obamabirthbook.com/2012/04/horace-binney-directly-refutes-the-mario-apuzzo-leo-donofrio-lie-that-it-takes-two-citizen-parents-to-make-a-natural-born-citizen/ .

But Binney contradicted himself in his own essay. He made a distinction between a natural born citizen child born in the country to citizen parents and a child born in the country to alien parents. Binney 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.” Id. at p. 22, note (second edition). What is suspect is why this note containing this critical distinction does not appear in the third edition which was published in The American Law Register. What is also significant is that Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark cited and quoted Binney’s note twice. He could have easily relied on Binney’s third edition which did not contain the quote, but Justice Gray deemed it important enough that the Binney quote be included in his opinion.

Additionally, our U.S. Supreme Court has rejected Binney’s view as it applied to a natural born citizen. The United States Supreme Court in both Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) and The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) rejected his view. Binney would also have been one of the “authorities” who Minor v. Happersett (1875), after it confirmed the Framers’ common law definition of a natural born citizen, said maintained that birth “within the jurisdiction” to alien parents produced a citizen (not to be confused with a natural born citizen). Minor said that “there have been doubts” whether that was correct. Surely, both Dred Scott (a pre-Fourteenth Amendment case) and The Slaughterhouse Cases (a post-Fourteenth Amendment case) had rejected Binney’s position that children born in the United States to alien parents were citizens.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

If they were not citizens, they surely could not be natural born citizens. Binney was eventually vindicated as to who were “citizens” by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1875), which used Binney’s quote--“‘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)--to distinguish an Article II “natural born citizen” under Minor’s common law from a “citizen” from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment and 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 of the United States” from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. So, Binney was wrong as to the meaning of a natural born citizen (by what he himself stated in his own essay and per the U.S. Supreme Court), but Wong Kim Ark said he was correct as to a citizen of the United States at birth by birth in the country.

Binney fared better with respect to children born out of the United States. First, Vattel explained in Section 215 of The Law of Nations that a nation has the sovereign right and power to decide how it will treat the children born out of its territory to its citizens. He added that a nations positive laws passed in that regard must be followed. Second, Binney maintained that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents were aliens under the then-controlling Naturalization Act of 1802. He said in his Preface to his essay:

“The following law-paper was written for the satisfaction of some fellow-citizens and friends, on or more of whose children were born in foreign parts, during occasional visits by their parents to Europe. Such children are Aliens, notwithstanding their parents are natural-born citizens of the United States. The paper is printed at this time, in the hope that Congress, at its present session, may supply the defect of our law.

Horace Binney. Philadelphia, December 1, 1853.”

Our U.S. Supreme Court and Congress did accept his interpretation of the Naturalization Act of 1802. See Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S. 657, 661-64 (1927) and Montana v. Kenney, 366 U.S. 308, 309-12 ((1961), and all authorities cited therein (cited, quoted, and discussed in my comments above). Hence, our U.S. Supreme Court and Congress have read the “now” in the 1802 Act as denoting retroactivity only (no prospectivity). Your wishful thinking without more cannot change that reality.

Regarding the “may be born” of the Naturalization Act of 1790 being only retroactive, again, our U.S. Supreme Court in Weedin said that the words signified that the effect of the Act was to be only retroactive and not also prospective. The Court had for its analysis all of the Acts of Congress on naturalization since 1790 to 1927, when the Court rendered its decision. The Court also had the benefit of all past case law and commentary on the matter. Based on all that information, the Court concluded that “may be born” was retroactive and not prospective. Indeed, when it comes to the Constitution and Acts of Congress, “that the duty of the court was not to ‘pronounce a new law, but to maintain and expound the old one.”’ Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U.S. 618,622-623 (1965) (quoting 1 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 69). As I told you regarding “now” in the 1802 Act, your wishful thinking without more also cannot change this reality.

Anonymous said...

"Hence, our U.S. Supreme Court and Congress have read the “now” in the 1802 Act as denoting retroactivity only (no prospectivity)."

Well Mario, you've penned an illuminating historical obfuscation of everything that I wrote (although Donofrio's history is far more detailed).

You failed to address any point that I presented. Gee, I wonder why that was? Maybe because you cannot refute the irrefutable, -and thus it would be very dangerous to even try. You chose the right response. Just ignore that you can't refute.

But worse than that, you regurgitated the same false points that I attacked and delegitimized without addressing why they were legitimate in the first place.

You are just the same as Slarti and Olsen who elevate the infallible decisions of low courts without a shred of logic to back-up their position.

You elevate the unfounded, unexplained, and illogical opinion of the high court with exactly the same amount of backing; NONE!

You and they are peas from the same pod. Hiding from what you can't explain, -appealing to the "authority" of flawed and fallible common men simple because they cover their naked lack of insight with black robes.

"Your wishful thinking without more cannot change that reality."

What you failed to say was: "your logical thinking..."

Please explain what wishing has to do with anything. When you lose a logical debate, you resort to false characterization in order to hide your total lack of a logical answer. Pathetic, as usual. Depending totally on the authority of men instead of the convincing persuasion of reason.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Adrien Nash,

The U.S. Supreme Court had the very text of the Acts before it. It engaged in an analysis of the usage of words in the English language. It also had centuries of case law and Congressional naturalization Acts to analyze in concluding that “may be born” (1790 Act) and “now” (1802 Act) communicated retroactivity and not also prospectivity. You have nothing but your personal opinion that the words also meant the Acts were to be applied prospectively. I cannot say it more simple, but the U.S. Supreme Court wins and you lose.

MichaelN said...

Adrien Nash said...

"Pathetic, as usual. Depending totally on the authority of men instead of the convincing persuasion of reason."
...........................

Says a man............. without any authority.

Your argument has been demolished Adrien, it's not convincing nor persuasive.

You are WRONG!

Proven fact = To be an Article II "natural born Citizen" one must of necessity be native-born in the US, to US citizen parents.

Your opinion makes no difference and does not change this proven fact.

Anonymous said...

"win"??? "lose"??? Since when does the discovery of the truth have any relationship to winning something or losing something?

Your whole context of reference is warped. You are not looking for the truth but for victory. I don't care if my view is incorrect if facts show it to be so. You, on the other hand, would experience your little legal eligibility priesthood crumble.

"may be born..." The reason that Mario does not explain how it God's name that could not be prospective is because it is absolutely and necessarily prospective. It refers to a particular time frame. That time frame is the future.

Or would Mario care to argue that it means "that may be born in the past"? What sort of English would that be? An idiot's English. The words "was" and "were" exist for reference to the past, while what has not yet happened uses "what might happen", "what may happen" "what will happen".
The 1790 Act does not say: "that were born beyond the sea", nor "that may have been born...". It refers only to those who may or might or will be born abroad. How exactly is that a reference to the past????

The floor is yours Mr. Apuzzo. Please do explain so your devoted MichaelN will understand. He is a little perplexed, as he should be, at how the future can be declared to be the past.

"[the Supreme Court] engaged in an analysis of the usage of words in the English language."

I DON'T CARE ABOUT THEIR UNEXPLAINED ANALYSIS. I WANT YOURS!

But you can't explain it because there is no explanation, -something that your legal experience has run into in judges that give the victory to the team that didn't show up. No explanations for their rulings. Nor any for a view that you defend. So how the heck can you defend it?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Adrien Nash,

What is the difference between:

“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."

Act of March 26, 1790, c. 3, §1; 1 Stat. 103,

“[T]he children of persons who now are, or have been citizens of the United States shall, though born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, be considered as citizens of the United States: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never resided within the United States."

Act of April 14, 1802, c. 28, § 4; 2 Stat. 155.

and

“All children heretofore born or hereafter born out of the limits and jurisdiction of the United States, whose fathers were or may be at the time of their birth citizens thereof, are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.”

Act of February 10, 1855, § 1; 10 Stat. 604 ?

Anonymous said...

"that may be born beyond sea" was written from the time perspective of its authors, -in their present. It refers to an event that never comes because it is always in the future as it was when it was written. But it comes with a very strong implication: "that may be or my have been born beyond the sea.."

"children of persons who now are, or have been citizens..."
I can't think of any context to "have been citizens" other than death, with citizenship granted to the wife and children of any husband/ father who perished before perfecting his citizenship.

"Now" is a perpetual present which exists whenever the act is consulted by any agent of the government to ascertain what the law is. It is detached from markers of time like a boat unattached to a dock, floating free. "Now" is always "today".

“All children heretofore born or hereafter born" is completely tied to the day of passage via the President's signature. Its time frame eliminates the present by connecting the past to the future, -kind of like the Christian calendar with no year zero. 1 BC followed by 1 AD. Nothing in between.
It's author was too anal-retentive since he could have just as clearly and plainly said: “All children born out of the limits... are declared to be citizens".

Who can really find a difference between the two? I can't.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

Stranger/h2ooflife/Adrien Nash,

The key to learning the correct meaning of Article II’s natural born citizen clause is to determine what the clause meant to the Framers and their generation. In that connection, we search for the source from which they would have gotten their meaning of the clause. As not to err in this connection, we are to distinguish between American common law and English common law. We are also to distinguish between citizens of a state (traditionally defined under English common law) from citizens of the United States (defined under new national law).

The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) explained that the Framers got their meaning of a natural born citizen from the common law with which they were familiar and which specifically defined the nomenclature, natural born citizen. It explained that that specific law defined a natural born citizen as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens. It further explained that under that common law, all the rest of the people who did not meet that common law definition of a natural born citizen were “aliens or foreigners” who could by positive law be naturalized at birth or after birth. The Court added that “some authorities” maintained that a child “born within the jurisdiction” to alien parents was also a citizen (it did not say natural born citizen). The Court said that “there have been doubts” whether children born in the United States to alien parents were citizens and that there never had been any doubts that children who were natural born citizens were citizens. We therefore can conclude not only from the definition of the natural born citizen clause provided by the Court that those children were not natural born citizens, but we can also infer that they were not because if they were, there would not have been any doubts that they would have been citizens.

Clearly, how Minor defined a natural born citizen was an expression of American national common law and not local, colonial-era English common law (which later applied only to the states and not to the national government), for that English common law made no mention of citizen parents when children were born in the King’s dominion, and there never was any doubt under that English common law that children born in the King’s dominion to qualifying alien parents were natural-born subjects.

The doubts that Minor acknowledged had existed and which it left unresolved regarding whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was a citizen became the Fourteenth Amendment question answered by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (not to be conflated, blended, or confused with the meaning of an Article II natural born citizen which had already been confirmed by Minor). Wong Kim Ark held that such a child was a citizen from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment (not by virtue of the Framers' common law which defined a natural born citizen).

That birth in the country to citizen parents was necessary to make one a natural born citizen is confirmed by the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855. First, the Acts treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens. Second, Congress saw the need to naturalize children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents. Not only did Congress see the need to naturalize those children because they were not citizens under the common law, but they also only provided for retroactive treatment for them.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

I maintain, relying upon the Act’s text, past practice, and our Congress, U.S. Supreme Court, and commentators, that the early acts were only retrospective. You maintain that the early acts were also prospective. The key to correctly construing the old naturalization acts, both American and British, is to determine the meaning and intent of their words when they were written, not what the words mean today. It was common practice for the drafters to state in the old statutes whether the persons acted upon, whether parents or children, were to be treated retroactively or prospectively or both. The old acts usually provided language when the acts were to act both retrospectively and prospectively. If there was no prospective language in the act, it usually meant that the act was only retrospective. If there was no retrospective language in the act, it usually meant that the act was only prospective. If there was both retrospective and prospective language in the acts, then they were interpreted as acting both retrospectively and prospectively. Following that practice, the U.S. Congress and the Supreme Court in Weedin v. Chin Bow and Montana v. Kennedy would have interpreted the 1790, 1795, and 1802 Acts, which did not contain any prospective language, to be only retrospective. The 1802 Act actually excluded prospective language by only included language covering the past and present only. Congress then in the Act of 1855 made clear through express language that it was to apply both retrospectively and prospectively. Hence the Supreme Court in Weeding and Montana interpreted it to be both retrospective and prospective.

Analyzing the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution in tandem with Congress’s early naturalization Acts leads to only one conclusion which is that the Framers’ definition of 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, which definition they obtained from common law which upon ratification of the Constitution became national common law and part of the supreme law of the land.

Anonymous said...

Mario erred thusly: "to determine what the clause meant to the Framers...we search for the source from which they would have gotten their meaning of the clause."

No, we do not. Proof: "wise old man". I do not need to search for the source of the meaning of that phrase. The English language is the source of the meaning of the words, -not a definition that Mario dreamed-up from an inaccurate future translation, or a backwards application of its wording in Minor, -neither of which constitute a definition, -nor pretended to have done so.

Here sits one million dollars in exchange for showing us all where in Vattel or Minor that we can find the statement: "The definition of natural born citizen is..."
You will never collect because no such thing, nor anything kin to it, exists.

Allow me to regurgitate: "All children born to Mario under his roof are his natural born children."
There. That is the definition of Mario's natural born children. No other children can possibly be his natural born children.

If they are not born under his roof or on his property, then they are not his natural born children.
If they are born in a hospital, they need Mario's permission in order to be "considered" his children, -and adopted children at that.

That is what Mario wants the world to buy into.
Some "crazy" people think that is insane, But Mario can't explain why it makes perfect philosophical sense.
I challenge anyone and everyone to attempt to explain the truth and logic of such a doctrine.
No one can and no one will. But they can and will go on blindly believing in that brain-dead dogma.

Anonymous said...

"which definition they obtained from common law"

1. There was no such definition.
2. They didn't need to obtain one.
3. The English language defined the words.
4. The common law was the multi-century inherited judicial opinions handed down by British courts in Britain and the colonies.

5. No court had ever adjudicated the meaning of "a natural born citizen" because the term had no place in American law, nor any need for one to exist.

6. The term is a sociological term, not a legal term.

7. The supposed term: "natural-born" did not exist with a legal definition.

8. The Constitution cannot be a part of any common law since it was not the product of any judicial opinion.

9. No national common law could begin to exist before the federal court system began making national rulings.

10. The term "natural born citizen" had no connection to any office in Britain or America except the presidency, thus no need for its prior existence or definition in law.

11. A natural born citizen is one who was born as a natural citizen.
A natural born child is one born as someone's natural child.

12. No nation is the world has ever had a rule, law, or custom that required that any citizen be both native-born and natural born.
IT IS AN AMERICAN FANTASY CONCOCTED BY LONELY PEOPLE WITHOUT LOVED ONES, DEVOTED INSTEAD TO REVERED AMERICAN SOIL.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Adrien Nash,

I learned in my youth never to reason with a drunk man. You my friend are drunk with self-pity, bias, and contempt. You just reject anything that does not fit into your needs. You adhere to no standard and to no rule of law. For you, anything goes as long as you can just say it. But you have no one that believes you because you cannot prove that what you say has any basis outside your own mind. So all your declarations just mean nothing.

By the way, I see you did not take my advice to stick to houses and beds and to leave nations alone.

Anonymous said...

Ah... yes, Mario is also a psychologist, and man is he ever insightful, people!
Better pay close attention to his psych eval. and totally ignore that fact that as ALWAYS he FAILED to quote or address any of the truths I shared.

Why such philosophical cowardice? Because they demolish the very foundation of his elaborate and purposeless dogma that makes an idol and fetish of a brief event that is of no human, cultural, sociological or psychological significance at all.

I'm still wondering why Mario's kids, born in a hospital instead of within his personal property jurisdiction, are not his natural born children but instead are aliens.
I can't figure out how Natural Law could come up with something so stupid. Can anyone else?

Mario, I suggest that you stick to that which you habitually avoid, and that is addressing my comments.
Leave the psychoanalysis to professionals, one of which should be your own to help you figure out what your deep-seated insecurities are which compel you to embrace a dogma that has no basis in fact nor logic nor natural law.

Have a nice day! :)

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of III

Stranger/h2ooflife/Adrien Nash,

Here are my responses to your self-proclaimed deluded “truths:”

1. “There was no such definition.”

Words in the Constitution have meaning. The words the Framers used in the Constitution are nothing more than what I call place holders for a description of thing or actions. A definition (a group of words) tells us what the word described means. Words (the thing described or placeholder) are created from other words which describe a thing (the place holder becomes a noun), how that thing is (the place holder becomes an adjective), some action (the place holder becomes a verb), or how that action is (the place holder becomes an adverb). Languages also use other words to connect these concepts in a logical manner so that understandable communication of them can occur. So, one word or clause becomes a place holder for what the many words that are being described. These place holders allow us to communicate more efficiently and correctly. These place holders are the basis of all civilization, for they reduce man’s reality down to units which become the building block of that civilization in all its forms.

Man has from the beginning of life experienced giving birth to children in a certain place. Civilization has for millennia experienced the emerged country or nation from the state of nature. It is duties and rights which are the essence of civilization existing within these countries and nations. Hence, mankind has also experienced the need to identify who belong to the country or nation so has to know who has these duties and rights vis-à-vis the country or nation. Those who belonged to the country or nation have been considered its members. Republican societies have called these members citizens and monarchical ones have called them subjects.

Confronted with the situation of a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth and the need to assign who shall be members of a nation, there arose the need to call that description something. The clause that arose was natural born citizen. The description of the clause is confirmed by Emer de Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations (1758). Vattel gave the description a name or nomenclature, “Les naturels, ou indigenes.” These French place holders have been translated into English as the natives, indigenes, or natural born citizens. The Framers chose citizen and natural born citizen when they wrote the Constitution. Their choice is more appropriate for describing a member of a constitutional republic which is what they created. It is because of the context of the Constitution that we must give meaning to the clause which is correct.

2. “They didn't need to obtain one.”

Word must have meaning or else the words are useless which in turn makes the Constitution and empty document of no value.

3. “The English language defined the words.”

Correct. The English language defined it and its definition was found in American common law.

4. “The common law was the multi-century inherited judicial opinions handed down by British courts in Britain and the colonies.”

That is only type of common law. There are many types of common law. English and American common law gets its force from stare decisis (let the decision stand) which is the lifeblood of what we consider to be a precedent. We use stare decisis to have certainty, consistency, predictability and fairness in human affairs in all its ramification past, present, and future. Stare decisis is an ancient concept. Does that not tell you something? In the civil law legal systems, common law is not binding on other courts.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of III

Stranger/h2ooflife/Adrien Nash,

Here are my responses to your self-proclaimed deluded “truths:”

1. “There was no such definition.”

Words in the Constitution have meaning. The words the Framers used in the Constitution are nothing more than what I call place holders for a description of thing or actions. A definition (a group of words) tells us what the word described means. Words (the thing described or placeholder) are created from other words which describe a thing (the place holder becomes a noun), how that thing is (the place holder becomes an adjective), some action (the place holder becomes a verb), or how that action is (the place holder becomes an adverb). Languages also use other words to connect these concepts in a logical manner so that understandable communication of them can occur. So, one word or clause becomes a place holder for what the many words that are being described. These place holders allow us to communicate more efficiently and correctly. These place holders are the basis of all civilization, for they reduce man’s reality down to units which become the building block of that civilization in all its forms.

Man has from the beginning of life experienced giving birth to children in a certain place. Civilization has for millennia experienced the emerged country or nation from the state of nature. It is duties and rights which are the essence of civilization existing within these countries and nations. Hence, mankind has also experienced the need to identify who belong to the country or nation so has to know who has these duties and rights vis-à-vis the country or nation. Those who belonged to the country or nation have been considered its members. Republican societies have called these members citizens and monarchical ones have called them subjects.

Confronted with the situation of a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth and the need to assign who shall be members of a nation, there arose the need to call that description something. The clause that arose was natural born citizen. The description of the clause is confirmed by Emer de Vattel in Section 212 of The Law of Nations (1758). Vattel gave the description a name or nomenclature, “Les naturels, ou indigenes.” These French place holders have been translated into English as the natives, indigenes, or natural born citizens. The Framers chose citizen and natural born citizen when they wrote the Constitution. Their choice is more appropriate for describing a member of a constitutional republic which is what they created. It is because of the context of the Constitution that we must give meaning to the clause which is correct.

2. “They didn't need to obtain one.”

Word must have meaning or else the words are useless which in turn makes the Constitution and empty document of no value.

3. “The English language defined the words.”

Correct. The English language defined it and its definition was found in American common law.

4. “The common law was the multi-century inherited judicial opinions handed down by British courts in Britain and the colonies.”

That is only type of common law. There are many types of common law. English and American common law gets its force from stare decisis (let the decision stand) which is the lifeblood of what we consider to be a precedent. We use stare decisis to have certainty, consistency, predictability and fairness in human affairs in all its ramification past, present, and future. Stare decisis is an ancient concept. Does that not tell you something? In the civil law legal systems, common law is not binding on other courts.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of III

5. “No court had ever adjudicated the meaning of "a natural born citizen" because the term had no place in American law, nor any need for one to exist.”

The clause is found in the Constitution of the United States of America. The clause surely has a place in American law. If the clause made its way into the Constitution, then the Framers surely saw a need for the clause to exist.

6. “The term is a sociological term, not a legal term.”

It does not matter how you want to characterize the clause. The clause is what it is and means what it means.

7. “The supposed term: ‘natural-born’ did not exist with a legal definition.”

See No. 1, 3, 4, and 5.

8. “The Constitution cannot be a part of any common law since it was not the product of any judicial opinion.”

The horse comes before the cart. Judicial opinions based on common law which in turn create more common law are based on pre-existing human activity. A natural born citizen is a product of that human activity. Courts simply recognize that human activity and through its decisions conceptualize it into a concept or principle which we call “law.” We give it the name law to show that members of and non-members present in the society are obligated to adhere to it and in default thereof suffer a punishment. In short, a natural born citizen did not need a court to create it, for it has always existed within the needs of civilized society.

9. “No national common law could begin to exist before the federal court system began making national rulings.”

As Minor explained, natural born citizen existed in the common law the nomenclature of which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. Upon the ratification of the Constitution, that common law became constitutional national common law. Hence, there was no need for any federal court to first make it national common law, for it became national common law through the Constitution. We know that it became national common law upon the ratification of the Constitution from subsequent U.S. Supreme Court cases such as The Venus, Inglis, Shanks, Dred Scott, The Slaughterhouse Cases, Minor, and Wong Kim Ark. All these U.S. Supreme Court decisions either expressly or by implication confirmed the definition of a natural born citizen to be a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Given this historical development, what all these Courts said about a natural born citizen can hardly be viewed as mere obiter dicta (off-hand statements) and not a part of the ratio decidendi (the reasoning of the court) of the court decisions. This established federal constitutional rule is to be followed as a precedent under the rule of stare decisis. All courts in the United States (including the Federal District Courts and Circuit Courts of Appeal and courts of the States of New Jersey, Georgia, Arizona, and Indiana) are bound by this federal constitutional precedent until either the U.S. Supreme Court overrules the precedent and creates a new rule or the people reject it by Constitutional amendment. As an alternative, a court would have to reasonably distinguish this binding precedent in order not to be bound by it. Given the Framers’ purpose for using the natural born citizen clause (to keep foreign and monarchical influence out of the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military) and that there is no policy need to further develop the law on the meaning of a natural born citizen, I fail to see how a court could legitimately distinguish its facts from those guiding the original meaning of a natural born citizen.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of III

10. “The term ‘natural born citizen’ had no connection to any office in Britain or America except the presidency, thus no need for its prior existence or definition in law.”

See above. The clause did not have to exist in “law” for it to have an existence.

11. “A natural born citizen is one who was born as a natural citizen. A natural born child is one born as someone's natural child.”

Your use of the words “natural citizen” and “natural child” are incomplete in the context of the issue at hand. The question is what is a “natural born citizen?” Your argument is fallacious in that it relies on omission.

12. “No nation in the world has ever had a rule, law, or custom that required that any citizen be both native-born and natural born. IT IS AN AMERICAN FANTASY CONCOCTED BY LONELY PEOPLE WITHOUT LOVED ONES, DEVOTED INSTEAD TO REVERED AMERICAN SOIL.”

This is a straw man argument. I have never maintained that one must be both “native-born and natural born” in order to be a citizen. That is your invention. My position is that to be a citizen of the United States, one may be born in the United States while “subject to its jurisdiction” (Fourteenth Amendment and Act of Congress), one may be born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents (Acts of Congress), or one may be born out the United States to alien parents and after birth becomes a citizen of the United States through Act of Congress or treaty. But to be a natural born citizen one must be born in the United States to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. This means that all natural born citizens are citizens of the United States, but not all citizens of the United States (including some born ones, for they may not satisfy the definition of a natural born citizens) are natural born citizens. This also means that natural born citizens is a proper subset of both citizens and born citizens. All this follows perfectly from natural + born + citizen = natural born citizen.

By the way, untrusting and ignorant (lacking knowledge) people have since the beginning of time refused to believe in their own illnesses.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

thalightguy,

Regarding Christopher John Rudy v. Michelle K. Lee (No. 14-36), I do not publicly comment on the eligibility cases of other parties.

Needless to say, I wish amicus curiae success in getting the U.S. Supreme Court to take up the issue of whether Minor v. Happersett (1875)'s definition of a natural born citizen, i.e., a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth, survived the Fourteenth Amendment and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), which I maintain it did.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

The citizens of the United States include both citizens who are natural born citizens and citizens who are not natural born citizens.

To be a citizen of the United States who is not a natural born citizen, one may be born in the United States while “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” (Fourteenth Amendment and Act of Congress citizens), one may be born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents (Act of Congress citizens), or one may be born out of the United States to alien parents and after birth become a citizen of the United States (Act of Congress or treaty citizens).

But to be a citizen of the United States who is also a natural born citizen one must be born at any time in the United States to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth (common law citizens). As you can see, only a natural born citizen obtains his or her citizenship by the common law alone. A natural born citizen does not need any law other than the common law to obtain his or her citizenship status. The common law that defines an American natural born citizen does not have its source in the English common law. Rather, it has its source in natural law and the law of nations.

By satisfying the natural law, law of nations, and common law requirements for being a natural born citizen, a child is born with allegiance and citizenship to only one nation, which can only be the nation in which the child is born (cutting of jus soli claims of any foreign nation) which is also the nation of which the child’s parents are members (cutting off jus sanguinis claims of any foreign nation) . Sole or unity of allegiance and citizenship to the United States at birth is the character trait which the Framers required of all future Presidents and Commanders in Chief of the Military.

This means that all natural born citizens are citizens of the United States, but not all citizens of the United States (including some born ones, for they may not satisfy the common law definition of a natural born citizen) are natural born citizens.

This also means that natural born citizens is a proper subset of both citizens and born citizens.
The above can be expressed by the following three sets:

1. Citizens

2. Born citizens

3. Natural born citizens

The above can be expressed by the following formula:

Natural + born + citizen = natural born citizen.

Citizen is not sufficient.

Born citizen is not sufficient.

Natural born citizen is sufficient.

Natural born citizen is both sufficient and necessary.

Conclusion: Only a child who was born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth is natural + born + citizen or a natural born citizen.

Anonymous said...

As always, Mario's false foundational premises produce false deductions and a false definition.
If the primary assumptions are false, then most of what follows will be also.
Per Vattel, a child's nationality follows that of the father regardless of where the child is born. THAT is the natural order that he emphasized, and everyone knows it.
That means that a natural citizen is one born of citizens.
In all that Mario has ever written, he has never explained, and will never explain, why a natural citizen is not a natural born citizen.
Hell, he can't even admit that such a thing as a natural citizen even exists, -and that is why he omitted it from his delineation.

And that shows that he really is in a well constructed semi-logical La-La-Land. Half right but half wrong, and unable to explain the gaping holes where logic should be found and isn't.

All children born of American citizens are American citizens. They are natural American citizens by inheritance, by blood right.

They are what the framers referred to as natural born citizens, and that is why they sought to protect their right in the future to serve as President by mandating that they be recognized as such in the 1790 Naturalization Act.
That was written to fix the lack of any reference to them in the Constitution.
But on the other hand that meant that no loyal, proud, dedicated American patriot whose father had not yet had enough residency to become a citizen when he was born, was thereby defined as NOT being a natural born citizen since he was born of an alien father.

POOF! went any hope or dream or chance or right of ever aspiring to the office of President.
And there were thousands of such Americans. Probably tens of thousands.
They got their conceivable shot at the Presidency back when the words "natural born" were removed by the third Congress.

That is the historical reality and Mario has no hint of an explanation for why the wise and widely-knowledgeable founders and framers and members of the first Congress would have declared that children of Americans are to be considered to be natural born citizens even though born beyond America's borders.
He's never given any explanation and never will give any that makes any sense.

MichaelN said...

Adrien Nash bleated .....

"As always, Mario's false foundational premises produce false deductions and a false definition.
If the primary assumptions are false, then most of what follows will be also.
Per Vattel, a child's nationality follows that of the father regardless of where the child is born. THAT is the natural order that he emphasized, and everyone knows it.
That means that a natural citizen is one born of citizens.
In all that Mario has ever written, he has never explained, and will never explain, why a natural citizen is not a natural born citizen.
Hell, he can't even admit that such a thing as a natural citizen even exists, -and that is why he omitted it from his delineation.

And that shows that he really is in a well constructed semi-logical La-La-Land. Half right but half wrong, and unable to explain the gaping holes where logic should be found and isn't.

All children born of American citizens are American citizens. They are natural American citizens by inheritance, by blood right"
--------------------

There is no terminology in the US Constitution i.e. "natural citizen".

The wording is "natural born Citizen".

YOUR "natural citizen" is not an Article II "natural born Citizen", never was and never will be.

YOUR "natural citizen" does not have all the attributes required to qualify as an Article II "natural born Citizen".

If YOUR "natural citizen" were to be native-born in US, then they would be an Article II "natural born Citizen".

