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   201 – 400 of 3182   Newer›   Newest»
Ray said...

To have reciprocal recognition of their naturalization laws countries sign treaties.

The international status of a foreign born child of a US citizen may vary depending upon treaty.

That person may visit a country with which the US has secured by treaty reciprocal naturalization understandings without fear of claims upon him by the foreign country.

That same person may visit a country with which the US has not secured by treaty reciprocal naturalization understandings but at the risk of claims upon him by the foreign country.

While this person’s domestic status is the same, his international status depends upon treaty.

A “natural born citizen” – a person born within the US with parental US citizenship – has no such risk. His domestic and international status is always the same, without any dependency upon law or treaty, no other nation may make any claim upon this person.

A rule is suggested: a person whose international status is dependent upon law or treaty clearly and reliably distinguishes such persons from (true) “natural born citizens” whose status does not depend on law or treaty.

What about persons naturalized as "natural born citizens" by the 1790 Act? Although their domestic status is in law "natural born citizen" (and thus eligible to the Presidency), internationally they are naturalized citizens and like all naturalized citizens their international status depends upon treaty.

The rule holds.

Unless a person is either an actual "natural born citizen" by the above rule, or is naturalized as a "natural born citizen", they are not eligible to the Presidency.

Might there be an exception, a person who is disqualified "unfairly"? It is certainly possible. However, as a principle it is the fairest and the strongest check practicable.

It is Jay’s “strong check” while avoiding “illiberality” in the admission of foreigners.

Stranger said...

Ray wrote: "
A “natural born citizen” has no such risk. His domestic and international status is always the same, without any dependency upon law or treaty, no other nation may make any claim upon this person."

You fail to understand the most basic of principles by which natural citizenship is determined. It has nothing whatsoever to do with any form of law, whether domestic or international, or both.

Was your mother dependent on law in order for you to be her child? As the patriot revolutionaries once cried: "NO King but JESUS!", so one must needs cry today: "No Law but Natural Law!" when it comes to the national membership of the children of citizens.

Treaties are irrelevant to natural American membership. If one was a child of a father who was a citizen of the sovereign state where he lived and was probably born, then one was a natural born citizen, like his father, of that state.
Any such son could one day qualify to be President, even if he was not born in any state other than a foreign state because what made him a natural member of his father's state was his father's membership in that state. He inherited by birthright the same political status as his father. End of story.
The laws of other nations are immaterial and irrelevant in the face of natural membership, just as they are regarding a parent's right to possess their own child.

Free citizens of free republics do not give government the authority to interfere in such relationships, -not natural family relationships and not natural national relationships. That which is natural supersedes the authority of government. A.Nash obama--nation.com see: "What the 14th Amendment Doesn't Say and Doesn't Mean

Ray said...

Stranger,

What you are describing would be true in a state of nature.

Certainly a child, by nature, belongs to the parents. What of "citizenship"? What is its source?

The necessary element for the existence of citizenship is a government.

Conversely, without a government there is a collection of persons existing in a state of nature.

Natural membership in a group is the “natural born” part, “citizen” necessitates a government part.

“Natural born” by blood, “citizen” by government.

A natural born citizen is indisputably a citizen, this has never been doubted. If a citizen of one country gives birth in another country, well now there are international implications. If there are international implications, if citizenship status must be clarified by a law, treaty, compact, etc, it is a certainty that the person is not a natural born citizen.

Stranger said...

Ray wrote: "if citizenship status must be clarified by a law, treaty, compact, etc, it is a certainty that the person is not a natural born citizen."

That statement reflects a basis lack of understanding of the nature of citizenship. It's hinge is the word "clarified".

Clarification of understanding changes nothing at all. It just makes that which is true known to the confused. Clarification is solely the means to eliminate confusion.
The founding fathers of our nation, and the framers of its Constitution were certainly not confused at all that all children born of American fathers were Americans, but they knew that some people, such a those with the view that you've related, would not understand that fact, -and if such people held important position in government, then they might do to natural born citizens what was done to Wong Kim Ark (who was a constitutional citizen).

Hence they altered the pattern in the the Naturalization Act of 1790 and went a big step passed referring to American children as merely "citizens of the United States" and instead deliberately referred to them using the language of the Constitution related solely to the Presidency.
Therefore their intent was made known that place of birth does not make nor unmake a natural born citizen because they are the product of American fathers, -not hallowed, sacrosanct American borders.

Citizenship connected to soil is citizenship determined by human mandate, which could alternately be based on other criteria as well, such as race or religion.

It is not citizenship as a form of natural national membership. Rather it is merely legal national membership by the permission of law.

No legal citizen is eligible to serve as President. That means that no citizen except a natural born citizen shall be eligible... and only sons of American fathers could be citizens without the intervention of law on their behalf. That is what "natural" means. A natural citizen does need government to be a citizen. It is an automatic incontestable, irrevocable birthright of all children of the nation, -regardless of where their mother was located when they entered the world.
The laws of other nations are irrelevant. Even North Korea wouldn't have the audacity to claim as its own a child born on its soil to a passenger of a place that had to make an emergency landing within its borders. Children belong to their parents and to the country to which they belong. No government on earth contests that fact.
Natural citizens is universally inviolable. A.Nash obama--nation.com

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of III

Stranger,

You keep repeating that a “natural born citizen” requires only birth to a “citizen” father, adding that the place of birth and the citizenship of the mother are irrelevant. You make your assertion based on your personal opinion and without either historical or legal evidence.

In 17th Century England, a child born in the King’s dominion to an alien father who was neither a foreign diplomat nor military invader was a “natural-born subject.” But that child could not inherit from his or her alien father, because of the father’s incapacity to devise or bequeath brought on by being an alien. That child born in the dominion to an alien father could inherit from the father only after the father naturalized to become an English subject. Under English law, a person’s naturalization was retroactive and made one as though he or she were a born English subject. Indeed, under English law, an alien who naturalized, which could be done only under an Act of Parliament (not by the King’s patent), became in the eyes of the law a “natural-born subject.” So, once the father naturalized, the father could devise and bequeath all his rights, title, and interest to his “natural-born subject” children. The naturalization of the father did automatically naturalize all his alien minor children. If a person was an alien, that person could not inherit regardless of the father being an English subject.

Given that a child born to an alien father could not inherit from his or her alien father, it only follows that the Founding generation, which adopted the natural law maxim that children and wives followed the citizenship of the father and husband, came to the conclusion that a child born in the United States to an alien father could not inherit the right to be elected President from an alien father. We have