To be an Article II "natural born Citizen" of the US, one must be native-born in US and to US citizen parents.

YOUR "natural citizen", if not native-born, does not qualify as an Article II "natural born Citizen"....... all your rude protests and whining does and will not change that.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Michael,

As you also have correctly observed, Adrien Nash does nothing more that just make stuff up (what a bunch of baloney, "natural citizen"). He does not address my presentation. Rather, he just dishes out insults and gives his personal beliefs (they do not ever rise to the level of being opinions) without providing any factual or legal foundation for them. His insults and beliefs are worthless in proving anything that he utters.

Unknown said...

Natural citizen haha. Nash changes the facts to suit his opinion

MichaelN said...

Mario,
I think Adrien Nash has an agenda, merely using your blog to steal and claim ideas, theories, etc using whatever he might dream-up from it as a spring-board in trying to sell his ad nauseam writings.

MichaelN said...

Adrien Nash said ....
"In all that Mario has ever written, he has never explained, and will never explain, why a natural citizen is not a natural born citizen."
-----------------------

If your "natural citizen" is only such by birth to citizen parents, and was not native-born in the land of the parent's citizenship, then that "natural citizen" is NOT an Article II "natural born Citizen" of the US.

Explained...... right?

You already know that your "natural citizen" qualifies as a "citizen of the United States" but not necessarily an Article II "natural born Citizen" unless also native-born in the US.

Mario has explained this is proven fact, over and over to you, yet you persist with your rudeness and childish, whining denial of proven facts.

YOU have proven yourself to be a rude, obnoxious, irritating, nuisance, your whining and bleating has become boring to the point where I for one don't read all that you write anymore, only a few lines at best, and even this is becoming less each time you post here, it's to the point now that I doubt that I will ever read any of your posts again, you are such a rude boring turn-off.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

From Cafe Con Leche Republicans:

Slartibartfast,

You said:

“Anyone who is a citizen of the United States under the Constitution is necessarily a natural born citizen (because naturalization had not yet been provided for). Like President Arthur, President Obama qualifies.”

~~~~~

Your statement contains so many errors.

The citizens made the Constitution. The Constitution did not make the citizens. Hence, citizens of the United States “under” the Constitution means as acknowledged by and under the power given to Congress by the Constitution. These citizens include Article II natural born citizens (defined by the common law and not by the Constitution itself), citizens at birth under Acts of Congress, and citizens who become so after birth under Acts of Congress and treaties.

Citizens of the United States under the amended Constitution include Article II natural born citizens, citizens at birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment who do not satisfy the common law definition of a natural born citizen as confirmed by Minor v. Happersett (1875), citizens at birth under Acts of Congress, and citizens who become so after birth under Acts of Congress and treaties.

The colonies and then the states were naturalizing persons to become subjects of the colonies and then citizens of the states before Congress passed the first naturalization Act in 1790. Thomas Jefferson in The Declaration of Independence complained about the King of Great Britain that: “He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migration hither.” Congress acknowledged these pre-Constitution naturalized citizens made so by the states in its Naturalization Act of 1802.

Both Chester Arthur and Barack Obama are not natural born citizens. They both were not born in the United States to parents who were its citizens at the time of their birth. See 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.”).

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of IV

From Café Con Leche Republicans:
Slartibartfast,

You, like Bob, are a talker and a bad one at that. You like to hear yourself talk and you believe that you are really saying something that is smart. You want the world to give you acclaims on how smart you are. But the reality is that as much as you want that old back slap,what you spout out is nonsense.

I demonstrated the errors in what you wrote and you made your corrections with the use of brackets thus [ ]. After making your corrections you continue with more errors.

You keep repeating that Minor v. Happersett (1875) allowed for the possibility that persons born under different birth circumstances other than what it had stated for natural born citizens (i.e., born in a country to parents who were its citizens) could also be natural born citizens. It did no such thing. It gave one and only one definition of the clause which existed under the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. That was a child born in a country to parents who were it citizens at the time of the child's birth. It added that all the rest of the people who did not meet that definition were "aliens or foreigners" who could by positive law be naturalized at birth or after birth. With such an explanation as to how the common law defined a natural born citizen, there was no possibility that there existed at common law any other class of persons who could also be natural born citizens. Minor left open the Fourteenth Amendment question of whether a child born “within the jurisdiction” to alien parents was a citizen under that amendment. But that someone who was not a natural born citizen by the very definition that the Court provided of the clause could theoretically be a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment 81 years after the adoption of the Constitution did not mean that that person was also a natural born citizen in the eyes of the Framers. On the contrary, that person could not be a natural born citizen if he or she did not satisfy the Framers’ common law definition of that clause. So, for you to continue to maintain that Minor allowed such other persons to be natural born citizens is false.

Before Congress passed its naturalization laws, the only way one could be a citizen of the United States was through the common law. Under the English common law, any person born out of the King's dominion was an alien. The Framers followed the same rule and so they gave Congress the exclusive power (for the sake of national uniformity, states could no longer naturalize aliens) to naturalize persons who were not born as natural born citizens. Understanding what a natural born citizen was, i.e., a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens, Congress set out in the Naturalization Act of 1790 to act upon all children who were not born as natural born citizens. It therefore provided for the naturalization of children born in the United States to alien parents (acting upon them both retrospectively and prospectively) and children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen (acting upon them only retrospectively) and alien parents (acting upon them prospectively). Of all these children, which did not include the natural born citizens, Congress was willing to naturalize them at birth only if they were born to U.S. citizen parents (applied only retrospectively and to children born out of the United States, for those born in the United States to citizen parents were under the common law natural born citizens and therefore did not need any Act of Congress to be citizens).

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of IV

Through the years, Congress changed its naturalization laws pertaining to who could be a naturalized citizen at birth and after birth and the conditions to be satisfied to acquire that status. One big change was that the Acts of 1790, 1705, and 1802 were all retrospective as to
children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents. Starting with the Naturalization Act of 1855, Congress made its laws both retrospective and prospective. The Fourteenth Amendment, as interpreted by Wong Kim Ark, for the first time in our nation provided a
federal law that allowed children born in the United States to qualifying alien parents (who were permanently domiciled and resident in the United States and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders) to be "citizens of the United States" from the moment of birth.

You and those lower courts to which you referred as ruling against me misinterpret Minor v. Happersett (187) and Wong Kim Ark (1898). Minor did not allow for the possibility that persons born under different birth circumstances other than what it had stated for natural born citizens (i.e., born in a country to parents who were its citizens) could also be natural born citizens. It did no such thing. It gave one and only one definition of the clause which existed under the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. That was a child born in a country to parents who were it citizens at the time of the child's birth. It added that all the rest of the people who did not meet that definition were "aliens or foreigners" who could by positive law be naturalized at birth or after birth. With such an explanation as to how the common law defined a natural born citizen, there was no possibility that there existed at common law any other class of persons who could also be natural born citizens. Minor left open the Fourteenth Amendment question of whether a child born “within the jurisdiction” to alien parents was a citizen under that amendment. But that someone who was not a natural born citizen by the very definition that the Court provided of the clause could theoretically be a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment 81 years after the adoption of the Constitution did not mean that that person was also a natural born citizen in the eyes of the Framers. On the contrary, that person could not be a natural born citizen if he or she did not satisfy the Framers’ common law definition of that clause. So, for anyone to maintain that Minor allowed such other persons to be natural born citizens is false.

You and those lower courts also err as to Wong Kim Ark. You maintain that Wong held that by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment a child born in the United States to those qualifying alien parents is not only a citizen of the United States at birth, but also an Article II natural born citizen. First, our courts have long ago settled that the Fourteenth Amendment did not add to the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States. Second, both Minor and Wong Kim Ark said that the Constitution, which then already included the Fourteenth Amendment, did not define a natural born citizen. Third, our courts have also in recent years confirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment neither repealed nor amended Article II's natural born citizen clause. Fourth, Wong's holding is not so broad. Rather, it is limited to interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment which both Minor and Wong Kim Ark clearly stated did not define a natural born citizen. The text of the Amendment is clear that it only defines a “citizen of the United States,” (consider that Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 included both “natural born citizens” and “citizen of the United States”) which is no different from the citizen of the United States found in Congress's naturalization Acts who are not necessarily natural born citizens. When

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of IV

Wong Kim Ark analyzed if the law of nations had any impact on U.S. citizenship, it looked at it in reference to the time during which the Fourteenth Amendment was passed and ratified and not in reference to reliance upon it by the Framers when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. Fifth, it is absurd to think we would have to say that one is a natural born citizen if one were born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents or to parents who were permanently domiciled and resident in the United States and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders. Is not a natural born citizen beyond doubt a citizen? Minor said there has never been any doubts that a natural born citizen is a citizen. If a child were born in the country to citizen parents, would there be any need to condition his or her birthright citizenship status on his or her parents not being foreign diplomats or foreign military invaders? The question is pregnant with the answer. What Wong meant to do was give Fourteenth Amendment grace to children born in the United States to alien parents, provided their parents were at least not foreign diplomats or foreign military invaders. The natural born citizens have never needed nor do they need such indulgence. Hence, under Minor and Wong Kim Ark, children born in the United States to parents who are both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth are Article II natural born citizens by virtue of national common law, and children born in the United States to alien parents who are permanently domiciled and resident in the United States and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders are not Article II natural born citizens, but rather are citizens of the United States from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.

You argue that "[a]ny citizen at birth by virtue of the 14th Amendment would also have been a citizen at birth under the Constitution as originally ratified (excepting the former slaves and their children)." This is incorrect. A Wong citizen (born in the United States to qualifying alien parents) is a citizen at birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. But Minor said that "there have been doubts" whether such a citizen was a citizen under the common law with which the Framers were familiar and which was the source of their definition of a natural born citizen. The United States and Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan (in dissent) argued in Wong that such a child was an alien. It was only through the majority Court in Wong Kim Ark that such a child was recognized as a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth. Again, with such doubts existing regarding whether that child was a citizen, there is no way that such a child was a natural born citizen. In any event, that Wong citizen did not meet Minor's common law definition of a natural born citizen and so under the definition confirmed by Minor was not a natural born citizen.

You argue that I "cannot find a single example of Congress discussing (or the courts ruling) that the status of a white person of European descent was dependent on the 14th Amendment (i.e. would have changed with its passing)." First, The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) explained that a child born in the United States to alien parents was not a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court did not limit its exclusion to slaves or their descendants, but included all children of alien parents. Second, Minor clearly explained that "there have been doubts" whether a child "born within the jurisdiction" to alien parents was a citizen. The Court did not limit its statement to slaves or their descendants. Hence, its statement also included the children of white

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of IV

Wong Kim Ark analyzed if the law of nations had any impact on U.S. citizenship, it looked at it in reference to the time during which the Fourteenth Amendment was passed and ratified and not in reference to reliance upon it by the Framers when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. Fifth, it is absurd to think we would have to say that one is a natural born citizen if one were born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents or to parents who were permanently domiciled and resident in the United States and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders. Is not a natural born citizen beyond doubt a citizen? Minor said there has never been any doubts that a natural born citizen is a citizen. If a child were born in the country to citizen parents, would there be any need to condition his or her birthright citizenship status on his or her parents not being foreign diplomats or foreign military invaders? The question is pregnant with the answer. What Wong meant to do was give Fourteenth Amendment grace to children born in the United States to alien parents, provided their parents were at least not foreign diplomats or foreign military invaders. The natural born citizens have never needed nor do they need such indulgence. Hence, under Minor and Wong Kim Ark, children born in the United States to parents who are both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth are Article II natural born citizens by virtue of national common law, and children born in the United States to alien parents who are permanently domiciled and resident in the United States and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders are not Article II natural born citizens, but rather are citizens of the United States from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment.

You argue that "[a]ny citizen at birth by virtue of the 14th Amendment would also have been a citizen at birth under the Constitution as originally ratified (excepting the former slaves and their children)." This is incorrect. A Wong citizen (born in the United States to qualifying alien parents) is a citizen at birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. But Minor said that "there have been doubts" whether such a citizen was a citizen under the common law with which the Framers were familiar and which was the source of their definition of a natural born citizen. The United States and Chief Justice Fuller and Justice Harlan (in dissent) argued in Wong that such a child was an alien. It was only through the majority Court in Wong Kim Ark that such a child was recognized as a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth. Again, with such doubts existing regarding whether that child was a citizen, there is no way that such a child was a natural born citizen. In any event, that Wong citizen did not meet Minor's common law definition of a natural born citizen and so under the definition confirmed by Minor was not a natural born citizen.

You argue that I "cannot find a single example of Congress discussing (or the courts ruling) that the status of a white person of European descent was dependent on the 14th Amendment (i.e. would have changed with its passing)." First, The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) explained that a child born in the United States to alien parents was not a citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court did not limit its exclusion to slaves or their descendants, but included all children of alien parents. Second, Minor clearly explained that "there have been doubts" whether a child "born within the jurisdiction" to alien parents was a citizen. The Court did not limit its statement to slaves or their descendants. Hence, its statement also included the children of white

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

IV of IV

Europeans. See also Benny v. O’Brien, 29 Vroom (58 N.J. Law) 36 (1895) (the New Jersey Supreme Court found a child born in the United States to alien parents a citizen of the United States at birth only because of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment, but only after admitting that the then-current government turned a blind eye to the law's requirement that such child be born “not subject to any foreign power”).

You state that you will not address my "nonsense regarding the Naturalization Act of 1802." The reason you do not want to address it is that both the text of the statute and our U.S. Supreme Court have been very clear that the act, along with those of 1790 and 1795, were only retroactive. Additionally from 1802 to 1855, such children born to parents who obtained their U.S. citizenship status after 1802 were aliens. Hence, there is no way that in the future a child born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents could be a natural born citizen. If a person like Cruz, later born in December 22, 1970, would have been an alien under the retroactive Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802 (all Acts in which many Founders and Framers were involved), there simply is no way that the Framers would have viewed him as a natural born citizen. More importantly, the early naturalization acts inform on the meaning of a natural born citizen, for they all treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens and in need of naturalization. Hence, the only logical conclusion to be drawn from the early naturalization acts, given how they treated children born in and out of the United States, is that in the minds of the Framers, a natural born citizen was a child born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

You argue that de facto President Chester Arthur was a natural born citizen. This is also incorrect. Arthur was most likely born in Canada. In any event, regardless of where he was born (like Obama), he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents. He therefore was not a natural born citizen.

You continue to state that everybody was aware that Chester Arthur was born to alien parents and that such birth circumstances did not mean anything in Arthur's time. You maintain that the citizenship status of Chester Arthur's father (he was an alien when Arthur was born probably in Canada and naturalized to be a citizen of the United States when Arthur was 14 years old) was well known at the time that he ran for Vice-President. You fail to tell us who knew it, when did they know it, and how did they come to know it. You say that Hinman knew about it and so stated in his book. I have asked you to provide a quote from the book that so demonstrates and to this day you have never provided that quote. Again, please provide any evidence that the public knew of and when they knew that circumstance. Era newspapers, other publications, or any evidence at all would be appreciated.

Both de facto Barack Obama and Senator Ted Cruz are not natural born citizens. Both were not born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of their births.

If you have any other arguments, I will be more than happy to address them.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

IV of IV

Europeans. See also Benny v. O’Brien, 29 Vroom (58 N.J. Law) 36 (1895) (the New Jersey Supreme Court found a child born in the United States to alien parents a citizen of the United States at birth only because of the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment, but only after admitting that the then-current government turned a blind eye to the law's requirement that such child be born “not subject to any foreign power”).

You state that you will not address my "nonsense regarding the Naturalization Act of 1802." The reason you do not want to address it is that both the text of the statute and our U.S. Supreme Court have been very clear that the act, along with those of 1790 and 1795, were only retroactive. Additionally from 1802 to 1855, such children born to parents who obtained their U.S. citizenship status after 1802 were aliens. Hence, there is no way that in the future a child born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents could be a natural born citizen. If a person like Cruz, later born in December 22, 1970, would have been an alien under the retroactive Acts of 1790, 1795, and 1802 (all Acts in which many Founders and Framers were involved), there simply is no way that the Framers would have viewed him as a natural born citizen. More importantly, the early naturalization acts inform on the meaning of a natural born citizen, for they all treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens and in need of naturalization. Hence, the only logical conclusion to be drawn from the early naturalization acts, given how they treated children born in and out of the United States, is that in the minds of the Framers, a natural born citizen was a child born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

You argue that de facto President Chester Arthur was a natural born citizen. This is also incorrect. Arthur was most likely born in Canada. In any event, regardless of where he was born (like Obama), he was not born to two U.S. citizen parents. He therefore was not a natural born citizen.

You continue to state that everybody was aware that Chester Arthur was born to alien parents and that such birth circumstances did not mean anything in Arthur's time. You maintain that the citizenship status of Chester Arthur's father (he was an alien when Arthur was born probably in Canada and naturalized to be a citizen of the United States when Arthur was 14 years old) was well known at the time that he ran for Vice-President. You fail to tell us who knew it, when did they know it, and how did they come to know it. You say that Hinman knew about it and so stated in his book. I have asked you to provide a quote from the book that so demonstrates and to this day you have never provided that quote. Again, please provide any evidence that the public knew of and when they knew that circumstance. Era newspapers, other publications, or any evidence at all would be appreciated.

Both de facto Barack Obama and Senator Ted Cruz are not natural born citizens. Both were not born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of their births.

If you have any other arguments, I will be more than happy to address them.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

From Café con Leche Republicans, Mario Apuzzo to Slartibartfast:

Slartibartfast,

You said:

“Mario said: ‘The Framers used the natural born citizen clause to keep foreign and monarchical influence out of the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.’

Would that be like the “foreign and monarchial influence” of the writings of Vattel? He was, after all, a Swiss monarchist. Hearing you talk, one would think that the Framers worshiped the ground he walked on, but, curiously enough, there is no mention in the US Constitution of the establishment of a state religion (except to say you can’t do it) or the right to raid neighboring countries if women are scarce (which is a shame as I kind of have a thing for Canadian women) or restricting the right to bear arms (quite the contrary, in fact). Could it be that the Founders did not ascribe quite the same primacy to the writings of Vattel as you suggest? Except, of course, for the part that says that countries like England (or, say, a country who’s founding documents are written in the nomenclature of the English common law) recognize native born children as natural born citizens regardless of the nationality of their parents.

Face it Mario, not only can you not make a case for the Framer’s reliance on Vattel (beyond matters of international law), you can’t make a case that Vattel said what you claim he did.

It seems pretty pathetic to me.”

~~~~~

After all the writing that I have done on Emer de Vattel and the meaning of a natural born citizen, your comments about Vattel are exactly what I would expect from a fake, phony, fraud lying weasel such as you.

Did you ever read the Constitution? Did you ever notice what is says about titles of nobility? The Framers made it clear that the United States was to be a republic and not a monarchy, then or in the future.
Did you ever read the historical record which demonstrates why the Framers included the natural born citizen clause as part of presidential eligibility? The Framers made it clear that so as to keep foreign (in all its pernicious psychological forms) and monarchical influence out of the office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military, in the future anyone born to aliens or born out of the United States need not apply for those vital offices. Indeed, when it came to the Office of President and Commander in Chief, the Framers placed their trust only in a person born in the United States to parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth.

As far as me making a case for what Vattel said, just read the works of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Nathan Dane, David Ramsay, George St. Tucker, and James Wilson (the list is not exhaustive) (all followed Vattel). Read the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 (all followed Vattel). Read cases from our U.S. Supreme Court such as The Venus (Chief Justice John Marshall cites and quotes Vattel’s definition of a natural born citizen), Inglis (Vattel followed), Shanks (Vattel followed), Dred Scott (Vattel followed), The Slaughterhouse Cases (Vattel followed), Minor (the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court paraphrases Vattel’s definition of a natural born citizen), and Wong Kim Ark (recognized Minor’s and therefore Vattel’s definition of a natural born citizen and distinguished a natural born citizen from a child born in the country to alien parents who it held was a citizen from birth under the Fourteenth Amendment ). It is all there and I have already explained it all to you on on my blog, this blog, and in my brief to the courts.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Furthermore, you are such a liar calling Vattel’s treaties, The Law of Nations, one on “international law” when you know he wrote on the law of nations, a law that you know was sacred to the Founders and Framers.

Finally, as to your “international law,” 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.

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

“[N]atural-born citizens,” born in “a” country, and “of parents who were its citizens” are expressions of the law of nations or what you deceitfully call international law. They are not expressions of local English common law. Notice the Court, like Vattel and the Framers, treated natural born citizens in a broad sense. It did not add that they were born in the United States or that their parents were citizens of the United States. The Court said born in “a” country. A country is no specific country and is meant to convey a universal meaning. Born to citizen parents does not say born to citizens of any specific country or nation. Minor, in its entire decision, made not even a hint that the local English common law had any relevancy in defining a natural born citizen.

All this in total means that the definition of a natural born citizen was one of universal meaning and application among the civilized nations of the world. That my lying friend is an expression of the law of nations or what you deceitfully call international law. This historical, Congressional, and legal record, my weasel friend, also means that Vattel was very relevant to the Founders and Framers, not only in the building of the new nation in a grand sense, but also in defining who were to be its citizens and natural born citizens.

MichaelN said...

Mario Apuzzo said to traitor Kev, in answer to Kev's squirming and worming, Mario demolishing Kev once again...
"This historical, Congressional, and legal record, my weasel friend, also means that Vattel was very relevant to the Founders and Framers, not only in the building of the new nation in a grand sense, but also in defining who were to be its citizens and natural born citizens."
------------------------

About Vattel's influence on the Founders and Framers.....

"Among those citing Vattel in legal cases and government documents, were Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, James Wilson, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, John Jay, and John Marshall. John Adams, the future delegate to the Continental Congress, second President of the U.S., and father of President John Quincy Adams, recorded in his Diary on Feb. 1, 1763, that after spending the day frivolously, instead of reading and thinking, ``The Idea of M. de Vattel indeed, scowling and frowning, haunted me.'' In 1765, Adams copied into his Diary three statements by Vattel, ``of great use to Judges,'' that laws should be interpreted according to the intent of the author, and every interpretation which leads to absurdity should be rejected."

and...

"The librarian reported that Vattel was one of the main sources consulted by the delegates during the First Continental Congress, which met from Sept. 5 to Oct. 26, 1774. Charles W.F. Dumas, an ardent supporter of the American cause, printed an edition of {The Law of Nations} in 1774, with his own notes illustrating how the book applied to the American situation. In 1770, Dumas had met Franklin in Holland, and was one of Franklin's key collaborators in his European diplomacy. He sent three copies to Franklin, instructing him to send one to Harvard University, and to put one in the Philadelphia library. 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

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

MichaelN,

Here is more and there is so much more:

“Consider that

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

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

(Cited and quoted in Kerchner-Laudenslager v. Obama Ballot Access Challenge with the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, accessed at http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/92921415-Brief-on-Behalf-of-Objectors-in-Kerchern-Laudenslager-v-Obama-Pennsylvania-Ballot-Challenge-FILED-2-28-12 , and my amicus curie brief filed in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Tisadal v. Obama, accessed at http://www.scribd.com/puzo1/d/92918965-Tisdale-Amicus-Brief-to-4th-Circuit-Court-of-Appeals-FILED-3-20-12.)

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

From Café Con Leche Republicans:

Bob,

You are a jackass to suggest that I never read Wong Kim Ark. And it does not say what you wish it said and what you keep misrepresenting that it said. Here is the holding:

“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.”

United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 756 (1898).

The Court was presented with a “single question” which was one that arose under the Fourteenth Amendment, which was ratified 81 years following the adoption of the Constitution. Congress introduced the Fourteenth Amendment to give to qualifying persons the constitutional right to become members of the United States. Congress never intended to give to anyone under the Amendment the right to be a natural born citizen. Even the text of the Amendment uses the clause “citizen of the United States” and not natural born citizen.

Under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Wong Kim Ark did not have to determine whether Wong was a natural born citizen, for that analysis would have been done under the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett (1875). Hence, there was no natural born citizen issue presented to the Court and it therefore did not have to resolve any such issue. Rather, under the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court only had to determine whether Wong was a citizen from the time of his birth by birth in the United States while subject to the jurisdiction thereof. The Court did not hold that Wong was a natural born citizen and it did not have to, for Wong, who was not eligible to be naturalized because of the then-existing naturalization laws and U.S. treaties with China, could gain citizenship from birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court concluded that Wong was a citizen from the time of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. There is nothing in its holding which suggests that the Court held he was an Article II natural born citizen.

So just keep dreaming and lying.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

In the amicus brief filed by professor Titus in Rudy v. Lee, Professor Titus appears to say that when the SCOTUS decides the question "What is a natural born citizen?", they will chose between Justice Gray's opinion and Chief Justice Fuller's dissenting opinion.

"It is not necessary at this point to decide whether President Obama is a natural born citizen. Nor is it necessary now to endorse Justice Gray’s views over those of dissenting Chief Justice Fuller, or vice versa. Indeed, Mr. Rudy’s case against President Obama’s citizenship is based upon both views — that he is not a natural born citizen based either on his place of birth, or on the citizenship of his parents."

He doesn't mention Minor v. Happersett as containing a definition of NBC.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

From Cafe Con Leche Republicans, from Mario Apuzzo to Bryan Gene Olson:

Bryan Gene Olson,

Regarding Purpura v. Obama, you tell us that New Jersey ALJ Jeff S. Masin explicitly accepted the Ankeny Court’s reasoning and you quote from ALJ Masin as follows:

“‘It is unnecessary to reinvent the wheel here; the subject has been thoroughly reviewed and no new legal argument on this issue has been offered here. While there are several decisions that could be cited, the decision issued by the Court of Appeals of Indiana in 2009 in Ankeny v. Governor, 916 N.E.2d 678 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), is representative of the position taken by courts and other agencies who have considered the merits of the issue.’”

Then you tell us:

“The NJ Secretary of State accepted the Administrative Court’s decision and rejected Apuzzo’s ballot challenge. Mr. Apuzzo and his clients appealed. After hearing from Mr. Apuzzo, the Superior Court of New Jersey Appellate Division explicitly endorsed the reasoning of the Administrative Law Judge, writing:

‘We have carefully considered appellants’ arguments and conclude that these arguments are without merit. We affirm substantially for the reasons set forth in ALJ Jeff S. Masin’s thorough and thoughtful written opinion of April 10, 2012, as adopted by the Secretary on April 12, 2012.’

Apuzzo petitioned the New Jersey Supreme Court to take the case. The NJ Supreme Court wrote, “Petition for certification denied.’”

~~~~~

So where are the historical and legal authorities that would serve as the basis of the court’s decision on the meaning of an Article II natural born citizen? Where is the court’s reasoning which supports its conclusion? Telling us that there is no need to “reinvent the wheel,” that “the subject has been thoroughly reviewed,” and that “there are several decisions that could be cited” does not obviate the court’s constitutional duty to actually cite and discuss those authorities and provide the reasoning for its decision in a constitutional republic that follows the rule of due process of law. Neither you nor the court provided any of that. You lose again, Mr. Olson.

Regarding Ankeny, you said:

“That Indiana Court noted that point [the constitutional distinction between a natural born citizen and a citizen], writing:

‘Specifically, the crux of the Plaintiffs’ argument is that ‘[c]ontrary to the thinking of most People on the subject, there’s a very clear distinction between a ‘citizen of the United States’ and a ‘natural born Citizen,’ and the difference involves having [two] parents of U.S. citizenship, owing no foreign allegiance.’”

~~~~~

But that is all you provided. You do not provide any analysis of the court which indicates that the court examined that issue in any meaningful way. What is absurd is for the court to suggest that “most People on the subject” do not believe that there is a constitutional distinction between a “citizen of the United States” and a “natural born citizen.” How could the court make such a statement in light of the clear text of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 where we find the constitutional distinction plainly and clearly stated? Maybe you can tell us by what license the court read the natural born citizen clause out of the Constitution by equating it with a “citizen of the United States.” Again where are the authorities and reasoning which support the court’s conclusion? Neither you nor the court provided any. You lose again, Mr. Olson.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

What is also hilarious is your other response to my argument. I argued about Ankeny:

“It held that a child born in the United States to alien parents is also a natural born citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark. This is plainly wrong, for the one and only definition of a natural born citizen is not found in the Fourteenth Amendment, and Wong Kim Ark did not change that definition, but rather only held that a child born in the United States to alien parents was a citizen from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment and in so holding did not nor did it need to change or repudiate Minor’s definition of a natural born citizen.”

Rather than demonstrate from the court’s decision how it came to the conclusion that the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark define a natural born citizen any differently from how Minor v. Happersett (1875) defined one or even come to the court’s rescue by showing us that yourself, you simply repeat that the court relied upon the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark to hold that a child born in the United States to alien parents is included as an Article II natural born citizen. But we already know that the court so held and I have acknowledged that in my criticism of the Ankeny decision, adding that the court erred in using those sources to offer us a new definition of a natural born citizen. I demonstrated how the court erred in relying upon the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark without more to come to its conclusion. Well, Mr. Olson, you have made no argument that addresses my position on the errors committed by Ankeny or even to offer anything of substance in defense of what the court decided. You lose again, Mr. Olson.

So, Bryan Gene Olson, how does it feel to not be able to stop crying a river of errors and incompetence?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

From Café Con Leche Republicans, my response to Bob:

Bob said:

“In other words, Apuzzo can’t cite any section of any constitution obligating any court ‘to actually cite and discuss those authorities and provide the reasoning for its decision.’

Instead, Apuzzo, in his usual verbose manner, states the obvious and says it is a good idea for a court explain its reasoning. And, in many cases, it is.

But not in the cases where the result is obvious or the claim is frivolous.”

~~~~~

Bob,

Are you serious? Both active and passive conduct creates economics which creates politics which creates law which is supposed to with certainty and fairness regulate conduct, economics, and politics. Just read our jurisprudence since the Founding (not to count the legal process that prevailed during the Roman Empire which has been handed down through the ages). I have expressed one of the fundamental certainty and fairness principles of our constitutional system, i.e., transparency in the courts which dictates that courts need to demonstrate what motivated and how their arrived at their decisions so that society can be guided on how to behave and that the court itself was guided by the rule of law rather than by some error or irrelevant interest, bias, or prejudice. You do not see any of these principles in our Constitution. But the concept of judge’s having to conform to a pre-established legal standard and demonstrating that they have is no more invisible than the constitution of the United Kingdom.

Your use of the word "obvious" works against you in both cases in which it applies to the natural born citizen clause. In the first case, the meaning of a natural born citizen is obvious. It 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) (held that under the common law used by the Framers and which defined the clause, there was no doubt as to who the natural born citizens and therefore the citizens were; they were children born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of their birth and all the rest of the people were “aliens or foreigners,” who could be made citizens by other law). Hence, you lose under the obvious definition of a natural born citizen as existing in the common law relied upon by the Framers to define the clause and as incorporated into the Constitution as part of the supreme law of the land.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

In the second case of the use of the word obvious, a problem is created when an individual who does not meet the obvious constitutional definition of a natural born citizen wants to still be considered to be a natural born citizen so he can satisfy his ego to become President. The problem is compounded when such an individual blindly convinces others to support him in his quest for power which he seeks for the purpose of “fundamentally transforming” American society and a movement is created whose goal is to have that person elected to public office and to suppress any public debate regarding that person’s identity, character, and abilities. The problem then gets worse when normally vigilant media and citizens lose their spine because of the need to be politically correct. And the problem only grows worse when that person wins the election and the courts also for political reasons refuse to allow interested and concerned citizens to litigate the issue in a court of law or when the issue is litigated to address in any meaningful way or at all the constitutional issue of whether that person is a natural born citizen. So, your definition of a natural born citizen has no true constitutional basis and does not meet our constitutional standard. Rather, it is advanced and observed currently only because of the political chaos which would result if not so accepted. In such a situation, which is what applies to Barack Obama, an expanded meaning of a natural born citizen is not obvious in any sense and my arguments against any such extension are not frivolous given the only definition of the clause that has ever been confirmed by the historical and legal record.

We have seen that transparency of judicial process is a fundamental principle of our constitutional legal system. We have also seen that the Framers’ constitutional definition of a natural born citizen is obvious to an informed citizen, that being a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. We have also seen that your expanded meaning of the clause put forth for the sole purpose of having your political candidate elected and legitimized as President is far from obvious to that citizen and that my argument against such expansion is not frivolous. The inescapable conclusion is that you lose again.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

From Café Con Leche Republicans:

Bob, Slartibartfast, and Bryan Gene Olson,

Since you are so committed to the Constitution and stare decisis, I figured I would share with you all what the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court has ruled regarding the meaning of the Constitution’s Article II “natural born citizen clause:”

Minor v. Happersett 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).

Minor explained that there are certain citizens who are also natural born citizens if they satisfy the common law definition of the clause and other citizens who cannot be natural born citizens because they do not satisfy that definition. These other persons were “aliens or foreigners” under the common law who could become citizens under other law. For Minor to conclude that Virginia Minor was a "citizen," it thoroughly reviewed the development of citizenship in the United States, starting with the American Revolution and down to the Fourteenth Amendment. In going through that history, it explained how the Framers defined a “citizen” and a “natural-born citizen” under common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution. It held that she was a citizen because having been born in the country to citizen parents, she was a natural born citizen. It left open the Fourteenth Amendment question of whether a child born in the United States to alien parents could also be a citizen who was not a natural born citizen under the Framers’ common law.

Commenting on Minor, the U.S. Supreme Court in In Re Lockwood said:

“this court [Minor] held that the word ‘citizen’ is often used to convey the idea of membership in a nation, and, in that sense, women, if born of citizen parents within the jurisdiction of the United States, have always been considered citizens of the United States, as much so before the adoption of the fourteenth amendment of the constitution as since.”

In Re Lockwood, 154 U.S. 116 (1894). Note that the Court said that Minor "held."

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Then we have Wong Kim Ark, which apart from citing and quoting Minor and its common law definition of natural born citizen given above, made this comment about Minor:

“The decision in that case [Minor] was that a woman born of citizen parents within the United States was a citizen of the United States, although not entitled to vote, the right to the elective franchise not being essential to citizenship.”

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 679-81. Note that the Court said "[t[he decision in that case was . . . ", again conveying the idea that Minor made a specific decision on a matter regarding citizenship and that such a decision would be a precedent.

Then we have Luria v. United States which explained:

"Citizenship is membership in a political society, and implies a duty of allegiance on the part of the member and a duty of protection on the part of the society. These are reciprocal obligations, one being a compensation for the other. Under our Constitution, a naturalized citizen stands on an equal footing with the native citizen in all respects save that of eligibility to the Presidency. Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 88 U. S. 165; Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U. S. 94, 112 U. S. 101; Osborn v. Bank of United States, 9 Wheat. 738, 22 U. S. 827."

Luria v. United States, 231 U.S. 9, 24 (1913). Note that the Court cited Minor when it referred to presidential eligibility and not Wong Kim Ark. And why would it cite Minor? Because Minor, defining a natural born citizen, provided the standard for one to be eligible to be President.

These are three U.S. Supreme Court cases that specifically cited Minor for citizenship: In re Lockwood (includes in its reference to Minor the elements of born in the country to citizen parents), Wong Kim Ark (includes in its reference to Minor the full definition of a natural born citizen and separately the elements of born in the country to citizen parents), and Luria (tells us that Minor was a precedent on citizenship and presidential eligibility and therefore the natural born citizen clause). Therefore, Minor’s definition of a natural born citizen, which it gave in the context of resolving the question of whether Virginia Minor was a citizen, is one of the holdings of the case and binding precedent on all courts in the United States.

So why do you, Slartibartfast, and Bryan Gene Olson believe that the state law case of Ankeny can simply disregard the binding word of the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor, In re Lockwood, Wong Kim Ark, and Luria and modify their word by making others natural born citizens who do not fit within Minor’s common law definition of the clause or what any of those Court’s said about the natural born citizen clause without showing us by what authority it may do so and how it arrived at its conclusion?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Bryan Gene Olson,

You said:

"When you say that Obama motivated, “an expanded meaning of a natural born citizen”, you know you’re not telling the truth. It’s exactly the other way. Your desire to exclude Obama is why your crank legal theory exists."

~~~~~

A famous Holmesian dictum provides that "a page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner, 256 U.S. 345, 349 (1921) (Holmes, J.). Chester Arthur (who was probably born in Canada and also who hid the fact that he was born to alien parents from the public) and Barack Obama are the only persons in the post-Constitution adoption period who became president and who were not born in the United States to citizen parents. Without any doubt you are the one spewing crank legal theories in your attempt to change the definition of a natural born citizen which has long been settled since the Founding.

You provide the following quotes:

“It is clear enough that native-born citizens are eligible” — Charles Gordon, ‘Who Can be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma,’ 28 Maryland Law Review 1, 7-22 (1968)

“It is well settled that ‘native-born’ citizens, those born in the United States, qualify as natural born.” — Jill Pryor, ‘The Natural-Born Citizen Clause and Presidential Eligibility: An Approach for Resolving Two Hundred Years of Uncertainty’, 97 Yale Law Journal 881-889 (1988).

~~~~~

First, Minor explained: “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.” The U.S. Supreme Court trumps any of your authorities, coming before or after the Minor decision.

Second, a native has the equivalent meaning as a natural born citizen. Native-born only means born in the United States which is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition for one to be a natural born citizen.

Third, the issue that Gordon and Pryor were dealing with is whether children born out of the United State to U.S. citizen parents are natural born citizens. Both of them, authorities upon whom you rely, conceded that the common law did not provide that such children are natural born citizens, requiring that one had to be native-born in order to be a natural born citizen. In order to get his out-of-country born person qualify as a natural born citizen, Gordon even repudiates the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark as defining a natural born citizen. Pryor makes the ridiculous argument that a “naturalized” born citizen, which she conceded is the birth character of a child born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents who becomes a citizen of the United States at birth under an Act of Congress, is the same as a “natural” born citizen. Real nice. Imagine telling the Framers that natural means the same as naturalized.

So that puts an end to your person born in the United States to alien parents or born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents being a natural born citizen.

Thank you for providing us with authorities who actually prove that you are wrong in maintaining that de facto President Barack Obama, allegedly born in the United States to a U.S. citizen mother and an alien father, and Senator Ted Cruz, born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban father, are natural born citizens.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

From Cafe Con Leche Republicans:

Bryan Gene Olson said:

“I believe I told your history correctly, Mr. Apuzzo: You did not advance your legal theory until your issue was the particular candidate, Barack Obama. If I’m wrong on that, please cite.

In a previous comment you implied that Obama motivated “an expanded meaning of a natural born citizen”. That’s false, as you must know. The American legal community regarded the eligibility of the native-born to be clear and settled long before Obama could have had any influence. In our time, the two-citizen-parents theory does not seem to have had any advocates until Leo Donofrio came out with it in October or November of 2008.”

~~~~~

Please cite for us for the time before Obama ran for president any person who ran for president or vice-president who was like Obama born in the United States to one alien parent. If you locate any such person, advise if anyone argued that that person was not a natural born citizen. If there is no such person, why would you expect people to have raise the citizen parent issue before Obama ran for President?

You are highly misinformed, suggesting that the requirement to be born to citizen parents is a post-Obama creation. Apart from the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett in 1875 and earlier U.S. Supreme Court cases telling is that a natural born citizen is born to citizen parents, founder, historian, and medical doctor, David Ramsay, wrote in 1789 that the status of being a natural born citizen for those born after July 4, 1776 belonged only to children born of citizen parents. Here is an excerpt from my April 2, 2010 essay in which I commented on Dr. Ramsay’s writing, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789).

In his 1789 essay, while not using the phrase “natural born Citizen,” Ramsay described the original citizens that existed during the Founding and what it meant to acquire citizenship by birthright after the Founding. The Constitution itself shows that the Framers called the original citizens “Citizens of the United States” and those that followed them “natural born Citizens.” He said concerning the children born after the declaration of independence, “[c]itizenship is the inheritance of the children of those who have taken part in the late revolution; but this is confined exclusively to the children of those who were themselves citizens….” Id. at 6. He added that “citizenship by inheritance belongs to none but the children of those Americans, who, having survived the declaration of independence, acquired that adventitious character in their own right, and transmitted it to their offspring….” Id. at 7. He continued that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….” Id. at 6. Ramsay did not use the clause “natural born Citizen.” Rather, he referred to citizenship as a birthright which he said was a natural right. But there is little doubt that how he defined birthright citizenship meant the same as "natural born Citizen," "native," and "indigenous," all terms that were then used interchangeably.

Mario Apuzzo, Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789, accessed at http://puzo1.blogspot.com .

Continued . . .


Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Here is another example for your reading pleasure. St. George Tucker also tells us that a natural born citizen was born to citizen parents. He said: “These civil rights [which included the right to be elected President] may be inherited, or acquired, in the United States: they are acquired by a foreigner who is naturalized; they are inherited by all whose parents, at the time of their birth, were citizens.” St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries: with Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States and of The Commonwealth of Virginia (1803) (Philadelphia: published by William Young Birch and Abraham Small; Robert Carter, Printer, 1803).

There are more examples, but these two will suffice to make my point and to show that you are wrong.

As we can see, during the Founding, influential Founders had already stated publicly that a natural born citizen had to be born to citizen parents. So, you are putting out crank nonsense saying that the citizen parent theory was invented in 2008 as a false tool to attack Obama’s eligibility to be President.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

Bryan Gene Olson,

You have for years repeatedly cited and quoted from the Purpura and Moran v. Obama New Jersey ballot challenge case which I filed in New Jersey. I want to ask you some questions about ALJ Jeff Masin’s decision and see if you are willing to address them with your answers.

Here is what Minor v. Happersett said about a natural born citizen and doubts that existed then about the Fourteenth Amendment:

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).

Judge Masin dealt with Minor only in footnote No. 2. Here is what he said about the opinion followed by comments on Wong Kim Ark:

The Wong Kim Ark decision was preceded by Minor v. Happersett, 88 (21 Wall.) U.S. 162, 167, 22 L.Ed. 627 (1874), where the Supreme Court stated that while the Constitution did not say “in words” “who shall be natural-born citizens” there were “some authorities” who held that “children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their parents” were citizens. The Court concludes that it was not necessary to decide that issue in Minor. Wong Kim Ark more directly addresses the issue of who is “natural-born” although it is acknowledged that neither of these cases involved the use of the term in connection with a presidential candidate and the unique Constitutional requirements for holding that office. Nevertheless, the Wong Kim Ark ruling certainly goes very far in defining the term and its meaning in this country. And the decision does not suggest that the common law rule identified therein only applied at the state level and not on a national basis, as counsel here claim.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Why does Judge Masin go from talking about not say “in words” to “some authorities,” omitting from his presentation everything that Minor said in between? Why did he completely omit the language from Minor that defines a natural born citizen? Why did he completely omit the language from the Court that informs that the Framer relied upon the common law to define a natural born citizen and that under that common law a natural born citizen was defined as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens? Why does he write as though Minor did not decide any issue at all regarding citizenship? Why does he not discuss at all how Minor defined a natural born citizen? Why does he then say that Minor did not involve the use of the term natural born citizen in connection with presidential eligibility, suggesting now that Minor did use the natural born clause in some way, but never addressing in what way Minor may have used the clause? Is there a use of the natural born citizen clause that does not apply to presidential eligibility? Why does ALJ Masin proceed as though Minor never mentioned one word about a natural born citizen, but then states that Wong Kim Ark did address “the issue” and defined the clause? Finally, I argued in my brief that the colonial English common law that Wong Kim Ark analyzed only applied in the states and not at the national level. ALJ Masin finds that Wong Kim Ark does not suggest that the English common law rule applied only in the states and not also at the national level. But he does not provide any evidence and explanation of the Wong Kim Ark decision which shows that the colonial English common law which the Court analyzed applied to the national government.

Since you have for years told me how ALJ Masin’s decision shows that I am wrong, I figured you would be in position to defend his decision by answering the above questions. Your well-stated defense of ALJ Masin’s decision on these points would go to support your own position on the meaning of Minor and Wong Kim Ark which would also work toward demonstrating that you are correct and I am wrong.

Are you up for this challenge?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

An interesting exchange between Obot Bob and Mario Apuzzo at Café Con Leche Republicans:

You [Bob] said: “Zounds, Apuzzo! I never said you said ‘legal ban.’ Lies within lies! You lied when [sic] told a federal court that travel to Pakistan (which, n.b., is not Syria) ‘was prohibited.’ And ‘Prohibited’ is not the same as ‘prohibitive.’ Just like ‘admissible [sic] doesn’t mean ‘admitted.’”

So let me understand this. You do one of your usual retreats in order to redefine in order to escape. You said that you never said that I said there was a legal ban on travel to Pakistan but you insist that I said that an average American was prohibited from traveling to Pakistan for some legal reason. Now, Bob, really? I do not think that works very well for you. Like I said, it is so much fun catching Obots and their ilk in lies.

I have “n.b” that Pakistan is not Syria. So what? I’m surprised that you also did not tell us that 1981 is not 2014. You really are astute.

And as far as your little Obot word game with “admissible” and “admitted,” you can talk about admissible evidence all you want, but if it is not admitted by a court as evidence as part of the record, it is not evidence in a court of law. Obama has yet to present any admissible evidence to any court. Hence, there does not exist yet any evidence in the record of any court in the United States proving who he is and where and when he was born. I just love how when the Obots are caught in errors or lies, they retreat and redefine the terms they used so as to give the impression that they had a different argument from the one that has been demonstrated to be erroneous or a fabrication.

You [Bob] said: “I know of no such obligation for a court to explain its reasons. You lied when you said a constitution obligated such an explanation.”

It really is silly for you to maintain that our republican constitutions do not obligate a court to explain the reasons for its decisions. How do you expect the rule of law to work if no one knows what the law is? How do you expect anyone to know that the law is if the court does not clearly and thoroughly articulate what the law is? How do you expect the whole notion of binding precedent and stare decisis (what we call “the law”) to work if a court does not find the facts from the evidence that is in the record, find the applicable law, and give its analysis as to how that law applies to those facts? How do you expect a reviewing court to review what a lower court did (that it got the facts and law right and reasonably applied that law to those facts) unless that lower court produces such a record which is the only thing the reviewing court has to review? How do you expect the public to know that the court got it right if the public is not able to know how the court arrived at its decision which can only be done if the public is able to analyze for itself how the court arrived at its decision? Each one of these questions is pregnant with the answer.

Additionally, thank you for conceding what I have been arguing for a long time that the several lower courts which ruled on the merits of the definition of a natural born citizen and that Obama meets that definition because, without more, according to the court he was born in the United States, did not find the fact of his birth in the United States based on evidence in the record which proves even by a preponderance of the evidence that Obama was born in the United States, did not find and analyze all the applicable history and law applicable to the question of the definition of a natural born citizen, and did not provide a reasoned analysis for their conclusions that Obama was born in the United States and is an Article II natural born citizen.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

You said: “That some ‘Obots’ (whatever that means) had said that some birthers are racists doesn’t mean that I’ve ever said that you are a racist. You need a refresher in set theory.”

You have been running your crooked mouth for 6 years now, spouting your nonsense in defense of your constitutionally baseless claim that Barack Obama is an Article II natural born citizen, you are part of the juvenile gang at the Fogbow, you have been commenting here at the Café Con Leche Republicans, you have been following my blog for years, and you do not know what an Obot is? Now really Obot Bob? In case you have been living in la-la land all these years, may I suggest to you that you consult the Urban Dictionary on the meaning of “Obot.” That dictionary has a wonderful selection of various meanings for the word. I think such an approach will work better for you rather than just telling us that you do not know what it means.

There is no right without a duty. The Obots have for almost 6 years publicly published that I am a racist. You are an Obot. Therefore you are tagged with saying that I am a racist. You cannot expect to operate as an Obot operative under the cover of anonymity and then say that you did not say what other Obots said. By proceeding anonymously, you refuse to accept your moral and legal duty to be accountable for what you say. With no such duty on your part, you do not get any right to disclaim what Obots say. Until you prove who you are and link who you are to all your past public comments in the blogosphere leveled against me, you, an Obot, said that I am a racist.

Furthermore, you can dish it out but you cannot take it. You paint birthers with a broad brush. But you do not want to be painted with a broad brush. I feel so sorry you. . . .

I am not the one who needs a refresher in set theory. Your comment should be directed to Slartibartfast, who did not know the answer to the question of whether the relationship between “natural born citizens” and “citizens” is best described by stating that the former is a “proper subset” of the latter, or a “subset” of the latter. Clearly the answer is “proper subset.” You might also want to remind Bryan Gene Olson that he conceded with great pride many times over that “natural born citizens” is a “proper subset” of “born citizens.”

Poor Bob. He just keeps trying and trying to find relevance, but he just keeps failing and failing. But then that is only typical of the Obot world.

Unknown said...

It is stunning our fraud cic has admitted no evidence to a court showing a legit bc, social and selective service application. Reading the plain statement in minor and article 2 plus the forgerys should scare all decent Americans that the game is rigged. Most people are indifferent and too brain dead to care which does not say much for our country

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

From Café Con Leche Republican:

Bob Quasius (I presume a person different from “Bob”) in this thread argues that Senator Ted Cruz is an Article II “natural born citizen” and therefore eligible to be President. He also argues that de facto President Barack Obama is a natural born citizen and also so eligible. To determine if Bob, is correct, we have to know what the definition of a natural born citizen is.

There are many sources to which one can look for the definition of the clause. I have mentioned these sources in my comments both here, in articles and comments on my blog, and in my briefs to the courts. In your comment, you have focused on a dictionary definition of the clause. As you pointed out, Black’s Law Dictionary defines a “natural born citizen” as: “A person born within the jurisdiction of a national government.”

The question then becomes what does born within the jurisdiction of a national government mean. In answering this question, we are to understand that words, phrases, or even concepts can have one meaning for one purpose and another meaning for another purpose. In other words, there exist distinctions created by the purpose for which words, terms, phrases, and concepts are used which must be understood when defining them in any specific context. An example of this concept is national character. For purposes of commercial activity, it may be established by mere residence with intent to make that place one’s domicile. James Kent, Kent’s Commentaries on International Law, ch. V, p. 194-215 (2nd ed. 1877). But for domestic purposes not connected to commerce, mere domicile cannot create a national character.

The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor, relying upon common law whose foundation was the law of nations and not the English common law, held with respect to an Article II natural born citizen (not to be confused with a “citizen of the United States” from the moment of birth under the Fourteenth Amendment), born within the jurisdiction of a government means born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Minor v. Happersett (1875). For purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, Minor also explained that “there have been doubts” whether a child “born within the jurisdiction” of the United States was a citizen from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873) had stated that they were not. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, relying upon the English common law (not Minor’s common law which had its foundation in the law of nations) as an aid to interpret the citizenship part of the Fourteenth Amendment, held that children who were born in the United States to alien parents who were permanently domiciled and resident and neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders were born “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. While the Court held that these children were citizens from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, it did not hold that they were Article II “natural born citizens” which Minor explained were defined under the common law the nomenclature with which the Framers were familiar and which had its foundation in the law of nations.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

We have seen that, to understand Black’s Law Dictionary reference to “born within the jurisdiction of a national government,” it is critical to know how one comes to be born within that jurisdiction. If a child is born in the United States to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth, the child is born within the jurisdiction of the United States. Born under such circumstances, the child is born subject to the full legal, political, and military jurisdiction of the United States. The child is born in allegiance, faith, and loyalty only to the United States and not subject to any foreign power. Hence, such a child is a natural born citizen. Minor v. Happersett. If a child is 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, the child is also born within the jurisdiction of the United States. Born under such circumstances, the child is born subject to the laws of the United States, but not subject to the full political and military jurisdiction of the United States. Such a child is not born only in allegiance to the United States and not subject to any foreign power. Such child is also born the citizen or subject of the nation of his or her alien parent. Hence, such a child is a “citizen of the United States” “at birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment and 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a), but not an Article II natural born citizen. Wong Kim Ark.

Hence, in defining a natural born citizen, “born within the jurisdiction of a national government” means born in the United States to parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

If a child is born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents, the child is not born within the jurisdiction of the United States. Born under such circumstances, the child is not born subject to the legal, political, or military jurisdiction of the United States. A child is born subject to the foreign power upon whose soil the child is born. However, through naturalization Acts of Congress, that child is made a “citizen of the United States” “at birth.” Wong Kim Ark; Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971). Not born in the United States and in the case of birth to one alien parent, nor born to two U.S. citizen parents, such child is not a natural born citizen.

Cruz, like Senator John McCain, was not born in the United States. He was born in Canada to a non-U.S. citizen father and a U.S. citizen mother. But unlike John McCain, his parents were not both U.S. citizens and were also not serving the national defense of the United States. So while John McCain is a natural born citizen for being reputed born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents, Ted Cruz is not because he was not born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. He was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a Cuban father, who even if they were both U.S. citizens were not serving the U.S. national defense. Hence, Senator Ted Cruz, while he is a citizen of the United States “at birth” under a naturalization Act of Congress, is disqualified from being a natural born citizen and thereby eligible to be President.

De facto President Barack Obama is also not a natural born citizen. He was allegedly born in the United States. But he was born to an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother. Hence, he, like Ted Cruz, was not born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of this birth. Failing to satisfy Minor’s common law definition of the clause, he is not a natural born citizen.

Justin said...

Shouldn't there be someone who has been convicted under an Obama law that would have standing to challenge his eligibility? Maybe with some crowd sourcing and some crowd funding a case can be brought.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


I of II

At Cafe Con Leche Republicans, Mr. Olson continues his defense of Obama and Cruz. Here is my response to him:

Bryan Gene Olson,

I hope for your sake that you really do not believe that you are saying anything that is responsive to the historical and legal sources which I have cited and discussed to prove 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. It is only the person who is born in the country of which both of his or her parents are members and citizens at the time of his or her birth who is born only in allegiance to that one and only same nation. This unity of citizenship and allegiance occurs because a child born under such circumstances cuts off the claim of foreign nations to his or her citizenship and allegiance through jus sanguinis (rights and duties inherited by blood) and jus soli (rights and obligations acquired by being born in a country). Among the many sources that I have cited and analyzed you will find Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) and the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision of Minor v. Happersett (1875). See also U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (cited favorably to Minor's American constitutional and national common law definition of a natural born citizen and distinguished a natural born citizen under that definition from a "citizen of the United States" at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment). Nothing that you have presented has overcome the authority and strength of those sources and the reasoning they provide on the question of the meaning of an Article II natural born citizen.

These historical and legal sources and their rationale all demonstrate that de facto President, Barack Obama, allegedly born in the U.S., but to a non-U.S. citizen father and U.S. citizen mother, is not a natural born citizen and therefore not eligible to be President. Obama does not satisfy Minor's American constitutional and national common law definition of a natural born citizen because, while he may have been born in the United States, he was not born to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. Being born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of birth is necessary so that the President and Commander in Chief of the Military is born only in allegiance to the United States, a quality which the Founders and Framers required of all future Presidents and Commanders of our armed forces. Because Obama was not born in sole allegiance to the United States, but rather also in allegiance to Great Britain and Kenya, he is not a natural born citizen of the Untied States.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Concerning whether Senator Ted Cruz is a natural born citizen and eligible to be President, apart from the sources that I have provided, Black’s Law Dictionary states that Article II’s natural born citizen clause excludes from being eligible to be President a person born out of the United States. You said that Black’s Law Dictionary is the most authoritative dictionary used by our federal and state courts. Hence, relying on your own authority, Ted Cruz, is not a natural born citizen and not eligible to be President. Unlike Senator John McCain who was born in Panama to a U.S. citizen father and U.S. citizen mother who were serving the U.S. national defense and hence making him reputed born in the United States (see Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 217, where he explains the concept of one being "reputed born" in a country) and born in sole allegiance to the United States, Cruz was born in Canada to a non-U.S. citizen father and U.S. citizen mother who were in that foreign country for private purposes and not serving the U.S. national defense. Cruz was born in allegiance to Canada, Cuba, and the United States. He was not born in sole allegiance to the United States. Hence, Cruz is not, like McCain is, a natural born citizen and eligible to be President.

If you have anything new to offer, please provide it. Otherwise, it has become evident that to continue to discuss this matter with you has become a waste of time.

ajtelles said...

John Jay had a "wish"...
1/2
Mario,

Remember when I posted on your Puzo1 blog the 1781 letter from John Jay to a person named Del Campo about a British subject named Vaughan who had a British father and an American mother? He wanted to take the oath of allegiance to America in 1781. Jay's letter was written to a person named Del Campo in November 3, 1781, about five months after Jay wrote to Ben Franklin about Mr. Vaughan on May 31, 1781.

Your comment to Bryan Gene Olson and Slartibarfast (aka S...), on Cafe Con Leche on October 18, 2014 at 8:20 pm reminded me of John Jay's letter to Del Campo about the English subject Mr. Vaughan and Jay's first letter to Ben Franklin that included a comment about Mr. Vaughan.

Your comment to Bryan and S... is in the first paragraph -

>> "It makes absolutely no sense that a person could be a natural born citizen of each state to which he may change his residency.
>> "Natural born citizen status is acquired only one time and that is at the time of one’s birth.
>> "It is not acquired later in life as one may change residency from one state to another. "


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Letter from John Jay to Ben Franklin
May 31, 1781
>> http://franklinpapers.org/franklin/framedNames.jsp?ssn=001-66-0009
>> Click on the date "Thu, May 31, 1781" to read Jay's entire short letter to Franklin.

Jay concluded his letter to Franklin this way:

"I believe it to be the Inclination as well as the Interest of America to augment her Number of Citizens but still her Consent to admit a Foreigner must be as necessary as his consent to be admitted besides, it appears to me that an oath of Allegeance to the united States can with propriety be only administred to Servants of Congress—for tho a person may by Birth or admission become a Citizen of one of the States I cannot conceive how one can either be born or be made a Citizen of them all—I wish these Difficulties did not oppose my complying with the Request of Mr Vaughan whom I am the more desirous of servg as he appears to possess your Regard."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

>> "for tho a person may by Birth or admission become a Citizen of one of the States I cannot conceive how one can either be born or be made a Citizen of them all—I wish ... ."

Jay got his "wish" at the September, 1787 Constitutional Convention when his "hint" (i.e., suggestion) to Washington was accepted and adopted by the delegates that the Command in chief authority be bestowed only on a "natural born Citizen," and not as his friend Hamilton favored, a person merely "born a Citizen" of the entire Union.

In 1787 Jay wanted a higher hurdle of being born a "natural born" citizen of the Union instead of the lower hurdle of merely being "born a citizen" of the Union, i.e., merely a "native" of the Union.

This is the same "lower hurdle" that the Obama birthers promote and the nascent Cruz birthers are starting to promote today because some people like William Rawle in the 1820s and others since Rawle have "believed" and written that birth on U.S. soil with one or two alien parents made a person a "natural born Citizen." Rawle may have "believed" the zero ("0") U.S. citizen parent proposition, but the 1875 Happerset v Minor majority opinion Justices and the framers of the 14th Amendment did not.

ajtelles said...

John Jay had a "wish"...

2/2

Letter from John Jay to Del Campo
November 3, 1781
>> http://oll.libertyfund.org/index.php?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=2328&layout=html

"The gentleman’s father is an Englishman, his mother is an American; he himself was born I think in England; he means to become a citizen of and to settle in one of the United States, and is...."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

My original post was on June 19, 2014 at 12:23 AM.

Unity of citizenship ...

This indicates that in 1781, six years before "natural born Citizen" was adopted on September 17, 1787, the common law understanding of John Jay about the "unity of citizenship and allegiance" was that the citizenship of the husband determined the citizenship of the wife, AND the citizenship of BOTH parents determined the citizenship of the child.

The father was an Englishman, the mother was an American, and their son Mr. Vaughan was considered by Jay to be ONLY an Englishman who did NOT have dual citizenship. He was an Englishman and the subject of the English monarch, the son of an Englishman father who was a subject of the English monarch, and the son of an American citizen mother.

BOTH parents.

The "unity of citizenship and allegiance"—what a 1700s concept that is still applicable to the 2000s.

BOTH parents.

You responded on June 19, 2014 at 8:24 PM. Your entire elucidation of the significance of Jay's 1781 common law understanding of citizenship is informative, but it is long and in two parts, so here is only part of one paragraph.

"Art,

"I of II

"Thank you for sharing with us such a great find. I have the following comments on that letter of John Jay, the father of the natural born citizen clause.

"Jay’s letter to De Campo, Confidential Secretary to Florida Blanca at the Spanish Court, was written by Jay on November 3, 1781, before Congress passed its first naturalization act, the Naturalization Act of 1790. Jay’s letter goes to prove two things.

"First, the letter confirms that at common law a child born out of the United States (John Vaughan was born in England) to an alien father (British) who married a U.S. citizen mother was neither a natural born citizen nor a citizen of the United States. I assume that Mr. Vaughan’s parents were married from the tone of Jay’s letter. The letter shows that central figures of the Founding era were following the maxim partus sequitur patrem (children follow the condition or citizenship of the “father,” which under the doctrine that wives took on the citizenship of their husbands meant “parents.”) Hence, under the common law, born out of the United States to a citizen mother and an alien father was not sufficient to be accepted as a citizen, let alone a natural born citizen. ... ."

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the "Union"
The "Union" as clarified by Pres. Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

ajtelles (Art),

It is nice to hear from you again. By the way, since you have been away from my blog, I have not encountered any new evidence demonstrating that our position on the meaning of a natural born citizen is incorrect, i.e., 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); Minor v. Happersett (1875).

The Obots and their supporters basically just regurgitate the same old stuff, making up stories about how the Founders and Framers relied upon the English common law to define an Article II natural born citizen, how the Fourteenth Amendment defines an Article II natural born citizen, how Wong Kim Ark's holding goes to establishing not only what a "citizen" is under the Fourteenth Amendment, but also an Article II "natural born citizen," and how some modern-day commentators position on the meaning of a natural born citizen somehow has amended Article II's meaning of a natural born citizen.

The Obot position finds no support in the historical and legal record, reason, and logic and they know it. That is why they resort to an incessant repetition of name calling, demagoguery, historical revisionism, manipulation of information, and downright deceit.

ajtelles said...

Write on...

Mario,

I was this close, my thumb and index finger are 1/64 apart, from commenting on the Cafe Con Leche Republicans blog on the thread titled "Is Ted Cruz a Natural Born Citizen?", about wasting your time commenting there for the past few weeks to the 3 Obama birthers, aka, defenders of the Obama birth narrative that only one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient to make a child born on U.S. soil an 1787 Article II Section 1 Clause 5 "natural born Citizen," and they use the 1868 14th Amendment "citizen" designation as proof that BHObama is an AII S1 C5 nbC and eligible to be POTUS.

>> http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/#comment-48806

I was thinking that you were wasting your time responding to the host Bob Quasius and the two supreme time wasters Bryan Gene Olson (or as he identifies himself "FKA NotLinda") and Slartibartfast, aka S..., aka Kevin, because who cares to read Bob, Bryan and Kevin impugne your character and integrity.

They do not have relevant substance to refute the two U.S. citizen parents necessity as implied by John Jay in his note to George Washington that the Command in chief whould go to ONLY a "natural born Citizen" of the sovereigns of the republic, WE the People, i.e., the citizen parents who replaced the sovereign monarch of England.

Why was I so close to posting that you were wasting your time posting at Cafe Con Leche Republicans?

The 1868 14th Amendment is not necessary, in fact it is irrelevant, to identify an nbC if the child is born an 1787 nbC, born to two U.S. citizen parents who were citizens at the time of the child's birth on U.S. soil.

BHO definitely was not born with two U.S. citizen parents, and Sen. Ted Cruz, my favorite U.S. Senator and my Texas senator, is also definitely not born with two U.S. citizen parents on U.S. soil or U.S. jurisdiction elsewhere.

Mario, you are definitely not wasting your time responding to the Obama birthers there on Bob's blog, but your words are being wasted if they are only posted on there.

Your should post all of your comments on Cafe Con Leche Republicans to your Puzo1 blog, and definitely post your two recent excellent responses to Bryan about Breckinridge Long's argument against Charles Evans Hughes and to Kevin about Lynch v. Clarke and how the Supreme Court Minor v Happersett unanimous decision overruled the New York state court judge.

Who will read your excellent expositions on Cafe Con Leche Republicans if you don't also post them to your own blog?

Also, your long and excellent response to David Farrar on October 25, 2014 at 5:31 pm should be posted on your blog too.

"David,

"You are perfectly correct.

Like a natural born child,
a natural born citizen
needs no law like the Fourteenth Amendment or Act of Congress
to obtain his or her natural citizen status at the moment of birth. ... ."

So, Mario, "write on" on Cafe Con Leche Republicans and elsewhere.

And please also repost to your Puzo1 blog for the future go to reference point for future historians and authors because your words and your explications, as revealed in your comments to Bryan about Breckinridge Long and to Kevin about Lynch v. Clarke and to David Farrar about Sen. Ted Cruz, are definitely still needed as the "OUR GUY birthers", aka the "Cruz birthers" are gearing up to promote Sen. Cruz's eligibility to be POTUS , and maybe someday also the "Rubio birthers" and "Jindal birthers" and "Haley birthers" and etc. , or other future "OUR GUY birthers," Democratic, Republican or Independent.

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

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

David Farrar commented on Is Ted Cruz a Natural Born Citizen? At Café Con Leche Republicans:

“National character as incident to birth in a particular locality was the creature of feudal times and of military vassalage, and was described as jus soli; national character as the result of parentage was the rule adopted by freer peoples and more enlightened communities, and was designated jus sanguinis.”… Alexander Porter Morse, Albany Law Journal: (1904-1905)

ex animo
davidfarrar

Bryan Gene Olson responded:

“When the United States grandly affirmed jus soli in the 14’th Amendment and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, did that tend to make us a less free and enlightened nation, or more? Also, that case your guy Morse won — Plessy v. Ferguson — same question: Less free and enlightened or more?”

David Farrar now responds to Mr. Olson:

"I don’t know what you use to guide you in making these types of comparisons, i.e., which type of citizenship best suits our sense of freedom and liberty: jus soli, based on the Coken concept of perpetual allegiance without consent, or jus sanguinis, based on the Lockean concept of consent-base citizenship, but I use the l’Esprit de la Révolution, as articulated by the Declaration of Independence, which is probably how AP Morse arrived at his conclusion that jus sanguinis
was a product of a more freer peoples and more enlightened communities."

ex animo
davidfarrar

MichaelN said...

Mario, Now the senate is majority Republican, it might be time to alert the US Congress and Senate of Jack Maskell's deception on the meaning of Article II "natural born Citizen".

ajtelles said...

Article V...

MichaelN said...

Mario, Now the senate is majority Republican, it might be time to alert the US Congress and Senate of Jack Maskell's deception on the meaning of Article II "natural born Citizen".

Mario,

With 100% agreement with MichaelN, I want to add, now that the U.S. Congress is in the hands of the Republicans who ridiculed WE the People who are Taxed Enough Already people, and Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Sen. Mike Lee of Utah, it might be time to have an Article V convention of state legislatures to clarify the constitution in A2 S1 C5 to alert and educate all of WE the People of the Obama birther's and Jack Maskell's one-U.S.-citizen-parent-is-good-'nuf error before more "OUR GUY birthers" try to promote a POTUS candidate who has dual citizenship, whether born on U.S. soil as Obama was with a non-U.S. citizen father, or born on foreign soil not under U.S. jurisdiction as Sen. Cruz was and also with a non-U.S. citizen father.

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

ajtelles said...

Repost here too...

Mario, a few minutes ago I read your November 4, 2014 at 11:10 am reply to, as you wrote on November 3, 2014 at 6:13 am, Slartibartfast a/k/a Mr. Fallacy,

Slartibartfast,

As usual, you are mixed up again. You said in response to my point about children who are born in the United States to illegal alien parents: “It is perfectly clear that, in a scenario where a US citizen child leaves because its parents are deported, the child can return to the US (Perkins v. Elg) and even run for president.”

Mario, you continue with:

Perkins is inapposite to your incorrect position that children born in the United States to alien parents are natural born citizens. If anything, it supports my position that only children born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents are natural born citizens.

"In Perkins v. Elg, 307 U.S. 325 (1939), the Court stated the facts as follows: ...."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario, your entire exposition to aka Mr. Fallacy about Perkins v. Elg on November 4, 2014 at 11:10 am should also be reposted here onto your own blog so that future historians and authors will need only one go-to-source for their research. You should also post your entire comments on November 2, 2014 at 2:31 pm to Bryan about Breckinridge Long and Charles Evans Hughes, and also your comments November 1, 2014 at 3:55 pm to Kevin about Lynch v. Clarke.

If the future historians want to read how the Obama birthers defend jus soli trumping jus sanguinis, instead of both being a natural law necessity, and if future historians want to read the defense of ONLY one U.S. citizen parent written by the Obama birthers, because Obama ONLY had ONE U.S. citizen parent at birth, well, they can go to Cafe Con Leche Republicans or Fogbow or ObamaConspiracy.org or et alli and read what the Obama birthers write there.

But Mario, you should also repost your entire comments here on your own blog after posting on Cafe Con Leche Republicans and elsewhere.

I'll still go to Cafe Con Leche Republicans and read the "Is Ted Cruz a Natural Born Citizen" thread, but I will never post there myself for two reasons. (1) It is a waste of my time. Although my words are not as historically significant as your explications and expositions about nbC, I do not want my words wasted in the land of make believe, aka the land where only one U.S. citizen parent is sufficent to make a person eligible to be POTUS. (2) Your Puzo1 blog will be the "natural born Citizen" blog of record in the future, not Bob Quasius' Cafe Con Leche Republicans, or Fogbow or ObamaConspiracy.org.

If Leo Donofrio ever pushes himself away from the poker table, I hope AFTER winning a ton of money, and continues with his NaturalBornCitizen.wordpress.com blog, there will be two "natural born Citizen" go-to-learn-about-nbC blogs for future historians to do research. For now there is only Puzo1.blogspot.com. CDR Kerchner's blogs, CDRKerchner.wordpress.com, and Protect Our Liberty at kerchner.com/protectourliberty/protectourliberty.htm are very informative also, but with a different purpose.

Puzo1.blogspot.com is where people in the future will come to become informed about the John Jay 1787 common sense union in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the natural law union of jus soli and jus sanguinis. Puzo1 is where historians will come to do "natural born Citizen" research to reach the obvious conclusion that two U.S. citizen parents are the natural law necessity to fulfill John Jay's "natural born Citizen" implied presuppositions about nationality and citizenship, birth in the country to parents who were citizens before their child is born inside the country, or in areas under U.S. jurisdiction when the parents are performing their U.S. Government assigned duties.


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

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

An Article II natural born citizen is a born citizen by nature, not a born citizen by law. This means that any born citizen who does not need any positive law for the status is an Article II natural born citizen. Any born citizen who needs a positive law such as the Fourteenth Amendment or Act of Congress for the status is not an Article II natural born citizen.

Virginia Minor in Minor v. Happersett (1875), who needed no law for her born citizen status, was a natural born citizen. Wong Kim Ark in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), who needed the Fourteenth Amendment for his born citizen status, was a born citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment, but not an Article II natural born citizen.

De facto President, Barack Obama (assuming he was born in the United States), who needs the Fourteenth Amendment for his born citizen status, and Senator Ted Cruz, who needs a naturalization Act of Congress for his born citizen status, are born citizens, but they are not Article II natural born citizens.

thalightguy said...

Thank you Mario, you are absolutely right. Neither Obama nor Cruz is a “natural born Citizen”. Thus neither is constitutionally eligible to be President. Hence, Obama is not the President he’s only usurping the Presidency.

It is amazing how some (Glenn Beck for example) still call Ted Cruz a “Potential 2016 Presidential Candidate”, even after being presented with Supreme Court precedent that proves he’s a U.S. by naturalization.

See: Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961)

Syllabus

Petitioner's mother is a native-born citizen of the United States, and his father is an Italian citizen who has never been naturalized. They were married in the United States, and their marital relationship has never been terminated. Petitioner was born in Italy in 1906, while his parents were residing there temporarily, and his mother brought him to the United States later in the same year. He has since resided continuously in the United States, and has never been naturalized.
Held: Petitioner is not a citizen of the United States. Pp. 366 U. S. 309-315.

And See: Miller v. Albright 523 U.S. 420 (1998)

id. at 453 (Scalia, J., concurring in the judgment) (The Constitution "contemplates two sources of citizenship, and two only: birth and naturalization." United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U. S. 649, 702 (1898). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, "[e]very person born in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, becomes at once a citizen of the United States, and needs no naturalization." Ibid. Petitioner, having been born outside the territory of the United States, is an alien as far as the Constitution is concerned, and "can only become a citizen by being naturalized, either by treaty, as in the case of the annexation of foreign territory; or by authority of Congress." Id., at 702-703; see also Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U. S. 815, 827 (1971). Here it is the "authority of Congress" that is appealed toits power under Art. I, § 8, cl. 4, to "establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization." If there is no congressional enactment granting petitioner citizenship, she remains an alien.)

ajtelles said...

1/2

Mario,

On November 14, 2014 at 5:35 pm on Cafe Con Lech Republicans (CafeConLecheRepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/#comment-48806 ), you responded to Slartibartfast, aka Kevin, Phd mathematician, with articulate common sense, again, about the original intent of "natural born Citizen" as implied by John Jay in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington, as incorrectly applied by the first Congress in 1790 in Washington's first administration, and accurately corrected and applied by the third Congress in 1795 in Washington's second administration with (see item #7 below) James Madison, "father of the U.S. Constitution" in 1787 and fourth President, as a sitting Representative in the third Congress.

Slartibartfast,

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
>> "Origin of name -

>> "Douglas Adams writes in the notes accompanying the published volume of original radio scripts that he wanted Slartibartfast's name to sound very rude, but still actually be broadcastable. He therefore started with the name "Phartiphukborlz", and changed bits of it until it would be acceptable to the BBC."

See at Wikipedia - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slartibartfast – a character in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

[...] you continuously speak about a natural born citizen being any citizen at birth. But you have yet to provide any historical or legal evidence that the Founders and Framers adopted such a definition. Actually, your theory is pretty ridiculous given that the Framers wrote “natural born citizen” into the Constitution.

Surely, they would not have had any need to use the word “natural” if all they required was a born citizen.

[...] Just repeating ... the Naturalization Act of 1790 provided that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents “shall be considered as natural born citizens” does not help you.

You do not address these facts:

(1) the Constitution in matters of citizenship gives to Congress only the power to naturalize, which on its face does not include the power to make anyone a natural born citizen (Congress cannot make natural born children);

(2) The Naturalization Act of 1790 was just that, a naturalization act;

(3) the 1790 Act was passed after the Constitution was passed;

(4) the Act was only retroactive. It was passed to provide for children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents during the troubles of the American Revolution;

(5) the Constitution cannot be amended by statute, but rather by duly ratified constitutional amendment;

(6) the Act’s text only said that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents “shall be considered as natural born citizens.” This is nothing more than naturalization language;

(7) then-Representative James Madison with the approval of George Washington removed “shall be considered as natural born citizens” and replaced it with “shall be considered as citizens of the United States” in the Naturalization Act of 1795.

You maintain that this alteration did not change the meaning of the Naturalization Act of 1790.

If the alteration did not produce any change in the 1790 Act, then do entertain us with your explanation on why the Third Congress and President Washington surgically removed “natural born citizen” from the 1790 Act and replaced it with “citizen of the United States” in the 1795 Act?;

ajtelles said...

2/2

(8) Congress never again used the clause “natural born citizens” in any of its naturalization Acts, including that which makes Senator Cruz a U.S. citizen; and

(9) Congress’s naturalization acts act upon, meaning they reach with its naturalizing power, persons born in all types of circumstances except those who are born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents. Hence these are the natural born citizens, for they need no naturalization.

As I have explained, the early naturalization acts (1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855) are incontrovertible evidence that a natural born citizen is a child born in the United States to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

By examining these acts and by a process of elimination, we can arrive at the conclusion that the only child or person Congress did not act or potentially act upon with its naturalization power was a child born in the United States to parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

As to the requirement to be born in the country, these acts were needed to naturalize as citizens alien born children born out of the United States (the 1790 Act said they “shall be considered as natural born citizens” and the 1795 Act repealed that language and said they “shall be considered as citizens of the United States”).

If children were born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents, Congress was willing to give them grace and consider them as having been born as citizens.

If those foreign born children were not born to U.S. citizen parents, those children could become citizens only after their birth, either derivatively through their parents upon the parents’ naturalization or through their own naturalization petition filed by them after becoming adults.

The Acts also reveal that simply being born in the United States was also not sufficient to gain birthright citizenship.

The Acts treated children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and in need of naturalization which at best would make them a citizen after birth.

So, it is evident the Acts were not needed to make one a citizen if that person was born in the United States to citizen parents.

That child did not need the naturalization Acts to gain any type of citizenship status, whether at birth or after birth, because that child was a natural born citizen.

I have repeatedly reminded you of these factors, but you simply ignore them and just repeat your same one-line nonsense.

I have yet to see you provide any explanation on why Madison removed “shall be considered as natural born citizens” (removed from the 1790 Act) and replace it with “shall be considered as citizens of the United States” (inserted in the 1795 Act). Why do you not entertain us with your explanation?

[...]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario, Kevin has never responded with what he thinks John Jay was implying by underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his one and only note to George Washington in 1787 about the "Command in chief" of the military being reserved only for children born with singular U. S. Citizenship, not dual citizenship, only four years after Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay signed the Treaty of Paris with England in 1783.

1- Did Jay imply birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents? (All Presidents except CAArthur and BHObama)
2- Did Jay imply birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent? (Sen. BHObama)
3- Did Jay imply birth on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents? (Sen. Marco Rubio and Gov. Bobby Jindal)

4- Did Jay imply birth on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents?
5- Did Jay imply birth on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parents? (Sen. Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz)
6- Did Jay imply birth on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizen parents?


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

The "Union" as identified by Pres. Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

ajtelles,

Thanks so much for posting my comments at Cafe Con Leche Republicans here at my blog.

Did you see Slartibartfast's response to my questions to him regarding then-Representative James Madison, President George Washington, and the early naturalization Acts?

I cannot believe that he really believes that he is responding to my questions in any meaningful way. What he does is cut and paste pieces here and there and put them all together in a way that he thinks is a real response. He really does not answer to anything, but rather just repackages the same superficial bunk that he is so accustomed to write.

ajtelles said...

James Madison said nothin' significant...

Mario, you asked

>> "Did you see Slartibartfast's response to my questions to him regarding then-Representative James Madison, President George Washington, and the early naturalization Acts? "

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Of course, if James Madison, the recognized father of the U.S. Constitution, a Third Congress Representative and 4th U.S. President had said something significant that would contradict the John Jay birthers birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents position and would support the Obama birther's position that birth on U.S. soil, or on foreign soil not under U.S. jurisdiction, to only one U.S. citizen parent was sufficient to make a person eligible to be POUTS, Slartibartfast, aka Kevin, Phd mathematician, would have said so. Right?

Mario, your 1st James Madison comment to Kevin -

(7) then-Representative James Madison with the approval of George Washington removed “shall be considered as natural born citizens” and replaced it with “shall be considered as citizens of the United States” in the Naturalization Act of 1795.

Kevin's 1st James Madison non-response -

Now Madison removed it with Washington’s approval… what dreck.

You have no idea what the circumstances of the change was—who made it or whether or not President Washington even noticed.

On the other hand, I’ve got the SCOTUS in Minor saying that, despite the change in wording, there was no change in meaning. Once again, begging the question: Mario; historical and legal evidence: me.


Mario, your 2nd James Madison comment -

You maintain that this alteration did not change the meaning of the Naturalization Act of 1790.

If the alteration did not produce any change in the 1790 Act, then do entertain us with your explanation on why the Third Congress and President Washington surgically removed “natural born citizen” from the 1790 Act and replaced it with “citizen of the United States” in the 1795 Act?;


Kevin's 2nd James Madison non-response -

I don’t have to.

I just accept the word of the SCOTUS in Minor.

Are you unwilling to consider Minor a credible citation?


Mario, your 3rd James Madison comment to Kevin -

I have yet to see you provide any explanation on why Madison removed “shall be considered as natural born citizens” (removed from the 1790 Act) and replace it with “shall be considered as citizens of the United States” (inserted in the 1795 Act).

Why do you not entertain us with your explanation?


Kevin's 3rd non-response -

Look, I’m not the one who thinks that the change wasn’t significant—the SCOTUS in Minor was.

Once again, your characterization of “Madison removed” is highly disingenuous and indicative of a weak argument in general.


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario, where's the beef in Kevin's non-response?

His response is more like gristle and definitely not entertaining.

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

The "Union" as clarified by President Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861

Ray said...

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Robert Schnider, now retired, in 2004, acknowledging that the resulting publicity from the disclosure of salacious details would be harmful to the couple's son, and over the couple's objections, found that "in the end the balance tips slightly to the public" and unsealed the divorce records of Jack and Jeri Lynn Ryan. Jack Ryan was a candidate for U.S. Senate and Obama's opponent.

Contrast with the numerous Court proceedings concerning the eligibility of Barack H. Obama for President in which plaintiffs were told they lacked standing.

In the first instance a candidate's character flaws were found to be in the "public interest". In the second instance a candidate's identity, citizenship, and eligibility were not to be questioned.

The Chicago Tribune sought the unsealing of the Ryans' divorce records. What was their standing?

ajtelles said...

Impossible...
1/3
Mario,

It is absolutely 100% impossible for a 1787 Article II Section 1 Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" to renounce "dual" citizenship because an nbC does not have "dual" citizenship. A "singular" citizenship is not a subset, proper or otherwise, of a "dual" citizenship, and of course a "dual" citizenship is not a subset, proper or otherwise, of a "singular" citizenship.

A big 21st century thank you to Dred Scott.

God bless Dred Scott's memory and the influence today of his court challenge to set the record straight about his inclusion in the nation of "WE the People" as a fellow and free citizen. His court challenge was a failure at the time but it became a historical success when it was actualized by Pres. Lincoln and the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery of men and women of all races; followed by the 14th Amendment allowing citizenship for husbands and their wives of all races; followed by the 15th Amendment allowing the national vote for males of every race; followed by the 19th Amendment allowing the national vote for females of every race.

"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." Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393, 476 (1856)

That SCOTUS Scott v. Sanford decision quote, specifically "...of parents who are citizens", means that one year after the February 10, 1855 act of Congress, when the wife could naturalize to become a U.S. citizen and acquire the U.S. citizenship status of her husband, it still took two singular U.S. citizen parents to produce a singular U.S. citizen child.

The "... of parents who are citizens" explicit statement of the court, tangentially and tacitly affirming the "singular" U.S. citizenship of both parents passing on to their child "singular" U.S. citizen status, and tacitly excluding "dual" citizenship, is why ALL of the U.S. Presidents are eligible to be POTUS except for #21 Arthur and #44 Obama—dual citizenship.

From Prologue Magazine, Summer 1998, Vol. 30, No. 2 – Archives.gov., paragraph #5 -
>> http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/1998/summer/women-and-naturalization-1.html


"The act of February 10, 1855, was designed to benefit immigrant women. Under that act, '[a]ny woman who is now or may hereafter be married to a citizen of the United States, ' Thus alien women generally became U.S. citizens by marriage to a U.S. citizen or through an alien husband's naturalization."

It is absolutely 100% impossible for two "singular" U.S. citizen parents to produce a "dual" citizen child, and it does not matter where or when the child is born, according to the naturalization statues of 1790, 1795, 1802, 1804,1855, 1907, 1922 Married Women's Act, aka Cable Act after it's author, 1924, 1940, 1952, 2011.

The Immigration and Nationality Act (2011) – LawandSoftware.com

>> http://www.lawandsoftware.com/
>> http://www.lawandsoftware.com/ina/
>> http://www.lawandsoftware.com/ina/INA-toc.html

>> http://www.lawandsoftware.com/blog/

It is absolutely 100% impossible for one U.S. citizen parent married to one non-U.S. citizen parent to produce a "singular" U.S. citizen child, and it at does not matter where or when the child is born.

That is why my favorite U.S. Senator and my Texas senator, Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz, born to a U.S. citizen and a Cuban citizen in British Canada is not a "natural born Citizen" of the USA and is not eligible to be POTUS.

ajtelles said...

Impossible...
2/3
It is absolutely 100% impossible for two non-U.S. citizen parents to produce a "singular" U.S. citizen child, and it does not matter where or when the child is born.

That is why Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Gov. Nikki Haley are not natural born citizens of the USA and are not eligible to be POTUS.

_Republican Texas Senator Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz - born on foreign soil to one US citizen parent.
_Republican Florida Senator Marco Antonio Rubio - born on US soil to two non-US citizen parents.
_Republican Louisana Governor Piyush "Bobby" Jindal - born on US soil to two non-US citizen parents.
_Republican South Carolina Governor Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley - born on US soil to two non-US citizen parents.

A "singular" U.S. citizen child who is a "natural born Citizen" definitely does not need to renounce "dual" citizenship and thus become an nbC by oath, as Sen. Cruz did this year of 2014 when he renounced his Canadian citizenship to retain only his U.S. citizenship.

Conclusion:

Was John Jay implying that a "natural born Citizen" could renounce "dual" citizenship when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his courtesy note to George Washington in 1787? In that courtesy note, only four years after Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay signed the Treaty of Paris in 1873 formally ending the war of independence from England, Jay "hinted", aka "suggested", in his explicit words that the "Command in chief" of the military was to be reserved only, and "only" means ONLY, for US born children who would be born with "singular" U.S. citizenship, not "dual" citizenship.

What do the Obama birthers and Cruz birthers and Rubio birthers and Jindal birthers and Haley birthers and any future Republican birthers or Democratic birthers or Libertarian birthers or Independent birthers, who may try to promote their "MY GUY" birther candidate or "MY GAL" birther candidate, think that John Jay, future first Supreme Court Chief Justice, was implying in 1787 with "natural born Citizen" when the nbC status was obviously originally intended to apply to ALL of "our posterity" from 1787 into perpetuity, generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS?

1- Did Jay only imply that nbC meant birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents?
All Presidents were nbC except for #21 Chester Alan Arthur and #44 Barack Hussein Obama

These 8 U.S. Presidents were grandfathered into POTUS eligibility as "citizens" and not as "natural born Citizens" -

_#1 George Washington
_#2 John Adams
_#3 Thomas Jefferson
_#4 James Madison
_#5 James Monroe
_#6 John Quincy Adams
_#7 Andrew Jackson
_#9 William Henry Harrison

_#8 Martin Van Buren, born 1782, six years after the "naturalization" date of July 4, 1776, was the first "natural born Citizen" elected POTUS, and did not need to be "grandfathered" into "citizen" or nbC status.

_#10 John Tyler, born 1790, four years after the "adoption" of the 1787 Constitution, was the second nbC and did not need to be "grandfathered" into "citizen" or nbC status.

_#21 Arthur and #44 Obama could not be "grandfathered" into POTUS eligibility as "citizens" since they came into existence after September 17, 1787 with "dual" citizenship status, and the last "citizen" who could have been grandfathered into POTUS eligibility died sometime in the 1800s.

ajtelles said...

Impossible...

3/3
2- Did Jay also imply that nbC meant birth on U.S. soil to also one U.S. citizen parent?
Vice Pres./Pres. CAArthur, and Sen./Pres. BHObama

Even if BHOs putative U.S. citizen mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, had produced a child with a U.S. citizen father to whom she was not married, for example, either U.S. citizen Frank Marshall Davis or U.S. citizen Malcom X or U.S. citizen whomever, that child still could not be an nbC since passage of the 1922 Married Women's Act (the Cable Act), the intent of which was affirmed by succeeding immigration and naturalization statutes since 1922, because, while two unmarried U.S. citizens can produce a "citizen" child, the "illegitimate" child could not be a "natural born Citizen" child in fulfillment of the original intent of the common law of the 1780s and the implications of "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 when marriage was expected for "legitimacy" of birth in the 1700s and for their posterity, "WE the Posterity" in the 1800s, 1900s, 2000s.

3- Did Jay also imply that nbC meant birth on U.S. soil to also zero U.S. citizen parents?
Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Gov. Nikki Haley.

4- Did Jay also imply that nbC meant birth on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents?
1790 Naturalization Act, a statute that was repealed and corrected by another statute, the 1795 Naturalization Act which was affirmed by succeeding acts of Congress.

5- Did Jay also imply that nbC meant birth on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent?
Sen. Rafael Edward "Ted" Cruz, at least at this point in time.

6- Did Jay also imply that nbC meant birth on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizen parents?
Some advocates of naturalizing adopted children into POTUS eligibility are calling for the adopted children to be "grandfathered" into "citizen" status and eligible to be POTUS similar to the way that the founders and framers of the U.S. Constitution were grandfatherd into POTUS eligibility. Also, the adoptive parents are to be U.S. citizens before the children are adopted.

This must NOT be allowed, considering the intent of some religious-political ideologues who want to impose an ancient religious law code that is intended to bring the U.S. Constitution into submission to the ancient religious law code, and the intent of political ideologues who want to "transform" the United States of America from a free thinker individualist republic into a central thought control collectivist commune.

The adoption option would allow religious supremacists who are U.S. citizens or political supremacists who are U.S. citizens to "adopt" supremacists in their late teens, nineteen, for example, and in sixteen years the "child" would be thirty-five and eligible to be POTUS.

The "citizen" by adoption option must NOT be allowed as a serious option in the think tanks, because the "citizen by adoption option" will "transform" a free individualist America into a theistic, religious, collectivist ummah, or an atheist, political, collectivist commune.

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

The "Union" as clarified by Pres. Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861

Unknown said...

The republicans will do nothing about Obama not being a NBC and will look the other way on Mr constitution Ted Cruz, rubio, santorum and jindal. They are all a bunch of phonys...it is galling to hear them talk about the US C and then stick their head in the sand along with corrupt, pssified msm. I have never heard ron or Rand Paul say a word about it either. The Founders must be looking down in disgust at all the cowards who currently run us. If they actually cared about our country they would be screaming that the lying ,backstabbing, criminal Muslim sob is not eligible

Justin said...

Has any seen this comment from Churchill? If you don't know he had an English father and an American mother, just like Obama. While on a US lecture tour he was asked if he would ever consider running for President. He replied;

"I have been treated so splendidly in the United States that I should be disposed, if you can amend the Constitution, seriously to consider the matter."

Winston Churchill did not believe he was eligible even though he had an American mother!

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Justin,

Thank you for posting that interesting comment on Winston Churchill.

Mr. Churchill was correct in his answer that a constitutional amendment was needed to make him eligible to be President of the United States.

Mr. Churchill was not an Article II natural born citizen which is defined under constitutional national common law as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. He was born on November 30, 1874 in Blenheim Palace, Woodstock, Oxfordshire, Great Britain, to a British father and an American mother who, under then-current law, would have become an alien upon her marriage to her British husband. Hence, Mr. Churchill was missing birth in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent and birth to U.S. citizen parents. Even if his mother had retained her U.S. citizenship as Mr. Obama’s mother, he still would not have been a natural born citizen, for he would have been born to an alien father, like Mr. Obama, and hence, subject to a foreign power from the moment of birth as much as if born to two alien parents. Being born subject to a foreign power under U.S. law, i.e., being born in allegiance to a foreign power other than the United States under U.S. law disqualifies one from being a natural born citizen.

So, Mr. Churchill was, indeed, correct that a constitutional amendment was needed for him to be eligible to be President.

ajtelles said...

Dittos to Justin...

1/2

Churchill and America, page 139

"Once again Churchill encouraged questions, which continued for more than an hour.

"The final question was:

Would you become an American citizen if we could make you president of the United States? I know our Constitution disqualifies you, but we can amend that."

"To which Churchill answered:

'There are various little difficulties in the way. However, I have been treated so splendidly in the United States that I shall be disposed, if you can amend the Constitution, seriously to consider the matter.' "

>> http://books.google.com/books?id=4aZCUZMvj7cC&pg=PA139&lpg=PA139&dq=I+have+been+treated+so+splendidly+in+the+United+States+that+I+should+be+disposed,+if+you+can+amend+the+Constitution,+seriously+to+consider+the+matter&source=bl&ots=qhNHZGvN-4&sig=IkaUw1fUtsJRSKDSqR4gl_I7Zkg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=esl9VMSFNor6yASJ-YKwBA&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=I%20have%20been%20treated%20so%20splendidly%20in%20the%20United%20States%20that%20I%20should%20be%20disposed%2C%20if%20you%20can%20amend%20the%20Constitution%2C%20seriously%20to%20consider%20the%20matter&f=false

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

ajtelles said...

Dittos to Justin...

2/2

Here are more Churchill quotes from Townhall.com -

Mario, Churchill's quote #6 below is appropriate and applicable in defense of the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article II Section 1 Clause 5, and defense of the inherent meaning and implication by John Jay in underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to Washington.

By implication, I mean this.

Since John Jay was familiar with Frenchman Emer de Vattel and his book The Law of Nations and Vattel's articulation of parents, plural, and the consequent citizenship of the children, and John Jay was obviously aware of the English and American common law understanding in the 1700s that the citizenship of the husband determined the citizenship of the wife, and the citizenship of BOTH parents determined the citizenship of the child, the question is simple.

What was Jay presupposing and implying about birth place and birth parents?

Was Jay presupposing and implying the opposite of Vattel's understanding of citizenship or the same understanding as Vattel?

Jay was implying in 1787 the same as Vattel about citizenship of the parents, plural, and place of birth and citizenship of the child.

Was Jay presupposing and implying the opposite of the common law understanding in the 1700s of the citizenship of the children or the same as the common law in the 1700s?

Jay was implying in 1787 the same as the common law in the 1700s about the citizenship of BOTH parents determining the citizenship of the child.

The 40 Greatest Quotes From Winston Churchill

>> http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2013/01/19/the-40-greatest-quotes-from-winston-churchill-n1492794/page/full

Churchill's quote -

6) “You ask, What is our policy?

I will say; ‘It is to wage war, by sea, land and air, with all our might and with all the strength that God can give us: to wage war against a monstrous tyranny, never surpassed in the dark lamentable catalogue of human crime.

That is our policy.’
You ask, What is our aim?
I can answer with one word:
Victory—

victory at all costs,
victory in spite of all terror,
victory however long and hard the road may be;
for without victory there is no survival.”

And, of course, quote #1 is also applicable in defense of the original intent of the "Union" and the U.S. Constitution -

1) “Never give in–never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

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

The "Union" as clarified by Pres. Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861 at the start of the civil war

See Bartleby.com - paragraph #14
>> http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html

ajtelles said...

A whole lotta silliness...

Mario, from Cato.org -

Repeal and Replace the Immigration and Nationality Act

By Alex Nowrasteh

This article appeared in Washington Examiner on December 3, 2014

>> http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/repeal-replace-immigration-nationality-act

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Alex Nowrasteh's commentary on Cato.org is disappointing.

Where are the Cato deep thinkers who can articulate specifics with coherent solutions?

Nowrasteh wrote -

"Obama’s actions, combined with our dysfunctional immigration laws, hint at a radical solution: scrap the Immigration and Nationality Act altogether and replace it with laws that actually work."

If this sentiment is indicative of the the direction of the Cato Institute and Cato.org, well, as anonymous said, "unless we change direction, we're going to end up where we're gong."

If Obama's moral compass is respected by Nowrasteh and Cato and Nowrasteh's wish to scrap the current immigration and nationality language is implemented, duck, and cover.

With two years left in a Barack "Philip Dru, Administrator" Obama administration, who knows what will happen with a weak Republican Speaker of the House of Representatives like John Boehner and a go-along-to-get-along Republican Majority Leader like Mitch McConnel?

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

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

ajtelles,

Regarding Alex Nowrasteh and the Cato.org bit, it reminds me of the mindset in which one just keeps writing manuals without ever looking at or enforcing the ones that are already on the shelf.

ajtelles said...

Charles Gordon...

Maryland Law Review
Volume XXVIII
Winter 1968

Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma

>> http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2068&context=mlr

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario, I found the reference to the 1968 article by Charles Gordon while reading your common below, published on February 6, 2012 at 10:43 AM.

Puzo1 said...

"What is ironic about Judge Malihi's finding that the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark are dispositive on the question of whether Obama is an Article II "natural born Citizen," is his citation in Footnote 4 of his decison of Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1 (1968).

"If one were to actually read what Mr. Gordon wrote in his much cited law review article, one would see a much different picture than what Judge Malihi presents. Charles Gordon, was counsel with the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service and an Adjunct Professor of Law at the Georgetown Law Center. He addressed the eligibility of George W. Romney, who ran for president in 1968, in the Winter 1968 issue of the Maryland Law Review. Mr. Gordon explained that the Wong Kim Ark holding is
rather limited and did not extend to defining a "natural born Citizen." He stated: “In any event, the majority’s opinion [in Wong Kim Ark] did not discuss the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution and is not necessarily relevant to its interpretation, except possibly by inference. . . .” Id. At 19.

"No court case, including Wong Kim Ark, “directly addresses the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution. . . .” Id. at 22. “The fourteenth amendment, adopted primarily to confirm the full citizenship denied to Negroes by the Dred Scott decision, did not refer to “natural-born citizens, did not purport to limit or define the presidential qualification clause of the Constitution. . .” Id. p. 31-32. The dicta stated by Wong Kim Ark “are not addressed to the presidential qualification clause and cannot control its construction.” Id. At 32.

Charles Gordon, Who Can Be President of the United States: The Unresolved Enigma, 28 Md. L. Rev. 1 (1968).

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario, this article by Charles Gordon was written 7 years after Obama was born and 41 years before he was elected as the 44th U.S. President, but the way Gordon writes about the historical facts reminds me of your own writings and Leo Donofrio's writings.

Common sense is refreshing.


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

thalightguy said...

Here's an interesting fact about Mexican born George Romney, he was born with sole citizenship to the United States. (Mexico does not
recognize jus soli citizenship.)

ajtelles said...

It is time...

1/6

Mario, here here are some random thoughts about the incessant debate regarding citizenship and POTUS eligibility.

It is time to stop the debate about what OUR "they", our authorities, what "they" meant in 1787 (A2S1C5) and 1865 (13th A.) and 1868 (14th A.) and 1869 (15th A.) and 1875 (M v. H.) and 1898 (US v. WKA) and the 1952 INA vs. what THEIR "they" meant in 1868 as defining what THEIR "they" meant in 1875 and 1898, but stay away from the 1952 INA, Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401 (g)] language.

It is time to start articulating a change from OUR 'they" said a citizen is and an nbC is vs. THEIR "they" said a citizen is and an nbC is.

It is time to propose a solution, singular, not two or more solutions.

Birth on U.S. soil -

1-It is time for proponents of birth on U.S. soil to "two U.S. citizen parents is a high hurdle that must be perpetual for POTUS eligibility" to define and defend that proposition. It is superior to any other proposition about birth soil and the number of U..S. citizen birth parents. We must simply press it until it is understood by the American people as the ONLY proposition that makes sense, as delineated below. We must define and defend what we think the only solution is.

Is the solution a constitutional amendment; is it an act of congress; is it a judicial edict?

I say the solution is a constitutional amendment with specific and clear language, articulating original intent for ourselves, "WE the Posterity" of the 1787 "WE the People," and for our posterity from generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS, just as "WE the People" originally intended in 1787 perpetually from generation to generation.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The "generation to generation" part was clarified by President Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address ( http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html ) in 1861 at the start of the civil war which was fought to protect the integrity and unity of the "Union," not a denial of states rights. See paragraph #14 of his address below. Lincoln's original intent was to abolish slavery in the southern slave states if it could be done constitutionally, as he expressed it in his Dred Scott speech on June 16, 1857, and in his debates with Stephen Douglas in 1858, presaging the 13th Amendment to abolish slavery in America forever, from generation to generation, and to prevent the entrance of the slavery mindset and practice into the free states and the territories that would eventually become states of the "Union".

Paragraph 12 -

"I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

ajtelles said...

It is time...

2/6

Paragraph 13 -

"Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

Paragraph 14 -

"Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

The Union is much older than the Constitution.

1-It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774.

2-It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776.

3-It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778.

4-And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."


Paragraph 15 -

"But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The "perpetuity" of the original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 as birth on U.S. soil to two parents who are U.S. citizens at the time of the birth of a child can be defended on the same ground as the "perpetuity" of the "Union" which is much older than the 1787 Constitution.

2-It is time for proponents of birth on U.S. soil to "one U.S. citizen parents is good 'nuf" for POTUS eligibility to define and defend what "THEY" say the solution is.

Is the solution a constitutional amendment; is it an act of congress; is it a judicial edict?

3-It is time for proponents of birth on U.S. soil to "zero U.S. citizen parents is good 'nuf" for POTUS eligibility to define and defend what "THEY" say the solution is.

Is the solution a constitutional amendment; is it an act of congress; is it a judicial edict?

Birth on foreign soil -

4-It is time for proponents of birth on foreign soil to "two U.S. citizen parents is a lower hurdle but still a must" for POTUS eligibility to define and defend what "THEY say the solution is.

Is the solution a constitutional amendment; is it an act of congress; is it a judicial edict?

5-It is time for proponents of birth on foreign soil to "one U.S. citizen parents is good 'nuf" for POTUS eligibility to define and defend what "they" say the solution is.

Is the solution a constitutional amendment; is it an act of congress; is it a judicial edict?

6-It is time for proponents of birth on foreign soil to "zero U.S. citizen parents is good 'nuf" for POTUS eligibility to define and defend what "they" say the solution is.

Is the solution a constitutional amendment; is it an act of congress; is it a judicial edict?

ajtelles said...

It is time...

3/6

The 6th "good 'nuf" proposition is political nuttiness, but it is added for continuity of thought and definition.

Some people are seriously proposing grandfathering into POTUS eligibility the foreign born adopted children if both U.S. adoptive parents are U.S. citizens before the foreign born child is adopted by them. That being so, there are probably others who would try to deliberately throw a monkey wrench into the debate about POTUS eligibility who would say that the adoptive parents could naturalize AFTER they adopted a foreign born child. I don't think that there are any who would be stupid enough to define and defend the proposition that a foreign born child could be grandfathered into POTUS eligibility with zero U.S. citizen adoptive parents. But—who knows? They may be out there, lurking, somewhere, just waiting to throw the monkey wrench into the debate about citizenship and POTUS eligibility.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The debate is about how to unite and distinguish an A2S1C5 "Citizen" and an A2S1C5 "natural born Citizen."
The debate is not about how to fuse/mix or separate an A2S1C5 "Citizen" and an A2S1C5 "natural born Citizen."

The debate is not about how to unite and fuse/mix an A2S1C5 "Citizen" and an A2S1C5 "natural born Citizen."
The debate is not about how to distinguish and separate an A2S1C5 "Citizen" and an A2S1C5 "natural born Citizen."

The debate is about a union, not a fusion/mix, of an A2S1C5 "Citizen" and a "natural born Citizen."
The debate is about a distinction, not a separation, of an A2S1C5 "Citizen" and a "natural born Citizen."

The debate is about distinguishing between two "whats".

What is a "Citizen" who can only be be a U.S. Senator or a U.S. Representative but not a U.S. President?
What is a "natural born Citizen" who alone can be President but can also be a U.S. Senator or a U.S. Representative?

A "citizen" born before the naturalization date of July 4, 1776, "... or a Citizen...at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution," as articulated at the time of the 1787 Con Con, was not the same thing as a "natural born Citizen" who was born after 1776.

Instead of debating the meaning of what OUR "they" meant in 1787 and in 1868, etc., vs. what THEIR "they" meant in 1868 alone since John Jay is never adduced as one of THEIR "they" authorities, we should now start to articulate the meaning of "natural born Citizen" as "WE the Posterity" of "WE the People" want nbC to mean today in 2014 in the 21st century, starting with what OUR "they", including John Jay, meant in A2S1C5 in 1787 in the 18th century when OUR "they" wrote "natural born Citizen...or a Citizen" and what OUR "they" meant in the 14th Amendment in 1868 in the 19th century when OUR "they" wrote "...born or naturalized...citizens," and what OUR "they" meant in Minor v. Happersett in 1875 and what OUR "they" meant in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark in 1898, and what OUR "they" meant in the 1952 INA, Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401 (g)] language (http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html ).

ajtelles said...

It is time...

4/5

OUR John Jay inspired common sense "natural born Citizen" original intent presupposition about allegiance and security
vs.
THEIR anybody but John Jay's specifically written original intent presupposition about allegiance and security


nbC = born, not naturalized at birth or after birth
nbC = born only on U.S. soil at that time and forever (U.S. jurisdiction came later)
nbC = born only to two U.S. citizen parents at that time and forever, perpetual singular citizenship, not dual citizenship
vs.
nbC = born or naturalized at birth since the child was "natural born" by birth and not naturalized by oath
nbC = born on U.S. soil or foreign soil at that time and forever
nbC = born to two U.S. citizen parents or one U.S. citizen parent or zero U.S. citizen parents at that time and forever, perpetual singular citizenship or perpetual dual citizenship

The ultimate solution is an amendment to the U.S. Constitution, not a statute which everyone acknowledges can not trump the Constitution, except by misconstruction and ambiguous statute language. The ultimate solution is definitely NOT a judicial edict masquerading as a "finding" based on original intent precedence which can be overturned with another edict masquerading as a "finding" based on original intent precedence, which can be overturned..., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum.

An A2S1C5 nbC is about singular citizenship allegiance, not dual citizenship allegiance.

Which of the six scenarios below is the higher hurdle of allegiance?

1-Birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents only?
2-Birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent also?
3-Birth on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents also?

4-Birth on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents also?
5-Birth on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent also?
6-Birth on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizen parents also.

Let the "zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf" for POTUS eligibility in 21st century America make their most coherent case.

Here is a hypothetical Islamic jihadi possibility about which a free and constitutional republic must be watchful.

Let the "zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf" for POTUS eligibility proponents start by telling us how they would counter the threat to a free theistic America or a free atheistic America, i.e. an America free from thought and practice about a God named YHWH, transliterated as Yahuwah (some prefer Yahweh), or an America free from thought and practice about a God named Allah.

What would the "zero U.S. citizen parents is good nuf" atheists, for example, want to do about Islamic theist Yaser Esam Hamdi, an American citizen who was captured in Afghanistan in 2001. Yaser Esam Hamdi was born in Louisiana to Islamic theist Saudi parents who were immigrants to the U.S. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaser_Esam_Hamdi ).

According to the "zero U.S. citizen parents is good nuf" proponents for POTUS eligibility, the 1868 14th Amendment was progressive and far sighted, and it means that Yaser Esam Hamdi's U.S. citizen status and consequent eligibility to be POTUS was implicit in 1868 simply because he made his "natural born" birthday touchdown on U.S. soil. Since he renounced his U.S. citizenship in 2004, the issue of his POTUS eligibility is moot, but the "natural birth" on U.S. soil to two non-U.S. citizen parents point is still valid as a hypothetical.

ajtelles said...

It is time...

5/6

The "zero U.S. citizen parents is good nuf" proponents may try to assert that, although Hamdi's citizenship was not derived from his parents, his U.S. citizenship was derived from the soil alone; they may try to assert that birth on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents is implied in the progressive and far sighted 1868 amendment to the U.S. Constitution; they may try to assert that it is not necessary use the irrelevant and not progressive 1787 Constitution words "natural born Citizen" to understand that "natural born" simply means birth on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents, but NOT only two, or birth on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent, Sen./Pres. Obama or also birth on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents, Sen. Rubio, Gov. Jindal and Gov. Haley come to mind.

Why don't the "zero U.S. citizen parents is good nuf" proponents of POTUS eligibility try to assert that in 1787 John Jay was being progressive and far sighted and would probably agree with them that Hamdi's U.S. citizenship was derived from birth on U.S. soil AND birth to zero U.S. citizen parents?

Why will then never, ever assert that Hamdi's U.S. citizenship was derived from birth on U.S. soil AND birth to zero U.S. citizen parents?

'Cause, as progressive and far sighted as the "zero U.S. citizen parents is good nuf" proponents of POTUS eligibility are, they are not nuts.

Does that mean that the the "zero U.S. citizen parents is good nuf" proponents want, or will allow, future fundamentalist Islamic jihadists, simply by natural birth on U.S. soil, to be eligible to be elected POTUS?

They might say that language can be written to exclude fundamentalist Islamic jihadists from POTUS eligibility.

They might also say that someone with the same birth history as Hamdi, birth on U.S. soil to two non-U.S. citizen parents, who is not an enemy of the U.S. Constitution, this person should be eligible by natural birth on U.S. soil to be POTUS.

What about the person who explicitly and religiously adheres to political/religious Islam's ultimate theistic goal of imposing sharia law as superior to the U.S. Constitution law? Should this person be eligible to be POUTS simply because they had a natural birth on U.S. soil?

If the proponents of "zero U.S. citizen parents is good nuf" want to assert that U.S. Constitution amendment language can be written to exclude from POTUS eligibility a chld born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents, who is also raised as a fundamentalist Islamic jihadist, whose ultimate goal is to impose sharia law as superior to the U.S. Constitution, well, then, we who propose that "two U.S. citizen parents is a higher hurdle must have" can also assert that U.S. Constitution language can be written to exclude from POTUS eligibility ALL children born on U.S. soil to "zero U.S. citizen parents," whether or not the children are raised as fundamentalist Islamic jihadists who want to transform the U.S. Constitution and the United States of America into a sharia law compliant document and nation.

Right?

Of course, the transformative fundamentalist Islamic jihadist scenario would never happen, could it?

Right?

ajtelles said...

It is time...

6/6

Well, how about obvious and patriotic "friendlies" like Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Gov. Nikki Haley?

Sen. Marco Rubio was born on U.S. soil to two non-U.S. citizen parents.
Gov. Bobby Jindal was born on U.S. soil to two non-U.S. citizen parents.
Gov. Nikki Haley was born on U.S soil to two non-U.S. citizen parents.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Well, that's enough now for the "zero U.S. citizen parents is good nuf" for POTUS eligibility proposition, let's consider the "one U.S. citizen parents is good nuf" for POTUS eligibility in 21st century America proposition and see how the Obama birthers, the "one U.S. citizen parents is good nuf" defenders, make their most coherent case.

First, they must assert that "one U.S. citizen parents is good nuf" 'cause Obama ONLY had one U.S. citizen parent at birth—somewhere—maybe, U.S. soil , maybe foreign soil; and recently there have been questions developing of birth somewhen—maybe, 1961, maybe earlier; and also questions of somewho—maybe, Stanley Ann Dunham or... it's getting curiouser and curiouser, as Alice said.

John Jay's focus on allegiance and security was the original intent reason for "natural born Citizen" and POTUS eligibility in his note to George Washington and acceptance by all of the delegates to the 1787 Con Con.

By simple common sense logic, an 1868 14th Amendment anchor baby definitely was NOT the original intent for a "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5. That is WHY anchor babies should NOT be recognized as U.S. citizens in a future constitutional amendment.

If the House and Senate will not adduce a constitutional amendment to prevent a future usurper slipping and sliding and slithering into the Oval Office, then an Article V convention of state legislatures to propose an amendment is the ONLY solution, AFTER "WE the People" become informed about the option provided in Article V in the original constitution BEFORE all ten amendments were added to it in one year, 1791.

If the first congress could debate and adopt 10 amendments in one year, we can do two in one year.

Amend to clarify "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5, and repeal the 17th Amendment so that the state legislatures will again have control of their Senators and elect the two U.S. Senators to the Federal Government so that the two Senators can represent their states to the Federal Government instead of representing the Federal Government to their states.

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the perpetual "Union" as clarified by President Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861 at the start of the civil war

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

ajtelles,

Because the Constitution at Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides that no one who is not a natural born citizen shall be eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military, and the Framers inserted this requirement into the Constitution to preserve and perpetuate the nation, the constitutional definition of a natural born citizen surely needs to be protected. The question is how to do it.

The courts, washing their hands of the question, have taken a naive approach to the problem. They have said that the political parties are to decide if someone is a natural born citizen. They have also said that Congress can decide whether someone who wins the Presidential election is a natural born citizen. The federal courts have also said that persons wanting to challenge a presidential candidate or President-Elect on whether he or she is a natural born citizen have failed to show that they have been injured even if such candidate is not eligible to be President and therefore lacked standing to litigate the issue of whether the candidate or President-Elect is a natural born citizen.

All this is political suicide for the nation, for we cannot trust the political parties to put the nation above their ambition for political power. Nor can we trust Congress to stand up and defend the Constitution when to do so requires it to take political risk. Looking to Congress is also unrealistic, for by the time Congress would get to the decide the issue it would be too late given the political and economic capital expended in electing someone to the Office of President. The problem is compounded by a media which is looking to increase its ratings and therefore profits by reporting positions it believes will promote that goal and ignoring positions that it believes will not.

When we combine a political party's thirst for power, Congress's desire to perpetuate its position by just taking the safe road, the media's want of ratings and profits, and the courts refusing to get involved, you have the makings of a dangerous situation for the nation.

Given that these political institutions can for these fundamental reasons fail in their duties to safeguard the nation, you could, indeed, have a situation in which someone who is not a natural born citizen could become President of the United States. Under the Constitution, having the nation led by a President and Commander who is not a natural born citizen puts the nation at grave risk.

This is not just some hypothetical situation. We have seen this very scenario come to life with de facto President Barack Obama, someone who is not a natural born citizen, who told the world that he was going to “fundamentally transform” the United States, and who won not one but two elections for the Office of President.

Doublee said...

I have a hypothetical question regarding standing.

I agree to submit to surgery. The surgery is a success. Later, I discover that the surgeon does not have a license to practice medicine.

Can I sue the surgeon for practicing medicine without a license in spite of the fact that I have not been harmed?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Doublee,

In your hypothetical, there would not be any problem with standing. The person can establish that he or she suffered a concrete injury, that the quack doctor's fraudulent conduct caused the injury, and that the law provides the person with a remedy.

A person who holds himself or herself out has having a license to practice medicine and who performs a surgery upon a patient, even if the surgery is performed perfectly, commits a battery upon the patient. That person would have committed an unauthorized invasion or touching of the person's body. If is safe to assume from your hypothetical that the person would not have decided to allow the person to perform the surgery if the person would have disclosed that he or she did not have a license to practice medicine. Even if the unauthorized invasion is harmless, the person is entitled to nominal damages. Since the person in your hypothetical committed a fraud, the person would have a good case to recover punitive damages.

ajtelles said...

For the Record...

Mario,

There are more of your comments that you posted on Cafe Con Leche Republicans that should also be reposted here on your blog.

After reading your eleven paragraph long comment posted November 13 on the blog of make believe about how open borders immigration is good for the GOP, the party of Lincoln and Reagan, and make believe about how positive law clarifies natural born citizenship, I just thought that your comments should also be posted for the record here on your blog, the blog of record for future historians and authors about Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and "natural born Citizenship," instead of being only posted and eventually forgotten on the blog of make believe.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

November 13, 2014 at 12:03 pm #

>> http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/#comment-80239

Slartibartfast,

You do not know what begging the question means. You simply call everything with which you do not agree begging the question. You have admitted that my position on the meaning of a natural born citizen is irrefutable, because you have not proven that my conclusion simply assumes the truth of my premises.

You not accepting that what makes a person an Article II natural born citizen is being a born citizen by nature, not being made a born citizen by law, is as erroneous as one not accepting that what make a child a person’s natural child is being that person’s child by nature, and not being made that person’s child by law.

You also do not understand English common and statutory law on subjecthood. The English naturalized persons both at birth and after birth. See Calvin’s Case (1608) (with the English Parliament refusing to do so, the English Court naturalized the Scottish Calvin (born in Scotland to Scottish parents) at birth to be an English natural-born subject); Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 214 (explained that the English naturalized at birth children born in the King’s dominion to alien parents). See also Wong Kim Ark; Montana v. Kennedy, 366 U.S. 308 (1961); Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U. S. 815, 827 (1971); and Miller v. Albright 523 U.S. 420 (1998) (all explain that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen or alien parents are aliens under the Constitution and remain aliens unless Congress naturalizes them after birth by passing a treaty or naturalization Act (for those not born to citizen parents) or naturalizes them at birth through a naturalization Act (for those born to U.S. citizen parents). When the English naturalized persons, either at birth or after birth, they considered them (deemed them for all intents and purposes) as natural-born subjects. So, your attempt to define a natural born citizen by whether under English law he or she was given the status of natural-born subject through judicial decision or act of Parliament does not help you. That natural-born subject status was still given through naturalization either at or after birth, accomplished either by a court or Parliament. If persons needed a court or Parliament to naturalize them, they surely were not nor could they be true natural-born subjects. Rather, they were simply given the privileges and immunities of true natural born subjects, with the status acquired either at birth or after birth. The true natural-born subjects, children born in the King’s dominion to English natural-born subject parents, did not need any intervention from either a court or Parliament.

ajtelles said...

For the Record...

2/4

You continue to try to skew the meaning of a natural born citizen by arguing that John Jay underlined the word “born” and therefore all one needs in order to be a natural born citizen is to be a born citizen. First, your argument is unavailing given the simple fact that Jay wrote “natural born citizen” and not “born citizen.” Second, the Constitution says the same as what Jay wrote, “natural born citizen,” with the word “born” not underlined. Third, your interpretation reads the qualifier “natural” out of Article II, which is an impermissible construction. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803). Fourth, your argument is fallacious, for being a born citizen is necessary to be a natural born citizen, but it is not sufficient.

You criticism of my use of the phrase “positive law” shows your ignorance. I did not “demote” the Fourteenth Amendment to positive law. It is positive law. Our constitution is not only a mere unenforceable political document, but also a documents that contains a body of positive law that gives its people real-life protection from both federal and state government deprivation of life, liberty, and property. See Richard W. Wright, “The Constitution as Positive Law,” 5 Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review 126 (1972). Also, the Fourteenth Amendment neither repealed nor amended Article II’s natural born citizen clause.

I have never said that a natural born citizen can be made by “certain types of laws.” On the contrary, I said that one cannot be made by law, but rather by nature, which when applied to the affairs of nations produced the law of nations. Under the law of nations, a natural born citizen took on a meaning based on both nature (birth to parents) and positive law (birth to citizen parents within the legal boundaries of a legally recognized sovereign country). The First Congress knew this when it passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, providing that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents “shall be considered as natural born citizens.” This naturalization act did not as you maintain “add to the class of natural born citizens by ‘positive law.’” In matters of citizenship, Congress has the power only to naturalize which on its face does not include the power to make anyone a natural born citizen. Rather, this statute was written in the spirit of English statutes which extended privileges and immunities of a natural-born subject to those which the statute naturalized. The Father of the Constitution and then-Congressman James Madison, knowing that persons born out of the United States, even if born to U.S. citizen parents, were born in allegiance to a foreign power and could therefore not be true natural born citizens, led the effort to remove the wording, “natural born citizens” and replaced those words with “citizens of the United States” in the Naturalization Act of 1795. President George Washington approved of the change. Congress never again to this day used the clause “natural born citizen” in any of its naturalization acts, including the one that makes Senator Ted Cruz a born citizen (not a natural born citizen) of the United States.

ajtelles said...

For the Record...

4/4

Again, a natural born citizen is a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the the time of the child’s birth. Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212; Minor v. Happersett (1875). Mr. Obama is not a natural born citizen. He was “allegedly” born in the United States, allegedly because in all the law suits filed against him regarding whether he is a natural born citizen, he never proved under any legal standard and through competent evidence that he was born in the United States. In any event, while he was born to a U.S. citizen mother, he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father, making him born subject to a foreign power and not in full and complete allegiance to the United States, just as though he had been born to two alien parents. He therefore, may be a born citizen by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment, but he cannot be an Article II natural born citizen by virtue of the common law upon which the Framers relied for their definition of a natural born citizen. So, he is currently and temporarily the de facto President and Commander in Chief of the Military, but he is not nor can he ever be also the de jure President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the United States. That reality is a matter of constitutional law, not what you claim is a “grudge” on my part against Obama.

Mr. Cruz is also not a natural born citizen. In determining whether Mr. Cruz is a natural born citizen, it matters not that Cruz,, like Obama, obtained his U.S. citizenship status at birth. First, even if the Fourteenth Amendment could make anyone who otherwise is not a natural born citizen which it cannot, since he was not born in the United States, Cruz, born in Canada, cannot be a born citizen under the Fourteenth Amendment. Second, Cruz, born to a U.S. citizen mother, but to a non-U.S. citizen father, must rely upon a naturalization Act of Congress the satisfaction of which can make him a born citizen by virtue of that particular naturalization law, but not a natural born citizen by virtue of the common law upon which the Framers relied for their definition of a natural born citizen. Again, having only the power to naturalize, Congress does not have the Constitutional power to make anyone a natural born citizen who is not. Also, the text of the very Congressional naturalization act upon which Cruz relies says that he is a “citizen” of the United States “at birth,” not that he is a natural born citizen. That reality is a matter of constitutional law, not what you claim is “prejudice” on my part against Cruz.

So, there you have it Slartibartfast, stated in language and structure which you should not have any problem understanding. Both Obama and Cruz are not natural born citizens. They are therefore not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

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

ajtelles said...

For the Record...

oops, here's part 3.

3/4

You are mistaken in saying that I maintain that Virginia Minor was not also a Fourteenth Amendment born citizen. I never made any such statement. You know darn well that I have maintained for years that all Article II natural born citizens are Fourteenth Amendment born citizens, but not all Fourteenth Amendment born citizens are Article II natural born citizens. The reason for this is that all natural born citizens are born or reputed born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, but not all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are born to two U.S. citizen parents. Stated differently, the hallmark of a natural born citizen is that he or she is born solely in allegiance to the United States. Hence, all natural born citizens are born solely in allegiance to the United States, But since some Fourteenth Amendment born citizens are born to one or two alien parents and therefore inherit at birth their alien parent’s foreign allegiance and citizenship through jus sanguinis (allegiance and citizenship inherited from one’s parents), not all Fourteenth Amendment born citizens are born solely in allegiance to the United States, which excludes them from being Article II natural born citizens.

Anyone who needs the Fourteenth Amendment for the status of a born citizen is not an Article II natural born citizen. Wong needed the Fourteenth Amendment for his born citizen status and he was therefore no natural born citizen. You are mistaken that Wong did not need the Fourteenth Amendment to be declared by the Wong Kim Ark Court a born “citizen of the United States.” The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor stated that Virginia Minor, born in the United State to U.S. citizen parents, did not need the Fourteenth Amendment to be found to be not only a citizen, but also a natural born citizen. Wong Kim Ark made no similar statement about Wong. Wong was born in the United States. But because he was not born to U.S. citizen parents, the Court could not take the same approach taken by Minor and had to resort to the Fourteenth Amendment to hold that he was a citizen of the United States from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court never said that he was a citizen of the United States at birth by virtue of the common law which Minor explained the Framers relied upon for their definition of a natural born citizen. In fact, because Wong was not born to U.S. citizen parents, the Court had to resort to “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” analysis (never needed for a natural born citizen who is always born or reputed born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents), finding that it meant only that the parents be subject at the time of their child’s birth to the laws of the United States and not also subject to its full and complete political and military jurisdiction. So, you err egregiously when you say that Wong did not need the Fourteenth Amendment to be found by the Court to be a born citizen.


Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

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

ajtelles said...

Time to Change the Conversation—The Question is How to do It?

1/

Mario,

A few days ago, on December 7, 2014 at 11:50 PM you posted a response to a previous post of mine on your puzo1.blogspot.com blog* that prompted me to consider a short answer, but it has turned into a long answer to your statement at the end of your first paragraph, "...the constitutional definition of a natural born citizen surely needs to be protected. The question is how to do it."

*( http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-constitution-rule-of-law-and.html?commentPage=16 )

You wrote, "The courts, washing their hands of the question"—"we cannot trust the political parties"—"Looking to Congress is also unrealistic"—"problem is compounded by a media"—"you have the makings of a dangerous situation for the nation."—"This is not just some hypothetical situation...this very scenario come to life with de facto President Barack Obama, someone who is not a natural born citizen, who told the world that he was going to “fundamentally transform” the United States..."

My response to your statement, "the question is how to do it" is, and maybe it is too simple, maybe it is just time to change the conversation? Change the conversation from what we on both sides assert to what we on both sides want for 21st century America. Maybe it is time to change the conversation from what we believe the founders and framers wrote, and what we believe they meant in Article II Section 1 Clause 5, to what we believe that "natural born Citizen" should mean today to preserve our perpetual "Union" of America for our own posterity?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

November 13, 2014 at 12:03 pm
( http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/#comment-80239 )

Although I am including a short reference to your previous comments directed at Slartibartfast, found at the above url and which I reposted here previously, this is not about him as a person, it is about what he reveals about himself and others in his comments, what he and the Democratic Party cadre do and ultimately represent— they ignore what doesn't fit into their citizenship meme while they continue with their agenda of protecting the Obama's administration of our WE the People government to try to "transform the United States of America" from within the federal oval office, and to infect the entire federal government, legislative, executive and judicial, with an ideological ebola virus, the progressive idea (but really a Saul Alinsky style anarchist reiteration of an (inter-)national "commune" idea to bring equality by force) that the constitution is a charter of negative liberties, explicitly enumerating what the federal government is limited to do and also what it can NOT do to the American people, so Obama is attempting to "transform" the constitution by Executive Order into a charter of positive liberties, what the federal government MUST do FOR the people, without limits, such as redistribution of wealth in the "commune" from those who work for a living to those who vote for a living, and to eventually require every American in the "commune" to receive government welfare single payer health care, whether they want it or not, or they will be punished.

ajtelles said...

Time to Change the Conversation—The Question is How to do It?

2/

This is the child telling the parent that the parent will be punished if they do not pay for the eventual single payer welfare provided by the child. The "child" is the federal government telling the "parent" several states and WE the People that we will be punished if we do not pay for the eventual single payer welfare provided by the federal government. The "federal government" is the creature of the creator, WE the People of the several states. We must change the conversation so that WE the People of the several states start to speak to our "creature," our "child," our federal government, with Article V constitutional authority.

The question is how to do it?

While Obama had only one U.S. citizen parent and everyone agrees that he has dual citizenship from birth, the meme of the Obama neo-birthers includes the incoherent proposition that "Obama-is-a-natural-born-Citizen" simply because he is a U.S. "citizen" because he was born naturally and not naturalized, in fulfillment of the first part of the first sentence of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment, "... born or naturalized in the United States...are citizens...." So, yes, Obama, born on U.S. soil, so he says, to only one U.S. citizen parent, is a citizen and not a naturalized citizen at birth or by oath, but for some reason the Obama neo-birthers NEVER try to defend the proposition that "Obama-is-an-Article-II-Section-1-Clause-5-natural-born-Citizen" just like 42 of the 44 presidents. However, contrary to the assertions of the Obama neo-birthers, ALL 42 previous presidents were recognized as eligible to be POTUS by either being grandfathered into POTUS eligibility in A2 S1 C5, #1 to #7 and #9, or by being authentic A2 S1 C5 "nbCs" because they were born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents. The two exceptions in 44 presidencies are #21, Chester Alan Arthur, and #44, Barack Hussein Obama.

This incoherence about the meaning of "natural born Citizen" is important to clarify because, along with Democrats, Independents, Libertarians, and nebulous Anarchists, there are Republicans who are getting into the redefinition game and are promoting the same meme, "birth-on-U.S.-or-foreign-soil-to-one-or-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility". See natural born Citizens: Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal, Ted Cruz Posted by William A. Jacobson, Esq., Clinical Professor of Law at Cornell Law School, Tuesday, September 3, 2013 at 9:05 am at his excellent blog* "Legal Insurrection" where he wrote, "I believe Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz to be “natural born Citizens” and eligible to be President. Here’s why," and also, "There are strong arguments in favor of Rubio, Jindal and Cruz each being a “natural born Citizen” as that term most reasonably can be understood through its plain text because they became citizens by birth.".

*"Legal Insurrection—A rising up against established authority; rebellion; revolt—in conformity with or permitted by law" ( http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/ )

ajtelles said...

Time to Change the Conversation—The Question is How to do It?

3/

As with the Democrat neo-birthers, the "MY GUY" or "MY GAL" neo-birthers NEVER try to defend the proposition that "an-Article-II-Section-1-Clause-5-natural-born-Citizen-ALSO-applies-to-ALL-children-born-on-U.S.-OR-foreign-soil-to-one-OR-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents". The neo-birthers NEVER assert that John Jay implied ALL of that in his note to George Washington and that Washington agreed with Jay about ALL of that. Why? A2 S1 C5 is a no-go-zone for neo-birthers to adduce the natural law/positive law aspects of "natural born Citizen" (In A2 S1 C5 "natural born" = natural law, and "Citizen" = positive law, and natural law precedes, guides and protects the application of positive law).

Here is an example of natural preceding, guiding and protecting the application of positive law.

Why is it true that an A2 S1 C5 "natural born Citizen" child, born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents, can not lose "nbC" status simply by adoption (positive law)? It does not matter if it is heterosexual or homosexual adoptive parents because the natural law birth and the positive law citizenship take precedence over the positive law adoption. The perpetuity of the A2 S1 C5 natural law "natural born" from two persons status protects the perpetuity of the positive law "Citizen" from two U.S. citizens status, not vice versa. Unless there is a future statute (positive law) that legally removes the natural law authority of "nbC" status from adopted children, such as statutes do that give legal credence to requiring naturalization to those who legally renounce U.S. citizenship and then want to repatriate, the child remains an "nbC" for life even if adopted, but only if "nbC" status is verified before adoption.

It is obvious that John Jay was not memeing what Slartibartfast, aka Kevin, Phd mathematician, and what William Jacobson, Esq. and law school professor and others are memeing, which is, (1) whether born on U.S. or foreign soil, only one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient for POTUS eligibility; and (2) being born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents is sufficient for POTUS eligibility. Accepting the neo-birther meme, others are saying (3) the constitution should be amended to grandfather into POTUS eligibility the foreign born adopted children of two or one U.S. citizen adoptive parents, whether the adoptive parents are heterosexual or homosexual.

No wonder the American people, including Phd mathematicians and Professors of law at prestigious schools of law are confused about John Jay's original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" in his 1787 note to George Washington, they NEVER consider and adduce John Jay's original intent perspective. They are confused about why all three words were included in the 1787 constitution in A2 S1 C5 and not merely "natural born" or "natural citizen" or "born a citizen" or "a born citizen" or "citizens by birth" or "born" or simply "a citizen."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Mario, on Cafe Con Leche Republicans, the blog of make believe about open borders immigration being good for the GOP and a free America and how the positive law about citizenship defines natural law and natural born citizenship, but for some reason never adduced is the natural law foundation of positive law, e.g., natural law birth precedes positive law citizenship, you posted the /#comment-80239 above to Slartibartfast, aka Kevin, aka Phd mathematician.

ajtelles said...

Time to Change the Conversation—The Question is How to do It?

4/

As a mathematician Kevin must have a logical reason (Or could it be as simple as cadre, paid or unpaid, that he would spend years to "try" to debate you with the intent ultimately of helping Obama fulfill the greater agenda of "transforming the United States of America" into a community organizer's (inter)national "commune"?) to promote the proposition that parents with two different citizenships can produce a child with dual citizenship that can somehow, ipso facto, fulfill John Jay's original intent of a child born with singular U.S. citizenship (the meme of the "Obama-is-a-natural-born-citizen" cadre is that dual citizenship is of equal relevance to singular U.S. citizenship for POTUS eligibility. Why? 'Cause he was born naturally, and besides, Obama had ONLY one U.S. citizen parent, of course). Kevin, while he is probably a natural born citizen himself, probably born on U.S. soil, probably born to two U.S. citizen parents, he promotes, without historical foundation, the proposition that to be eligible to be POTUS only one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient to make a child an Article II Section 1 Clause 5 "natural born Citizen" because he and other proponents of "one-or-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" such as William Jacobson, Esq. and law school professor believe that a child who is a 14th Amendment positive law "citizen" is ipso facto sufficient to fulfill John Jay's 1787 natural law understanding of what "natural born Citizen" meant to Jay in 1787. This was three years before the 1790 Naturalization Act used the words "natural born Citizen" and eight years before the 1795 Naturalization Act repealed the words "natural born Citizen" and replaced the three word unit with the single word "citizen" so that the 1795 Naturalization Act (and 100% of ALL subsequent naturalization acts of Congress, all positive law) would conform to the natural law part of Article II Section 1 Clause 5, "natural born", which gives natural law credibility to the positive law part of A2 S1 C5, "Citizen", because the third Congress corrected its error as understood in 1795 that a naturalization act, a positive law, can not "make" a person eligible to be POTUS. The two natural parents (natural law) produce a natural law child, and the same two U.S. citizen (positive law) parents produce a singular positive law citizen, not a positive law dual citizen.

A hypothetical scenario, an alternative way of looking at what the Congress did in 1795, eight years after John Jay underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen," shows the irrefutable true original intent of John Jay in 1787. If Jay had originally intended that "nbC" meant not only being born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents, but ALSO being born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents, as the 1790 Naturalization Act clearly said about foreign birth to U.S. citizen parents, plural, that would have meant that the third Congress changed Jay's original intent meaning about birth ALSO on foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents, plural, with the 1795 Naturalization Act implication that "nbC" status was reserved only for children born ONLY on U.S. soil only to U.S. citizen parents, plural.

ajtelles said...

Time to Change the Conversation—The Question is How to do It?

5/

Of course, that hypothetical scenario is not so. However, even though it is NOT so, the Obama neo-birthers could still obfuscate about it. So, what is it that has stopped the Obama neo-birthers from obfuscating about the 1787 original intent meaning of John Jay and asserting with neo-birther original intent that what Jay really meant was birth on U.S. OR foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents, plural? Well, maybe two things. (1) They would have to promote the proposition that in 1795, eight years after 1787, the third Congress in Pres. Washington's second term changed Jay's original intent meaning of "nbC" from meaning being born on U.S. soil OR being born on foreign soil, to being born ONLY on U.S. soil, and (2) they would have to admit that, yes, in 1787, Jay did originally mean ONLY birth to two U.S. citizen parents, "parents" plural as explicitly written in both the 1790 and the 1795 Naturalization Acts.

For some reason the "Obama-is-a-natural-born-Citizen" neo-birthers shy away from the 1795 Naturalization Act "citizen" (positive law) language and hover around the repealed 1790 Naturalization Act "natural born Citizen," (*positive law) language when they're not hovering around the 1868 14th Amendment "citizen" (positive law) language. They don't seem to understand that the words "natural born" are natural law language and not positive law language, and the word "citizen" is a positive law word and not a natural law word.

(*Positive law only in this one instance. The entire three word unit "natural born Citizen" is positive law language because the first Congress included the entire phrase in the 1790 Naturalization Act, a positive law statute. This is an example of how positive law can not "make" natural law, and conversely, how natural law defines, clarifies and guides the "making" of positive law. In A2 S1 C5, "natural born" = natural law, and "Citizen" = positive law. The positive law "follows" and is guided by natural law, not vice versa)

A 14th Amendment positive law "citizen" can not be "made" by a positive law amendment or a positive law statute or a positive law, so to speak, court opinion into an A2 S1 C5 natural law/positive law "natural born Citizen". Being a "natural born" child and born naturally on U.S. soil or foreign soil to one or zero U.S. citizen parents can not make that "natural born" child into an A2 S1 C5 "natural born Citizen" child who is born naturally ONLY on U.S. soil to ONLY two U.S. citizen parents.

Positive law dual citizenship can not produce positive law singular citizenship in fulfillment of John Jay's common sense original intent in underlining the natural law word "born" in the natural law/positive law phrase "natural born Citizen" in his note to George Washington, who agreed with Jay. Neither Jay, Washington or the 1787 convention delegate framers and the subsequent states ratifiers of "natural born Citizen" would agree with the Obama birthers, the Cruz birthers, the Rubio birthers, the Haley birthers, the Jindal birthers, or any future "MY GUY" or "MY GAL" neo-birthers who may promote persons born (natural law) with only one or zero U.S. citizen (positive law) parents, whether born (natural law) on or off U.S. soil (natural law) or jurisdiction (positive law).

ajtelles said...

Time to Change the Conversation—The Question is How to do It?

6/

The soil is "natural law" soil because by the natural law right of conquest, the soil is what it is by natural law, by the law of nature, and natural law, nature, is not changed by conquest. The soil is simply, well, soil, it is not "made" soil by positive law after conquest. In other words, to get an affirmative tip of the hat from the deists and atheists who do not believe there is a God who created the soil, the soil is 100% "natural" made soil and defined by natural law, not man "made" soil and defined by positive law. The soil is a natural law entity independent of whether or not a natural law birth happens on the natural law soil. The soil, being a natural law entity, is not a positive law idea and creation. Natural law, nature, can not be changed by positive law, declaration by congressional statute or judicial opinion.

Sen. Cruz had only one U.S. citizen (positive law) parent at his birth (natural law) outside of U.S. jurisdiction (positive law) on foreign soil (natural law), Canada; Sen. Rubio had zero U.S. citizen (positive law) parents at his birth (natural law) on U.S. soil (natural law); Gov. Haley had zero U.S. citizen (positive law) parents at her birth (natural law) on U.S. soil (natural law); Gov. Jindal had zero U.S. citizen (positive law) parents at his birth (natural law) on U.S. soil (natural law).

Mario, you, I and other A2 S1 C5 "born-only-on-U.S.-soil-to-only-two-U.S.-citizen-parents" John Jay birthers who have posted here on your blog probably can not and NEVER will agree, for basic common sense and John Jay original intent reasons, with the proposition that being born on U.S. or foreign soil to one or zero U.S. citizen parents was included by implication in John Jay's original intent meaning in underlining the word "born" in "natural born Citizen," and conversely, the "born-on-U.S.-or-foreign-soil-to-one-or-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" neo-birthers can not and NEVER will agree, for political and "transform the United States of America" agenda reasons, that ONLY birth on U.S. soil (jurisdiction came later) and ONLY birth to two U.S. citizen parents was John Jay's ONLY common sense original intent. How could they? Obama had ONLY one U.S. citizen parent at birth on U.S. soil, or so they say he was born on U.S. soil. They only say so 'cause Obama says so, without authentic and irrefutable verification, so who can believe the same guy who says, if not EVERY time then MOST of the time when something bad happens in his administration, that he didn't learn about it until he heard it on the news, uh, well, just like everybody else did.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Time to Change the Conversation and Move on to Agreement
So, how do we change the conversation and move on to agreement about a solution to clarify the perpetual "Union" meaning of "natural born Citizen" in 21st century America for ourselves and for our posterity?

It is time to change the conversation with questions. The John Jay birthers, the Obama neo-birthers and the "MY GUY" or "MY GAL" neo-birthers have been making assertions since 2008 that are retrospective in nature and so are intractable. However, our questions can be prospective and open to coherent input from ALL of WE the People and not just the few who have been engaging in the POTUS eligibility debate since the 2008 election cycle when BHObama was nominated as the Democratic choice for POUTS.

ajtelles said...

Time to Change the Conversation—The Question is How to do It?

7/

It is time to move on from what we think "natural born subject" meant to Coke, the Calvin's Case in the 1600s, Blackstone, Tucker and Vattel in the 1700s, etcetera, and what "natural born Citizen" meant to John Jay, George Washington and the framers and ratifiers in the 1700s, 18th century America, etcetera, and Congressional acts and statutes, and Supreme Court opinions in the 1800s, 1900s and the 2000s. It is time to agree about what we, WE the People, think "natural born Citizen" should mean today in 21st century America. What should "natural born Citizen" mean to us and to our posterity? Which meaning of "natural born Citizen" will best preserve for us and for our posterity the perpetual "Union" as Pres. Lincoln explained in his first inaugural address in 1861.

A Pyrrhic Victory with an Article V Convention of State Legislatures to Propose Amendments
Maybe WE the People through, our state legislatures and an Article V convention of state legislatures to propose amendments, should take the clarification of the meaning of "natural born Citizen" out of the hands of the "See-no-evil-Hear-no-evil-Speak-no-evil-about-Obama" Congress and the Supreme Court, and bring to heel the progressive lap-dog media.

We can let the "Obama-is-a-natural-born-Citizen" neo-birthers and the "transform the United States of America" cadre claim victory after victory in the court of public opinion and in the courts that did not deal with the merits of POTUS eligibility, while we John Jay original intent birthers can lose in the courts and the court of public opinion and still claim a Pyrrhic victory with an Article V convention of state legislatures to propose an A2 S1 C5 amendment to clarify what we all want, the "born-on-U.S.-or-foreign-soil-to-one-or-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" neo-birthers and and the John Jay "only-born-on-U.S.-soil-only-to-two-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" original intent birthers, we want "natural born Citizen" to mean something definite to help us assess future POTUS candidates who will not be able to obfuscate about their eligibility.

The "birth-on-U.S.-or-foreign-soil-to-one-or-zero-U.S.-citizen-parent-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" neo-birthers can win every battle in the lower courts and in the uninformed court of public opinion but they will most likely lose the ideological long war in the court of informed public opinion in an Article V convention of states to propose an amendment.

The John Jay inspired "only-birth-on-U.S.-soil-only-to-two-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf" birthers can lose every battle in the lower courts and in the court of public opinion but will most likely win the ideological long war with an Article V convention of states.

ajtelles said...

Time to Change the Conversation—The Question is How to do It?

8/

At this point it is an open question, and the federal congress and the federal court system is of no help in clarifying the meaning of "natural born Citizen" and POTUS eligibility. See The Justiciability of Eligibility: May Courts Decide Who Can Be President? by Daniel P. Tokaji, published in 2008*, "Conclusion: The current federal lawsuits challenging the presidential candidates' eligibility to serve as president are not justiciable, and it is questionable whether any justiciable case could be brought in federal court as an initial matter."

*( http://www.michiganlawreview.org/articles/the-justiciability-of-eligibility-may-courts-decide-who-can-be-president )

In an Article V convention of states to propose an amendment to clarify what WE the People of 21st century America want the meaning of "natural born Citizen" to be, which definition of "natural born Citizen" listed below will the people choose as their own preferred definition for their own posterity?

Do we ALL want Clarity about the Meaning of "natural born Citizen" to Preserve the Perpetual "Union" of America?
Are there any who do not want clarity about Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and what "natural born Citizen" could, should or will mean in our 21st century American future? If there are any who do not want clarity, why? Do they want to "transform" and to "break" the "Union" of America? If so, they are an enemy of the state. If so, they are an enemy of the perpetual "Union" of America. If so, they are an enemy of Pres. Lincoln who fought to save the perpetual "Union" of America from the civil war transformers of 1861-1865.

If he had lived, Pres. Lincoln probably would have fought to defeat the third phase of Reconstruction transformers who wanted to remain separate and resisted being equal for decades after the negro Republican politicians were removed from public office in the south; he would have fought the "living constitution" transformers who don't believe that original intent is applicable in constitutional construction and so cannot inform judicial opinion; and finally, Pres. Lincoln would have fought the "we are five days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America" transformers; he would have fought the "break it, so to speak" transformers.

To read what Pres. Lincoln said in his first inaugural address in 1861 about those who would try to "break" the perpetual "Union" of America, and what he said about the "Union" and the U.S. Constitution, see paragraphs 12 to 16, specifically #13 & #14, at Bartleby.com.*

*( http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html ).

In paragraph #13 Pres. Lincoln said "One party to a contract may violate it—break it, so to speak—but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?" In paragraph #14 he said "The Union is much older than the Constitution." The two sentences together mean that the perpetual "Union" is also older than Article II Section 1 Clause 5, and older than the words "natural born Citizen" with the meaning as understood in 1787 America. However, the "Union" is not older than the natural law that is the original genesis foundation, the guide and the teacher directing the construction of a positive law constitution, and of the original intent of the natural law/positive law words "natural born Citizen" to mean birth of a child on the soil claimed by U.S. citizen parents, plural. This was applied exclusively in A2 S1 C5 to the Chief Executive of our new tri-partite Federation, our federal government.

ajtelles said...

Time to Change the Conversation—The Question is How to do It?

9/

While the natural law/positive law aspects of "natural born Citizen" apply to the executive of the federation and do not apply to the several sovereign states who are the only creator, singular, of the creature that they created, the constitution, specifically A2 S1 C5, and the entire tri-partite federal government, natural law does apply to the several states. The several states have the natural law right to determine their own sovereign future, as they did in 1787 with the construction of the federal Constitution and the Federation, the tri-partite federal government. It was formed to preserve for the several states at that time their perpetual "Union" of America, and to secure for their posterity the perpetual "Union" of America from ALL enemies, foreign and domestic, who would try to "violate it—break it, so to speak" and "transform" the perpetual "Union" of now OUR America by transforming the constitution from a charter of negative liberties into a charter of positive liberties to equalize the people in the (inter)national commune.

Listen as Obama expresses his "negative liberties" explanation in a 2001 public radio interview.
1min. 45 sec. Youtube video ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jr9mLB3yKs )
4min. 17 sec. Youtube video, ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkpdNtTgQNM )

“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it’s been interpreted, and the Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can’t do to you. It says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf.” - Barack Obama

After listening to the audio of the above quote, people will understand the "positive liberties" reason why dual citizen Obama nominated Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court, as found in this National Review Online article, Kagan: Constitution as Charter of “Positive Liberties”, by Ed Whelan on May 17, 2010*

*( http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/55696/kagan-constitution-charter-positive-liberties/ed-whelan ).

Here is another example of how natural law informs and guides the construction of positive law.

The several states of America who ratified the "negative liberties" constitution can not nullify their own natural law right as creator to direct its creature, the Federation, the tri-partite federal government, to correct the problem caused by confusion about the original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5. There are several ways to correct the problem and eliminate the confusion. Two ways, statute and opinion, are, as directed in the constitution, in the domain of the legislature (Congressional statutes) and the judiciary (Supreme Court opinions). The third way, with references in Article V to both the U.S. Congress and the several states, is, by natural law common sense, the natural law right and in the domain of the several states who are the singular creator of the U.S. Constitution, Article II Section 1 Clause 5, Article V, Article IX, Article X and the entire Federation, the federal government, U.S. Congress, Executive President and U.S. Supreme Court.

ajtelles said...

Time to Change the Conversation—The Question is How to do It?

10/

WE the People of the several states are the natural law supreme law of the land with natural law rights since we are the creator of our creature, the U.S. Constitution, the written supreme law of the land. WE the People, by natural law rights, predate the constitution, Article II, Article V, Article IX, Article X and the entire Federation, the federal government consisting of the congress, the executive, the court. If WE the People want our several states to conduct an Article V convention of states to propose one amendment or multiple amendments because the other Article V designated member of the Federation, the U.S. Congress, will not resolve the confusion surrounding "natural born Citizen" and POTUS eligibility, then, so let it be written, so let it be done according to the will of WE the People of the several states in an Article V convention of states to propose an amendment.

Move On
How do we in 21st century America resolve the confusion about the original meaning and original intent of "natural born Citizen" and its application today? Let us move on with sensible questions. Let us move on beyond what "nbC" could have or should have meant to John Jay, George Washington and the framers in 1787 America, and agreed with by the ratifiers of the thirteen states, and rectified by the 3rd Congress in 1795.

Meaning
What do we in 21st century America want "natural born Citizen" ("nbC") to mean for ourselves and for our posterity?

Some of the questions below are dumb, dumb, dumb, but are included for continuity of thought to show the absurdity of some of the "Obama-Cruz-Rubio-Jindal-Haley-are-all-a-natural-born-Citizen" reasoning proposed by some "birth-on-U.S.-or-foreign-soil-to-one-or-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" neo-birthers, such as Slartibartfast, aka Kevin, Phd mathematician, and Prof. William Jacobson, Esq. Jacobson wrote on his blog*, "There are strong arguments in favor of Rubio, Jindal and Cruz each being a “natural born Citizen” as that term most reasonably can be understood through its plain text because they became citizens by birth."

*( http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/ )

Is Prof. Jacobson correct? Is the nebulous "citizens by birth" the meaning of "nbC" that we want in 21st century America?

1a- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" only mean born on U.S. soil and jurisdictions to two U.S. citizen parents?

There have been a total of 44 U.S. Presidents so far, and for 42 of them there has been no doubt that they ALL have met the eligibility requirement to be POTUS, the first 7 and the 9th, 8 in all, by being grandfathered into POTUS eligibility since they were born before the accepted national naturalization date of July 4, 1776, and the remaining 34 have been born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents.

1b- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born on U.S. soil and jurisdictions to one U.S. citizen parent?

The two U.S. Presidents who were not born on U.S. soil to two U.S. citizen parents and were born to one U.S. citizen parent are #21, Chester Alan Arthur and #44, Barack Hussein Obama.

1c- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born on U.S. soil and jurisdictions to zero U.S. citizen parents?

Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal and Gov. Nikki Haley currently, as of December 2014, are three Republican potential candidates for POTUS who were born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents.

1d- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born on U.S. soil and jurisdictions to either two or one or zero U.S. citizen parents?

ajtelles said...

Time to Change the Conversation—The Question is How to do It?

11/

2a- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born on foreign soil to two U.S. citizen parents?

Being born on foreign soil to citizen parents, plural, was included in the 1790 Naturalization Act, a positive law, but it was repealed by the 1795 Naturalization Act, and has never been included in any subsequent Congresses. It has never been the opinion (positive law, so to speak) of the Supreme Court.

2b- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born on foreign soil to one U.S. citizen parent?

Sen. Ted Cruz currently, as of December 2014, is one Republican potential candidate for POTUS who was not born on U.S. soil or U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil, who was born on the foreign soil of Canada to one U.S. citizen parent.

Sen. Cruz's "citizen" status is defined by the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act, 1952 INA, Sec. 301. [8 U.S.C. 1401 (g)].* See also "Citizenship Through Parents" at USCIS.gov.**

*( http://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-29/0-0-0-9696.html )
**( http://www.uscis.gov/us-citizenship/citizenship-through-parents )

2c- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizen parents?

2d- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born on foreign soil to either two or one or zero U.S. citizen parents?

3a- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" only mean born to 1st generation citizens, U.S. soil born children of two naturalized U.S. citizens? Implicit is that the following generations are included.

3b- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born to 1st generation citizens, children of one naturalized U.S. citizen?

3c- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born to 1st generation citizens, children of zero naturalized U.S. citizens?

3d- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean born to 1st generation citizens, children of either two or one or zero naturalized U.S. citizens?

4a- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" only mean born to 2nd generation grandchildren, U.S. soil born children of two U.S. soil born children of two naturalized U.S. citizens?

4b- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean birth to 2nd generation grandchildren, U.S. soil born children of one naturalized U.S. citizen?

4c- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean birth to 2nd generation grandchildren, U.S. soil born children of of zero naturalized U.S. citizens?

4d- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should "nbC" also mean birth to 2nd generation grandchildren, U.S. soil born children of either two or one or zero naturalized U.S. citizens?

Grandfather Them All
1- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should Obama, the current "citizen" who has said without verification that he was born on U.S. soil and who has admitted that he had only one U.S. citizen parent, and he was still elected President, should he be retroactively grandfathered into POTUS eligibility to promote national tranquility? Some may ask, why grandfather Obama into constitutional (positive law) POTUS eligibility before he leaves office? Others ask, why not?

Well, here are two reasons why, if it can be done before he leaves office? (1) In an Article V convention of states to propose amendments (positive law), WE the People can grandfather into POTUS eligibility anybody we want grandfathered, and we can do it retroactively or prospectively. (2) It might be a way to spur the Article V convention of states movement forward with agreement from the Obama neo-birther camp and the "MY GUY" or "MY GAL" neo-birther camp and the John Jay original intent birther camp.

ajtelles said...

Time to Change the Conversation—The Question is How to do It?

12/

2- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should current "citizens" such as Republicans Sen. Cruz, Sen., Rubio, Gov. Haley, Gov. Jindal and future "MY GUY" or "MY GAL" "citizens" be grandfathered into POTUS eligibility just as the first seven and the ninth presidents were, who were grandfathered into POTUS eligibility because they participated in and were loyal to the successful resolution of the revolution, the war for independence that was declared on July 4, 1776? They grandfathered them in 1787, and we can do it again before the 2016 national election cycle to cut the "natural born Citizen" Gordian knot of confusion as if with Alexander's sword.

Personally, I like this idea of grandfathering into POTUS eligibility exceptional American patriots because I really like Sen. Cruz, my favorite federal Senator and my state of Texas junior Senator, and I also like Florida Senator Rubio, as well as Gov. Haley and Gov. Jindal. All would be excellent patriotic Commanders in Chief if elected POTUS.

3- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should the current "citizens" who announce their candidacy for POTUS be the last "citizens" to be grandfathered into POTUS elibibility?

4- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility by "citizens" be limited to those who announce their candidacy for the 20?? (whatever the first date will be) national election cycle?

5- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should the 20?? (whatever the second date will be 8 years later) election cycle be the last national election cycle that current "citizens" can participate in?

Heterosexual and Homosexual Adoption and POTUS Eligibility of U.S. Born and Foreign Born Children
Some are saying that the U.S. Constitution should be amended to grandfather into POTUS eligibility the U.S. born or foreign born adopted children of two or one or zero U.S. citizen adoptive parents.

U.S. Born Children
1- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open only to U.S. soil or U.S. jurisdiction born children, born only to two U.S. citizen parents, who are then adopted by two U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are heterosexual or homosexual?

The purpose is not heterosexuality or homosexuality, but the maintenance of the continuity of two, natural law birth to two persons and positive law citizenship derived from two singular U.S. citizens, and carried over to the not "one" but "two" adoptive parents, since the adopted child is already recognized as being born only on U.S. soil or U.S. jurisdiction only to two U.S. citizen parents.

2- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also to U.S. soil born children born to U.S. citizen parents, who are then adopted by one U.S. citizen adoptive parent who is heterosexual or homosexual?

3- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also to U.S. soil born children born to U.S. citizen parents, who are then adopted by zero U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are heterosexual or homosexual?

4- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also to U.S. soil born children born to U.S. citizen parents, who are then adopted by either two or one or zero U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are heterosexual or homosexual?

ajtelles said...

Time to Change the Conversation—The Question is How to do It?

13/

Foreign Born Children
1- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also to foreign born adopted children of two U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are heterosexual or homosexual?

2- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also to foreign born adopted children of one U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are heterosexual or homosexual?

3- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also to foreign born adopted children of zero U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are heterosexual or homosexual?

4- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should POTUS eligibility be open also to foreign born adopted children of two or one or zero U.S. citizen adoptive parents who are heterosexual or homosexual?

How to Codify: Hard to Nullify or Easy to Nullify
How should we codify our agreement about our perpetual meaning of and our perpetual intent for "natural born Citizen" in 21st century America?

1- [ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should our 21st century meaning of "nbC" be codified with an Article V amendment that can only be nullified and repealed if ratified by 75% (38) of the states, and which can not be touched or affected by the U.S. Congress and its statutes or by Supreme Court opinion?

2- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should our 21st century meaning of "nbC" be codified with a statute by one Congress that can be nullified and repealed with another statute by a following Congress, and by an Article V amendment?

3- [ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should our 21st century meaning of "nbC" be codified, so to speak, with a Supreme Court opinion that can be nullified and overturned by a following Supreme Court opinion, and by an Article V amendment?

Article V Convention of the U.S. Congress to Propose an Amendment
[ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Is the solution an Article V amendment that is initiated by, debated among and agreed to by two-thirds of both House and Senate, which is sent to the states for ratification by three-fourths (38) of the states, and then implemented by Congress?

[ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should the U.S. Congress resolve the confusion about the meaning of "natural born Citizen" with a positive law constitutional amendment initiated by the U.S. Congress to clarify "natural birth" (natural law) and "Citizen" (positive law) in contrast to the positive law of the 14th Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court since U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark in 1898?

[ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should the U.S. Congress use an Article V amendment to clarify the distinction between natural law and natural law birth, and also positive law and positive law citizenship?

Article V Convention of the Several States to Propose an Amendment
[ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Is the solution an Article V amendment initiated by, debated among and agreed to by two-thirds (34) of the state legislatures, ratified by three-fourths (38) of the state legislatures or ratified by three-fourths (38) of the state conventions, and then implemented by Congress?

[ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should the several states resolve the confusion about the meaning of "natural born Citizen" with a positive law constitutional amendment initiated by the several states to clarify "natural birth" (natural law) and "Citizen" (positive law) in contrast to the positive law of the 14th Amendment as interpreted by the Supreme Court since U.S. vs. Wong Kim Ark in 1898?

[ x ] Yes [ ] No [ ] Maybe
Should the several states use an Article V amendment to clarify the distinction between natural law and natural law birth, and also positive law and positive law citizenship?

Yes, we can.
Si, se puede. Pronounced "see se pweth eh," it is Spanish for "yes, it's possible" or, roughly, "yes, we can."

ajtelles said...

Time to Change the Conversation—The Question is How to do It?

14/

Statute by Congress
[ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Is the solution a "what does THAT mean" statute by Congress that can be nullified and replaced with a succeeding statute, and by an Article V amendment?

[ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should we resolve the confusion with a positive law statute?

[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Can a Congressional statute clarify natural law and natural law birth?

[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Can it clarify positive law and positive law citizenship?

Court Opinion
[ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Is the solution a nebulous "what does THAT mean" opinion by the Supreme Court that can be nullified and overturned by a succeeding Court, and by an Article V amendment?

[ ] Yes [ x ] No [ ] Maybe
Should we resolve the confusion with a court opinion?

[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Can a court opinion clarify natural law and natural law birth?

[ ] Yes [ ] No [ x ] Maybe
Can a court opinion clarify positive law and positive law citizenship?

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

My Choice: Codify with an Article V Convention of States
I wonder which meaning of "natural born Citizen" the People will want codified, and which method of codification they think will have the best chance of resisting subversion and usurpation, and which will be the safest long term solution to promote national tranquility and national security?

My choice for the best way to prevent future confusion that allows usurpation of the Executive office of the federal government is an Article V convention of the states, the creator of their creature the Federation, the tri-partite federal government and its written constitution. It would encourage grassroots participation with a variety of opinions with the final proposition being an amendment with language that would clarify "natural born" (natural law) and "Citizen" (positive law) in "natural born Citizen" as meaning (1) only birth on U.S. soil or jurisdiction, (2) only birth to two U.S. citizen parents (3) who are U.S. citizens only by birth and not by naturalization. This means that only the 2nd generation child, the grandchild of two naturalized U.S. "citizen" grandparents and the child of two U.S. citizen parents, would be a "natural born Citizen" child of the two 1st generation "citizen" parents, and so be eligible to be POTUS at age 35.

There is no natural law reason preventing a change of POTUS eligibility from the 1787 positive law that made POTUS eligibility open to the 1st generation of two naturalized U.S. "citizen" parents. WE the People can "frame" and change POTUS eligibility and limit it to the 2nd and following generations if we want to just like the "framers" did in 1787 and limited it to the children of naturalized U.S. citizens. Just as "natural born Citizen" was restrictive in 1787 and made applicable only to the 1st generation child of two naturalized U.S "citizen" parents and not to naturalized citizens, "nbC" can be restricted today to 2nd generation children who are born to two 1st generation natural law "born" and positive law "citizen" children.

ajtelles said...

Time to Change the Conversation—The Question is How to do It?

15/

The amendment should include language only grandfathering into POTUS eligibility current "citizens" who announce their "citizen" candidacy before the 20?? (whichever national election cycle date is finally selected) national election cycle, and who will then qualify themselves to announce their "citizen" candidacy only one more time for the 20?? (the next national election cycle 8 years after the first national election cycle date) national election cycle (a one time only 8 year term limit to announce). Since pre-amendment "natural born Citizens" will not need to be grandfathered into POTUS eligibility, the amendment should include them with language that indicates that since they were born on U.S. soil or jurisdiction to two U.S. citizen parents before the amendment, they will not be limited and will be eligible in any national election cycle, until the last "natural born Citizen" born before Amendment XXVIII (or whatever the number will be) dies some time in the late 21st century or the early 22nd century.

An Idea Whose Time Has Come
With the rise of political and religious anti-American and anti-U.S. Constitution sentiment, maybe designating the 2nd generation child as our 21st century requirement for a "natural born Citizen" and POTUS eligibility is an idea whose time has come?

John Jay was prescient about the "Command in chief" being reserved only for a "natural born Citizen." The perpetual "Union" of America is being threatened by political and religious enemies from without and within our nation and at the heart of the federal government. The time has come to clarify the meaning of "natural born Citizen" for the 21st century and beyond to preserve our perpetual "Union" of America for ourselves and for our posterity.

Which meaning do the John Jay inspired "only-birth-on-U.S.-soil-to-only-two-U.S.-citizen-parents" birthers think the American people would choose if given a chance to give their opinion on natural law, the law of nature, and positive law, the law of people?

Which meaning do the "MY GUY" or "MY GAL" "also-birth-on-U.S.-or-foreign-soil-to-one-or-zero-U.S.-citizen-parents-is-good-'nuf" neo-birthers think the American people would choose if given a chance to give their opinion on natural law, the law of nature, and positive law, the law of people?

The question is not what do the American people think that "natural born Citizen" meant to John Jay and others in Jay's era, or even today, but what do the American people today in 21st century America want "natural born Citizen" to mean for their own "natural born Citizen" posterity?

Which meaning of "nbC" do the American people think would promote national security and the perpetual "Union" of America?

Which meaning of "nbC" do the American people think would NOT promote national security and the perpetual "Union" of America?

It can be done with an Article V convention of states to propose amendments just like the House and Senate convene under the authority of Article V to propose amendments. When the House and Senate convene to propose amendments, they are not convening a Constitutional Convention to rewrite the constitution, a so-called Con-Con. They are doing what Article V gives them authority to do, convene and propose amendments, and that is also what an Article V convention of states does. The several states convene to propose amendments. Period. That is the constitutional way for WE the People of the several states, the creator of our creature, the U.S. Constitution and the tri-partite federal government, to nullify abuses perpetrated by our Federation child, and the ultimate and best way to preserve OUR perpetual "Union" of America for our posterity.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

ajtelles said...

Time to Change the Conversation—The Question is How to do It?

16/

Patrick Henry wrote after independence was won from England on the back of his copy of the Stamp Act Resolves that was passed May 1765 by the Virginia House of Burgesses, an office to which George Washington was also elected for a few years. The quote of Patrick Henry below is from George Washington's Sacred Fire, page 292, by Peter Lillback, published 2010.

"Patrick Henry is most known for his fiery, patriotic oratory. But his patriotic fire was strengthened with biblical reflection. In May 1765, the Burgesses passed the Stamp Act Resolves. Years later, on the back of the paper, Henry wrote a note for posterity that highlighted several of the key events that led to the Revolution. His climactic statement declared in bold letters that he was not a Deist.

'This brought on the war which finally separated the two countries and gave independence to ours. Whether this will prove a blessing or a curse, will depend upon the use our people make of the blessings, which a gracious God hath bestowed on us.

'If they are wise, they will be great and happy. If they are of a contrary character, they will be miserable.

'Righteousness alone can exalt them as a nation. Reader! Whoever thou art, remember this, and in thy sphere practice virtue thyself, and encourage it in others. P. Henry' "

Dittos. ajtelles

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

PS:

A friendly hat tip to Prof. William Jacobson who is mildly persuasive but certainly not convincing in his defense of Marco Rubio, Bobby Jindal and Ted Cruz as each being a "natural born Citizen" because each was "born a citizen" of the U.S. as he put it, implying but being very, very, very unpersuasive that "born a citizen" = "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5. However, the title of his blog, Legal Insurrection, is the epitome of the explicit purpose of an Article V convention of states to propose amendments to clarify for our posterity the confusion between "born a citizen" and "natural born Citizen."

"Legal Insurrection—A rising up against established authority; rebellion; revolt—in conformity with or permitted by law."

Yep, THAT is the epitome of an Article V convention of states. Exactly what the framers and ratifiers originally intend as the constitutional way to nullify federal usurpation beyond the powers of Congress enumerated in Article 1 Section 8 Clauses 1-18, and the best legal way to preserve the perpetual "Union" of OUR America for our posterity.

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the perpetual "Union"
The "perpetual Union" as clarified by Pres. Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861
See paragraph #14 at Bartleby.com ( http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html )

ajtelles said...

#2 Time to Change the Conversation—the Question is How to do It

1/

Mario,

I posted the John Jay "obvious" questions and answers below on my own blog today, and I wanted to let you know that you have been an inspiration to me to look deeply into the original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" as John Jay originally meant it to be understood by the founders, framers, ratifiers and WE the Posterity of the 1787 WE the People who united to form a more perfect Union.

You are very knowledgeable about the history surrounding "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5, and I have been content to digest your clear and coherent explications of "natural born Citizen" as meaning only birth in the nation of citizen parents, and your expositions of various authors such as Coke, Vattel, etc., and Supreme Court cases such as Minor and Wong Kim Ark, etc.

Eventually I found myself looking at the "common sense" and "original intent" aspect of the eligibility phrase as John Jay may have explained it. I think the "obvious" questions below about my new best friend John Jay are a convenient way to explain why I think that John Jay's common sense original intent is the Sword of Alexander to cut the Gordian knot of confusion surrounding the original intent meaning of "born" in "natural born Citizen" that Jay underlined in his brief note about other matters to George Washington.

The story is that after Alexander the Great was told that the next ruler of Asia would be the person who untied the intricate knot tied by King Gordian of Phrygia, he simply cut it with his sword. Well, it's that simple. That is why I think that the common sense original intent of John Jay is the Sword of Alexander to simply "cut" the "what-does-natural-born-Citizen-really-mean" Gordian knot.

We can't quit now, another national election cycle is coming soon. The previous essay that I posted on your blog and this addition is my way of changing my conversation from the ethereal that is disputable about past history to the current reality that something has to change in America to wake up the American people from their lethargy and when they are awake to start a conversation to reach agreement about our Federation and who in the future will be allowed to occupy the oval office of our Federation that was created by the original creator, WE the People of the original several states.

I think that an Article V convention of state legislatures is the best constitutional way to "nullify" the "phone" and "pen" unconstitutional Executive Orders by the current person who managed to OCCUPY the oval office. The exact phrase in Article V is "... or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, ... ." For people who don't know, Article V does not authorize a Constitutional Convention, a Con-Con, to rewrite the constitution. It authorizes a convention of "several states" to simply propose amendments. Period.

ajtelles said...

#2 Time to Change the Conversation—the Question is How to do It

2/

I posted this essay here on my own blog, OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com, before posting it on Mario Apuzzo's excellent blog (see the url below), discussing, since December 2008, the meaning of "natural born Citizen" in Article II Section 1 Clause 5 in the U.S. Constitution and its historical significance relating to the POTUS eligibility BHObama initially and also to Republican potential candidates for POTUS.

He's been at the ramparts for 6 years this month of December, and I've only been "awake" since March 1, 2012 when Arizona Sheriff Joe Arpaio and Lt. Mike Zullo had the Cold Case Posse news conference where the main stream media revealed that they are at heart lap dogs for the progressive politicians, Republican, Democratic, Libertarian, Independent and nebulous "Anarchists," as was illustrated with their coverage of the original intent of the OCCUPY bowel movement on Wall Street and elsewhere across America.

The progressive, liberal, anarchist OCCUPY bowel movement really started when BHObama managed to OCCUPY the oval office of our Federation without the media vetting Obama's true authentic and irrefutable birth (lineage), his authentic and irrefutable "natural" birth (nativity), his authentic and irrefutable source of citizenship (heritage), his authentic and irrefutable singular citizenship or his dual citizenship (nationality). The shallow stream media did NOT delve into these fundamental issues until they were forced to nudge-nudge wini-wink touch on them for a nanosecond and then they returned to their regular programming 'cause, doncha know, the idiosyncrasies of politicians such as Palin, McCain, Cain, Santorum, Gingrich, Romney, etcetera, and of course, whew, America was saved just in time by Bush and then Obama, and the private sector economy was more important than protecting our "Union" of America from foreign or domestic dual citizenship ideological enemies of our constitution as a charter of negative liberties from without or within the oval office of our Federation and our nation of states.

I have changed the format just a little bit, adding and clarifying sentences, syntax and punctuation, but the essay is essentially the same, discussing how to "change the conversation" and move on to a conclusion that is agreeable to both John Jay original intent birthers, Obama birth narrative neo-birthers, and what I call the "MY GUY" or "MY GAL" neo-birthers (Yes, I coined and minted those "neo-birther" phrases and put them together and use them constantly 'cause they work and are not demeaning, simply descriptive).

Who are John Jay original intent birthers?

John Jay original intent birthers promote the proposition that what Jay REALLY meant when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to his friend George Washington, the president of the Constitutional Convention, who obviously conveyed Jay's suggestion to the convention delegates who accepted it and adopted it without dissenting voices about its common law meaning, and then they passed it on to the states for ratification, where it was obviously ratified with the same understanding that Jay and Washington had, which is that "born" has only one meaning and not two or more meanings; ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents married to each other before their child is born.

ajtelles said...

#2 Time to Change the Conversation—the Question is How to do It

3/

Who are Obama birth narrative neo-birthers?

They are defenders of the Obama birth narrative theory that being born naturally on U.S. soil AND being born to ONLY one U.S. citizen parent AND one non-U.S. citizen parent, whether they are married or not, with dual citizenship, is sufficient to qualify for POTUS eligibility.

Who are "MY GUY" or "MY GAL" neo-birthers"?

They are proponents of the theory that being born naturally on U.S. soil (and jurisdiction on foreign soil) AND foreign soil that is NOT under U.S. jurisdiction, AND being born to EITHER two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents, who may or may not be married to each other, is sufficient to qualify for POTUS eligibility.

John Jay was and still is today, 238 years later as of December 2014, obvious in his original intent meaning.

By underling the word "born" in his note to Washington, it is obvious that Jay had ONLY one meaning and one original intent, NOT two meanings AND two original intents. The number of "intents" is obvious, right?

It is obvious that "natural born Citizen" can ONLY mean only born on U.S. soil only to two U.S. citizen married parents.

It is obvious that Jay was NOT saying that "natural" and "born" and "Citizen" meant that citizens of other nations, married or not married to each other, could come to U.S. soil and have THEIR children on OUR U.S. soil and THEIR dual citizenship children would be eligible to be POTUS, and, as Article II Section 1 Clause 5 clarified, eligible at the age of 35 after residing on OUR U.S. soil for a minimum of 14 years.

Obviously Jay was NOT saying that, right?

What Jay WAS obviously saying was that OUR U.S. citizens, married to each other, who had THEIR children on OUR U.S. soil would produce their own U.S. "natural born" child, and THEIR "natural born" child would ALSO be a U.S. "Citizen" with singular U.S. citizenship because BOTH of the married parents were U.S. citizens BEFORE their child was born.

If the Obama neo-birthers and the "MY GUY" or "MY GAL" neo-birthers insist that Jay was not obvious in saying ONLY birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents, ONLY married to each other, well, just how do the neo-birthers KNOW that Jay did NOT obviously mean ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents, ONLY married to each other?

Conversely, just how do the neo-birthers KNOW that Jay obviously, and Washington obviously agreed with Jay, that Jay obviously DID mean ALSO born on U.S. OR foreign soil to EITHER two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents,whether they were married to each other or not?

Well, those and similar questions are what I am referring to in this essay as a way to change the conversation from one of intractable assertions about past history and to move on to future history. That is why it is Time To Change the Conversation—The Question Is How To Do it.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Well, Mario, that's it about the common sense original intent of John Jay, the Sword of Alexander to "cut" the Gordian knot of confusion surrounding the original intent of "natural born Citizen."

Seasons greetings.

John Jay would probably consider with approval your efforts to breach the federal ramparts of the courts and the lethargy of the lap dog media. An Article V convention of states legislatures is all WE the People have in our constitutional quiver.

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the perpetual "Union"
The "perpetual Union" as clarified by Pres. Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861
See paragraph #14 at Bartleby.com ( http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html )

Robert said...

An Article V Convention would be held on the premise that writing new laws would be an effective remedy against those who are violating the current laws. It would also be attended and prosecuted by those very violators. I'm sorry, but this sounds like insanity to me. It is, in the least, a sucker play.

A more effective remedy is to push for nullification of and passive resistance to the current set of unconstitutional actions. All we need is for one state - or even one Governor or one Senator - to stand up for our Constitution. The truth will take care of the rest.

So, while we flood the offices of our current politicians with the truth and confront them, their staff, their associates, and their family at every opportunity and at every place they can be found, we need to flood the precinct meetings of both major parties, push the Constitution as the primary agenda, and elect people who are dedicated to upholding it. We need to elect Sheriffs with backbones and knowledge of the Constitution (As Constitutional officers, they can arrest public servants for treason.) and follow this pattern all the way up the political ladder.

As these folks take office we need to demand that they completely rebuild their staffs with individuals who will hold fast to the Constitution. It would also be a great idea if we could limit the time that anyone can spend in paid public service. No super healthcare plans. No public retirement programs. These folks need to be completely dedicated to serving and building the private sector - because they will be returning to it!!

We the People have the right to remove those who have violated their oaths of office by several means, often referred to as the "four boxes": the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. In the Constitution the last of this list is actually 2nd. "... necessary for the security of a free state.." obviously implies the "state" as it was established by the Constitution: one of limited and enumerated powers (and specific presidential eligibility requirements).

Even though We the People entrust the President with the power and responsibility of his oath of office, as the true sovereign citizens of this Constitutional Republic, it remains our birthright and our duty to preserve, protect and defend it against all enemies foreign and domestic.

ajtelles said...

Lynch v. Clarke

Mario,

I couldn't let 2014 end without reposting here to your own blog your November 1, 2014 at 3:55 pm* brief Lynch v. Clarke comment on Cafe Con Leche Requblicans to Slartibartfast, aka Kevin, Obama neo-birther defender of the Obama birth narrative theory that only one U.S. citizen parent is sufficient to be eligible to be POTUS. Why only one U.S. citizen parent? 'Cause that is all Obama had, one.

*( http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/#comment-67010 )

Obama neo-birthers who point to the Lynch v. Clarke real estate inheritance case as relevant are oblivious to the fact that the 1844 lower court got it wrong about the meaning of "natural born Citizen" because the court did not consider and then adduce John Jay and his 1787 original intent, which can ONLY mean ONLY birth on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

November 1, 2014 at 3:55 pm
Slartibartfast,

I have written extensively on this blog on Lynch and will not do so again at this time. Suffice it to say that Lynch was a state law case that did not deal with political rights but rather with property rights.

Lynch v. Clarke was decided in 1844. The case involved an issue of inheritance of real estate in the State of New York. The state law case does not come close to being any authority on the constitutional national question of what is an Article II “natural born citizen.”

Deciding who may inherit land in New York was strictly a state issue which could have been decided strictly under state law. It had nothing to do with who is a natural born citizen under Article II and eligible to be President which is to be decided by national constitutional law.

The Lynch state court was correct that a natural born citizen must be defined by national common law. But it then, among the many other errors that it made, used the wrong common law. It thought that the common law existing in the several states was all uniform and was our national common law. This was super dicta and folly to boot.

Additionally, the New York legislature in 1860 overruled Lynch. 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.

Lynch’s parents were “transient aliens.”
Hence, under this statute, Lynch would not have been a citizen of New York.

Before the Civil Rights Act of 1866, a person was a citizen of the United States only if he or she were first a citizen of a State. If the children of transient aliens were not even considered citizens, they surely would not have been considered natural born citizens.

Finally, Lynch’s dicta definition of a natural born citizen was also overruled by the unanimous 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.

The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett in 1875 demonstrates that the Lynch decision is bad law on the question of what is an Article II natural born citizen and to be rejected for that score.

P.S. Don’t feel bad that no one recognized you during Halloween. What counts is that you knew who you were.

Posted by Mario Apuzzo, Esq.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the perpetual "Union"
The "perpetual Union" as clarified by Pres. Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861
See paragraph #14 at Bartleby.com ( http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html )

ajtelles said...

Article V & Nullification are "WE the People" Kin Folk

1/

Robert, on December 30, 2014 at 12:08 AM you certainly made some cogent points, but something is missing in the solution. That something has to do with the time frame for doing all the good things that you wrote should be done, and the hit-or-miss element of getting the "we need" items done in an organized and timely manner.

"A more effective remedy is to push for nullification..."
"All we need is for one state - or even ..."
"So, while we flood the offices of ..."
"... we need to flood the precinct meetings of ..."
"... push the Constitution as the primary agenda ..."
"... elect people who are dedicated ..."
"... elect Sheriffs with backbones ..."
"... we need to demand that they completely rebuild their staffs ..."
"... a great idea if we could limit the time that anyone can spend in paid public service ..."
"We the People have the right to remove those who have violated their oaths of office by several means, often referred to as the "four boxes": the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box. ... ."

An Article V convention of "several states" legislatures to propose one or multiple amendments, such as was done in 1791 with ratification of the 12 amendments, which was whittled down to 10 amendments, including the 2nd, is the constitutional way to "nullify" the errors of any Federal administrator of OUR Federal Government. The time frame could be shorter in fulfillment than the "we need" items listed above, or it could take longer than it should if the the pro-nullification proponents that I have heard on Youtube such as Publius Hulda, James Madison Rebukes Nullification Deniers,* whose passion I really appreciate and whom I respect as a true American patriot, continue to mislabel Article V proponents such as Mike Farris and Mark Levin as something like the Devil's disciples, and mislabel an Article V convention of states legislatures as a constitutional convention, a con-con.

*(1hr24min speech on March 17, 2014 — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ay8Niu7ndM )

Article V gives authority to convene to propose amendments to two entities, the U.S. Congress and the "several states" legislatures, who wrote themselves into the Constitution in Article V because the "several states" predate and are the creator of it's creature, the U.S. Constitution, and they chose to "nullify" the errors of it's creature, the Federation, with an Article V convention of states legislatures. If the Congress can convene to propose amendments to be ratified by the several states, well, then, so can the "several states" convene to propose amendments. Right?

ajtelles said...

Article V vs. Nullification...

2/

Of course Madison's and Jefferson's, especially Jefferson's articulation of simple state "nullification" to counter Federal errors, is the natural law right of the several states. Since the natural law right of "nullification" predates the written U.S. Constitution, it is not a constitutional right. That simply means that it is a natural right of a free state to defend itself from tyranny, to practice self defense. In other words, it is a natural law right that predates the 2nd Amendment, which was ratified because it was a natural law right that did not need a positive law for it to be a natural law right.

Also, because the natural law right of "nullification" predates the positive law of a written constitution, the framers inserted and the ratifiers ratified, their natural law right of "nullification" into Article V of the Constitution to protect the natural law right of the "several states" who were the creator, singular, of their creature, the written Constitution, and the Federation that the written constitution defined, the bicameral Congress, House and Senate, the singular Executive President, the Supreme Court.

Article V starts with these words:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress: ... ."

The point is that "whenever" means whenever, of course, and implying for whatever reason the Congress or the "several states" may want to convene. It could be to restrict distribution of alcohol, or to repeal the restriction 14 years, 10 months and 20 days later. The 16th Amendment, fullfiling the 2nd plank of the Communist Manifesto*, a heavy progressive or graduated income tax, is still the cash cow of the progressives after ratification in the Woodrow Wilson administration of OUR federal government on February 3, 1913. It will be 102 years next February 2015.

*( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto )

Also, the 17th Amendment, ratified on April 8, 1913 in Woodrow Wilson's administration of OUR federal government, repealed the original Article I Section 1 Clause 1 which said that the two Senators for each state were to be "chosen" by the state legislatures.

The original intent was simple: Article I Section 2—Representatives, Article 1 Section 3—Senators, and Article II Section 1—Executive.

(1) The grassroots, the people closest to the candidate, were to "elect" their Federal Representatives. (2) The states were to "choose" their own Federal Senators who were to represent their individual state to the Federal Government, meaning as equals among the other states regardless of population. (3) The electors were to "vote by ballot" for the Executive of the Federal Government who would be the referee to make sure that the people's interests in the House and the states interests in the Senate were to be protected but not controlled by the Executive.

That was brilliant!

(1) The people "elect" their Representative "to" the Federation.
(2) The states "choose" their Senators "to" the Federation.
(3) The electors "vote by ballot" for the Executive "of" the Federation.

ajtelles said...

Article V vs. Nullification...

3/

But because of the 17th Amendment taking control away from the states of "choosing" their two Senators who were to represent the interests of their individual states "TO" the Federal Government, the direct "election" of the two Senators has gradually degenerated into a political pig sty situation with the two Senators turning on their individual states and representing the interests of the Federal Government, mainly the Executive, "TO" their states. Obamacare is the most recent and obvious case in which many Federal Senators voted for Obamacare and went against the wishes of their Governors and their Attorney's Generals who were fighting in the courts against Obamacare.

THAT political war between the Federal Senators and their states is one example of why the 17th Amendment MUST be repealed. After the states take back control of their own two Federal Senators, then WE the People, in an Article V convention of the "several states" to propose amendments, WE the People can use the return of the Senators to the control of the states to repeal the Marxist progressive 16th Amendment. Now THAT is definitely an idea whose time has come.

Also, an Article V convention of states legislatures to amend Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and clarify the meaning of "natural born Citizen" for us and for our own posterity MUST be addressed by the "several states," either after but preferably before the 17th Amendment is repealed by an Article V convention of the states legislatures because the entrenched U.S. Congress House AND Senate definitely will not convene to repeal the 17th Amendment and return the Federal Senator back to the control of the "several states."

I have recently written some of this on my blog*, titled Time to Change the Conversation—Time to Choose.

*( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the perpetual "Union"
The "perpetual Union" as clarified by Pres. Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861
See paragraph #14 at Bartleby.com ( http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html )

ajtelles said...

John Jay v Neo-birthers...

1/

Mario,

You have the etiological history of "natural born Citizen" under control, and absolutely nobody has refuted your definition of an "nbC" as a child ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to U.S. citizen parents, plural.

Those neo-birthers who do try to refute you try to do so by starting with the lack of clarity in the "nbC" phrase since 1787, and then some assert that they are definitely sure that BHObama is an Article II Section 1 Clause 5 "nbC" because he was simply born naturally to at least one U.S. citizen parent on U.S. soil, while other neo-birthers assert that they are also absolutely sure that any child born naturally is an A2 S1 Ct "nbC" if born to zero U.S. citizen parents on U.S. soil (Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal, Gov. Nikki Haley), while still others assert that they are also absolutely clear that any child born naturally is an A2 S1 C5 "nbC" if born on foreign soil to at least one U.S. citizen parent (Sen. Ted Cruz).

So, not being a lawyer like you, Leo Donofrio and others, or a law school or legal foundation affiliated constitutional scholar like "only-one-U.S.-citizen-parent-is -good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" neo-birthers Larry Solum, William Jacobson, Jack Maskel, Rob Natelson, Mark Levin, Randy Barnett, etcetra, etcetra, etcetra, below is my normal person's articulation of the original intent meaning of "natural born Citizen" as John Jay may have clarified it if he had been asked by 1787 neo-birthers, but he never was asked because neo-birthers did not exist in 1787. It is the POTUS eligibility debate in a nutshell as I see it in my short two year 8 month study, as of January 3, 2015, of the "nbC" issue since May 1, 2012 when Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his lead investigator Lt. Mike Zullo had the Cold Case Posse news conference about Obama's fraudulent birth certificate posted on OUR federal government website.

Randy Barnett* has a brief look at John McGinnis and Mike Rappaport’s book Originalism and the Good Constitution.

"A very problematic paragraph appears on page 8. Here it is in its entirety:

'More recently, a new form of originalism, which we call constructionist originalism, has arisen in response to this critique of original public meaning. Constructionist originalists argue that interpreters are bound by the Constitution’s original meaning only when it is clear. ...

'When a provision is ambiguous or vague, interpreters may resort to nonoriginalist materials to determining the Constitution’s meaning. But constructionist originalism raises its own difficulties because it significantly reduces the scope of originalism.

'Indeed, some theorists have questioned whether constructionist originalism’s embrace of nonoriginalist methods to resolve ambiguity and vagueness does not largely collapse originalism into living constitutionalism.

'Constructivist originalism also leaves unanswered the question of what replaces originalism when originalism does not apply.' "


*( http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/02/23/off-to-a-bad-start-originalism-and-the-good-constitution/ )

ajtelles said...

John Jay v Neo-birthers...

2/

The relevance of Barnett's quote from McGinnis's and Rappaport's book is contained in the second sentence, "When a provision is ambiguous or vague, ..."

Well, was John Jay ambiguous or vague?

George Washington and the founders, framers and ratifiers of Article II Section 1 Clause 5 and "natural born Citizen" did not think so. Although in the first Congress of Washington's first administration some misapplied Jay's original intent in the 1790 Naturalization Act when they passed the Act that identified a child as a "natural born Citizen" if born on foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents, plural, under James Madison's guidance in the third Congress of Washington's second administration, the misapplication was corrected in the 1795 Naturalization Act when the Act was passed with the clarification that a child was only a "citizen" if born on foreign soil to U.S. citizen parents, plural.

Mario, if there's anything that is not correct in the items listed below, maybe you or another John Jay original intent birther can correct the error, or simply amplify the accuracy of the clarification. The neo-birthers may not care to engage, but, who knows, they may, since Obama ONLY has one U.S. citizen parent and so "one-U.S.-citizen-parent-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" MUST be accurate and true. Right?

Here are the multiple neo-birther meanings to choose from compared to the single John Jay original intent meaning.

John Jay Single Original Intent Meaning of "natural born Citizen"

(1) ONLY U.S. soil
(2) ONLY born on U.S. soil
(3) ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents
(4) ONLY married to each other
(5) BEFORE their child is born

Neo-birther Multiple Original Intent Meanings of "natural born Citizen"

(1) EITHER U.S. soil
(2) OR foreign soil
(3) EITHER born on U.S. soil
(4) OR born on foreign soil
(5) AND born to two U.S. citizen parents
(6) OR born to one U.S. citizen parent
(7) OR born to zero U.S. citizen parents
(8) Married OR NOT Married to each other
(9) BEFORE their child is born on U.S. soil

The ultimate question for an Article V convention of the "several states" legislatures to amend Article II Section 1 Clause 5 of the U.S. Constitution and clarify the meaning of "natural born Citizen" is very simple: to maintain the perpetual "...more perfect Union" of America as expressed by the 1787 WE the People, and which President Lincoln clarified in his first inaugural address in 1861*, which "original intent" meaning of "natural born Citizen" will the American people choose for their own "natural born Citizen" children?

It's time to choose.

*See section 8: Do we ALL want Clarity about the Meaning of "natural born Citizen" to Preserve the Perpetual "Union" of America? ( OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com )

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the perpetual "Union"
The "perpetual Union" as clarified by Pres. Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861
See paragraph #14 at Bartleby.com ( http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html )

ajtelles said...

Correction...

Instead of my 2 year eight month study since May 1, 2012, it is March 1, 2012 and 2 year 10 month study.

My short two year 10 month study, "...as of January 3, 2015, of the "nbC" issue since March 1, 2012 when Sheriff Joe Arpaio and his lead investigator Lt. Mike Zullo had the Cold Case Posse news conference ..."

Mario, the length of time it took me to get a handle on the "nbC" debate is not really important in the greater scheme of things, but your coherent expositions have certainly helped me to get a grasp of the essence of the "nbC" debate and to clarify what I think was and still is the single original intent of John Jay as compared to the multitude of possible original intents articulated by the neo-birthers as I wrote in the previous post to this.

Art

ajtelles said...

Birther John Jay v Neo-birthers...

1/

Mario,

You have the etiological (origin, reason) and teleological (aim, purpose) history of "natural born Citizen" under control, and going on seven years since December 2008 when you started your blog, absolutely nobody has refuted your definition of an "nbC" as "a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth," which is simply an accurate restatement of Minor v. Happersett, "...it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also."

Mario, since I have no intention of ever posting a comment on Cafe Con Leche Republicans, the neo-birther blog of make believe about open borders for immigrant dreamer children of illegal aliens being a societal good for a free, safe and secure America, and for the nascent "progressive" Republican party, and also how positive law statutes ipso facto define the natural law/positive law aspects of "natural born Citizen," maybe you can ask a question relative to John Jay in your point-counterpoint with nit picker neo-birthers Bryan (FKA NotLinda) and Slartibartfast (aka Kevin, aka Phd mathematician) and Bob Quasius (aka Bob, the host). Maybe it's time to change the conversation by adducing the original intent of original birther John Jay. Of course, you should continue to respond to their denigrating comments against your legal erudition and your personal integrity, but after doing that, maybe you can also ask the neo-birthers a very simply question related to original birther John Jay's "natural born Citizen" original intent: which of the definitions of "natural born Citizen" listed below would the neo-birthers want articulated by the current Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice John (call it a tax) Roberts? However, maybe the neo-birthers would prefer to have the U.S. Congress to define "nbC" instead. Maybe they might even have a preference for an Article V convention of the "several states" to propose an amendment to clarify the confusion surrounding the original intent meaning of "nbC" once and forever.

ajtelles said...

Birther John Jay v Neo-birthers...

2/

First is neo-birther Bryan's December 26, 2014 at 11:30 am quote from the Arizona Pima County Superior Court*.

"Here’s a real court on that issue:

“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.” (bold emphasis is added)

*( http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/#comment-113889 )

Next are the multiple neo-birther meanings to choose from compared to the single John Jay original intent meaning.

John Jay Single Original Intent Meaning of "natural born Citizen"

(1) ONLY U.S. soil
(2) ONLY born on U.S. soil
(3) ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents
(4) ONLY married to each other
(5) BEFORE their child is born

Neo-birther Multiple Original Intent Meanings of "natural born Citizen"

(1) EITHER U.S. soil
(2) OR foreign soil
(3) EITHER born on U.S. soil
(4) OR born on foreign soil
(5) AND born to two U.S. citizen parents
(6) OR born to one U.S. citizen parent
(7) OR born to zero U.S. citizen parents
(8) Married OR NOT Married to each other
(9) BEFORE their child is born on U.S. soil

So, it looks like the Pima County Arizona Superior Court chose neo-birther definition #3 and #6, born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent. Why? Obama was born naturally to one U.S. citizen parent, right? So, according to the neo-birther definition, he was born a natural born citizen, right? The number of U.S. citizen parents is irrelevant. That must be the erudite presupposition of the Pima County Arizona Superior Court, and it does not matter what John Jay's original intent was in 1787.

That means that neo-birther Bryan's definition of "nbC" that does not consider and then adduce John Jay for guidance about Jay's 1787 original intent will always define "nbC" in a neo-birther way that is contrary to the 1875 Minor v. Happersett court that agrees with John Jay's original intent birther definition #2 and #3: a child ONLY born on U.S. soil ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents. Also, maybe somebody can also ask the SCOTUS which of the meanings of "nbC" listed do they adhere to; the single John Jay original intent birther definition or the multitude of neo-birther definitions?

Art
U.S. Constitution
The Original "Birther" Document of the perpetual "Union"
The "perpetual Union" as clarified by Pres. Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861
See paragraph #14 at Bartleby.com ( http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html )

ajtelles said...

TKO...

Mario,

It looks like your "rope-a-dope" strategy (if it was a strategy) worked and resulted in a TKO, a technical knock out. To be a KO, a knock out, it would require Bryan and his neo-birther cohort, Slartibartifast (aka Kevin-Ph.D mathematician) and Bob Q., the host. of Cafe Con Leche Republicans, to admit that when John Jay underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" he meant ONLY U.S. soil, ONLY birth on U.S. soil, ONLY to two U.S. citizen married parents, and he did NOT mean ALSO birth on EITHER U.S. soil OR foreign soil, to EITHER two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen married parents.

Oh well, Bryan's admission of frivolous intent is good 'nuf for a TKO and for you to hold up both of your hands and circle around the arena of ideas.

A TKO is a legitimate win. Period.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

This is your January 14, 2015 at 11:19 am on Cafe Con Leche Republicans to Bryan (FKA NotLinda) -

"Bryan Gene Olson,

"You said: “You misunderstand. I’m not trying to convince you, just make fun of you.”

"Apart that it is hilarious to think that someone of your intellectual caliber would think so highly of himself that he would believe that he can make anyone laugh, thank you for conceding that your comments are not based on history, law, and reason, but rather only on bunk."


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

All that the "birth-on-U.S.-soil-OR-foreign-soil-to-two-OR-one-OR-zero-U.S.-citizen-parent-is-good-'nuf-for-POTUS-eligibility" neo-birthers need to do to refute the above paragraphs is to cogently articulate why the lower hurdle of birth on U.S. soil OR foreign soil with DUAL citizenship with ONLY "one U.S. citizen parent" IS good 'nuf, and why the higher hurdle of ONLY birth on U.S. soil with ONLY "two U.S. citizen married parents" is NOT the ONLY John Jay "original genesis original intent" and NOT good 'nuf.

Simple. Right?


Since the 1787 "Union" of America
A John Jay "Natural Born Citizen" Means ONLY One Thing


The "higher hurdle" essence of John Jay’s clear and coherent
"original genesis original intent" IS simple:

1.
ONLY U.S. soil
2.
ONLY birth on U.S. soil
3.
ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents
4.
ONLYmarried to each other
5.
ONLY before their child is born
6.
ONLY single U.S. Citizenship

vs

The "lower hurdle" essence of neo-birther's confusing and incoherent
"new meaning" is NOT simple:

1.
U.S. soil OR foreign soil
2.
birth on U.S. soil OR foreign soil
3.
to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents
4.
married OR NOT married to each other
5.
Before OR after their child is born
6.
Dual citizenship—U.S. AND foreign

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
( http://originalbirtherdocument.blogspot.com/ )

The Original "Birther" Document of the perpetual "Union"
The "perpetual Union" as clarified by Pres. Lincoln in his first inaugural address in 1861
See paragraph #14 at Bartleby.com ( http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html )

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

ajtelles,

Yes, Bryan Gene Olson has received not only a technical TKO, but a substantive and an absolute one. He never did produce any evidence or make any legal argument supporting his absurd position that all born citizens are Article II natural born citizens.

He has to date not been able to refute all the historical and legal evidence which demonstrates that the Framers 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 de facto President Barack Obama and Senator Ted Cruz, not satisfying that definition, are not Article II natural born citizens. He, like the rests of the Obots, thinks that his sophomoric smear campaign can make up for the intellect and integrity that he so sorely lacks.

Justin said...

Wholly crap, have you guys seen that Kenya changed their Constitution in 2011 and Obama is NOW a citizen of Kenya?

Read number 5:

http://kenyahighcommission.ca/dual-citizenship/

Justin said...

Scratch my last post. He would have to apply to regain his citizenship. I totally misread.

ajtelles said...

The Moretti Underground... 1hr3m40s

Mario,

Yesterday I heard your Jan. 26, 2015 fifty minute interview on The Moretti Undergound Show-The Liberty Report, hosted by Jo Anne Moretti. It starts at 1h 3m 40s -

>> ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=822qlXqFiyo )

Over at Cafe Con Leche Republicans, Bob, the host posted another derogatory comment about some of your statements in the interview.

"January 27, 2015 at 3:42 pm

"I listened to the recent episode of the Moretti Underground which had Apuzzo as a guest. In addition to mangling the history of his own cases, Apuzzo really launched some groaners:

"* An uninsured person who doesn’t pay the newly imposed penalty under the Affordable Care Act would have standing to challenge whether President Obama was actually the president when he signed the law.

"* An (unspecified) international tribunal could try President Obama for (unspecified) treaty violations.

Even Orly Taitz isn’t this dumb."


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Now, Bob's posting of the two points looks to the uninformed to be what you said, but for those who listen, your full comments are common sense. You point of a treaty violation is simple to understand, and nothing to grumble about like Bob does by posting a part of your comment with no comment of his own to refute your point.


Oh well, what's a neo-birther to say when there's nothing to say to your point?


Also, for some reason Bob does not mention your point that your expert witness in the Purpura v Obama ballot challenge was going to testify that Obama's website birth certificate image was not a reliable image to be used in a court of law, so the judge accepted the stipulation of the Obama lawyer that the birth certificate posted on the web site was not evidence to be used in New Jersey.

Your point as you stated it in the interview is that after accepting the stipulation by the Obama lawyer that the image of the birth certificate can not be used as evidence of where Obama was born, the judge later, after the presentations of evidence and lack of evidence, said that since Obama was born in the United States, it does not matter who the parents are, Obama is a natural born citizen.


Oh well, what's a neo-birther supposed to say when there's nothing to say in response to your point of the judge's incoherent "groaner" of a declaration?


The entire interview is worth listening to.


Your point, at about 1hr31min, about Sen. McCain and his being born to U.S. citizen parents in Panama under U.S. jurisdiction, was brief and to the point—being born in the country is a necessary condition but not a sufficient condition—and Sen. Cruz's situation is different because he was born on foreign soil, not U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil, but on foreign soil.


You should post here on you blog when you will be interviewed so more people can call in and talk with you.


Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

ajtelles,

Since I have known Bob, I have not yet seen him make one comment in my regard which attempts to tell the truth. He lies about and misrepresents everything under the sun. He will not engage in any substantive argument. He will focus on items that are not material to the discussion and misrepresent them in an attempt to discredit me on the real points. He is what Bob Grant called a "fake, phony, fraud."

ajtelles said...

An oops correction...

Mario,

This is the correct Youtube url for your January 26, 2015 interview on The Moretti Underground Show:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJXvz4mR6AA

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Since I met my new best friend John Jay, on other forums I've been asking neo-birthers, aka promoters of the "new meaning" of "nbC" as mentioned below, what THEIR "original genesis original intent" might have been if THEY had underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in THEIR note to George Washington.

For example:

If YOU were John Jay and YOU had a friend at the 1787 framing of the new constitution, and YOU had authored the "natural born Citizen" phrase in the note to your good friend George Washington, what would YOUR original intent have been?

1-Would YOU have meant ONLY singular U.S. citizenship OR BOTH U.S./foreign citizenship?

2-Would YOU have meant birth on ONLY U.S. soil OR ALSO birth on foreign soil?

3-Would YOU have meant birth to ONLY two U.S. citizen parents married to each other BEFORE the child is born OR ALSO birth to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents who were married or NOT married to each other?

"OR one" = Obama born on U.S. soil to one U.S. citizen parent (or so he says)

"OR zero" = Rubio, Jindal, Haley born on U.S. soil to zero U.S. citizen parents.

"OR one" = Cruz, born on foreign soil, not U.S. jurisdiction on foreign soil, but on foreign soil, to one U.S. citizen parent.

If the folks respond with "OR foreign soil to two OR one OR zero," the natural question is, well, who is NOT eligible if everybody is eligible?

Well, silly me, of course, ONLY the person born on foreign soil to zero U.S. citizen parents, 'cause, you see, THAT makes sense, doncha know.

See how easy it is to be a neo-birther in 2008-2015 America?

When John Jay's higher hurdle of singular U.S. citizenship by being born to two U.S. citizen parents is replaced with the neo-birther lower hurdle of dual U.S./foreign citizenship by being born to either two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents on EITHER U.S. soil OR foreign soil, well, who knows who will be the next person able to say: I-I-I-Managed-to-OCCUPY-America too?

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

ajtelles said...

"Neo-birther is confusing" but kudos anyway...
1/2

Mario,

Over at Cafe Con Leche Republicans, Bob Quasius, the host, today responded to something I had posted here on your blog very early this morning, January 29, 2015 at 12:52 AM. In his compliment of my use of "neo-birther" in point #6, even though he thinks it is confusing, he adds that it is more intelligent than Obot.

Hmmm.

So, "neo-birther" is something that is confusing but still more intelligent than Obot, a word that is NOT confusing?

Original birther John Jay was not a neo-birther and was not confused, ambiguous or vague when he underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" with the common law understandig of 1787 America that the U.S. citizenship of the husband determined the U.S. citizenship of the wife, AND the singular U.S. citizenship of BOTH parents determined the singular U.S. citizenship of the child, meaning having ONLY singular U.S. citizenship as a "natural born Citizen" and NOT dual U.S./foreign citizenship.

Bob wrote the point #6 "confusing...intelligent" sentence after making 5 points negatively opining, but without substantive articluation, about your comments on the January 26, 2015 interview with Jo Anne on her The Moretti Underground Show -
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJXvz4mR6AA

Here is Bob's 5 point rebuttal, for what it's worth, so that future historians and authors can compare Bob's opinion about your The Moretti Undergound Show comments with your substance in the interview and here on your blog of record about John Jay's "original genesis original Intent" for underlinging the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in his note to his friend George Washington who did NOT disagree with Jay's 1787 America common law meaning.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

January 29, 2015 at 11:55 am
>> http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/#comment-134899

"Hey Art!

"1. Apuzzo’s tripe about an unspecified international tribunal hearing an unspecified treaty violation is just stupid. A competent attorney would have at least specified the tribunal and treaty. Notice how Apuzzo can’t do that?

"2. The proffered testimony of Apuzzo’s purported (unnamed) “expert” at the Purpura hearing was irrelevant to the issues raised in the complaint, which is why the judge ruled the testimony was unnecessary. No mystery there.

"3. The judge then ruled that President Obama was not required to demonstrate where was born. And Apuzzo failed to show that President Obama wasn’t born in the United States.

"4. The judge, like many judges before him, then ruled that birth in the United States is sufficient to bestow natural-born citizenship. A ruling that Apuzzo appealed up to the New Jersey Supreme Court, and no superior tribunal disagreed with the initial ruling.

"5. Apuzzo’s assertion that McCain was born “under U.S. jurisdiction” is just wrong.

"6. “Neo-birther” is confusing and won’t catch on. But more intelligent than “Obot,” so kudos for that.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

ajtelles said...

Neo-birther is confusing" but kudos anyway...
2/2

Well Mario, there it is for the history books.

My use of the phrase "neo-birther" is confusing but still "more intelligent" than Obot which is not confusing.

Maybe Bob can comment about John Jay's "original genesis original intent" that I also posted here on January 18, 2015 at 11:58 PM:

Bob, put yourself in John Jay's place.

What would YOUR original intent have been on July 25, 1787 if YOU had underlined the word "born" in "natural born Citizen" in YOUR note to YOUR friend George Washington.

Surely you have a 2015 opinion, so saying that you don't know what John Jay meant in 1787, or anything suggesting uncertainty about original intent, will not be responsive.


Since the 1787 "Union" of America
A John Jay "original genesis original intent" natural born Citizen has ONLY 1 meaning:


The "higher hurdle" essence of John Jay’s clear and coherent
"original genesis original intent" about "natural born Citizen"
vs
The "lower hurdle" essence of neo-birther's confusing and incoherent
"new meaning" about "natural born Citizen"

John Jay:
1.
ONLY U.S. soil
2.
ONLY birth on U.S. soil
3.
ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents
4.
ONLY married to each other
5.
ONLY before their child is born
6.
ONLY single U.S. Citizenship

vs
Neo-Birthers:

1.
U.S. soil OR foreign soil
2.
birth on U.S. soil OR foreign soil
3.
to two OR one OR zero U.S. citizen parents
4.
married OR NOT married to each other
5.
Before OR after their child is born
6.
Dual citizenship—U.S. AND foreign

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

ajtelles,

There are two Bobs at Cafe Con Leche Republicans. The host of the blog is Bob Quasisus. Then there is Obot Bob, the mangler of understanding radio shows. We are now dealing with the latter and not the former. They both espouse the same silly and fallacious position that all born citizens are natural born citizens, regardless of how the status is obtained. We can therefore say that they are Doublemint Twins which explains why you confused one with the other.

ajtelles said...

"Doublemint Twins"...

Doublemint thanks Mario.

It doesn't really matter who neo-birther "Bob" is 'cause "original birther" John Jay was not a "neo-birther" and he was not confused, ambiguous or vague about "natural born Citizen."

However, maybe we should expand the previous questions to include Bob Quasius to tag-team with "confused...intelligent" neo-birther "Bob".

As "rope-a-dope" author Cassius Clay/Muhammad Ali might have said if he were here, the ropes are waitin'.

No "Bob" or Bob Q., you are not dopes, simply neo-birther misguided, that's all.

Art
U.S. Constitution: The Original Birther Document of the Union
OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com

CDR Kerchner (Ret) said...

Did you see this? I just got a google alert about it. This writer appears to be saying the statutory law 1401 addresses the meaning of "natural born Citizen" when in fact the words "natural born" appear no where in that law. Anyway, just a heads up in case you had not seen this since he is speaking directly to you and about you in this piece.

Ted Cruz and Natural Born Citizenship: A Belated Reply to Mario Apuzzo | Western Free Press
http://www.westernfreepress.com/2015/03/05/ted-cruz-and-natural-born-citizenship-a-belated-reply-to-mario-apuzzo/

CDR Kerchner (Ret) - http://www.ProtectOurLiberty.org

CDR Kerchner (Ret) said...

I'll post this set of my articles over at Greg Conterio's page, if I'm permitted to: To Conterio: Read this essay regarding the constitutional term in the presidential eligibility clause “natural born Citizen” and basic logic, i.e., trees are plants but not all plants are trees. Natural born Citizens are a subset of “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” but not all “born Citizens (citizens at birth)” are “natural born Citizens”: https://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2012/06/20/of-natural-born-citizens-and-citizens-at-birth-and-basic-logic-trees-are-plants-but-not-all-plants-are-trees-natural-born-citizens-nbc-are-citizens-at-birth-cab-but-not-all-cab/ … AND … http://www.art2superpac.com/issues.html Also watch this video by the renowned constitutional scholar Dr. Herb Titus — Part I: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=esiZZ-1R7e8 and Part II: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoaZ8WextxQ

CDR Kerchner (Ret) said...

I posted this over at Mr. Conterio's article: Also read the U.S. Supreme Court case Rogers v Belllei (1971) which clearly points out the Citizens created at birth under U.S. law are NATURALIZED citizens and what Congress grants, Congress can take away. Congress cannot create or take away citizenship from people who are "natural born Citizens" who are created under the laws of nature and not the laws of Congress or man-made enactments. Naturalized and Natural born both begin with the same few letters but other than that similarity they are very different and Citizens created under man-made laws, whether at birth or some time after birth are NATURALIZED citizens.

«Oldest ‹Older   3001 – 3182 of 3182   Newer› Newest»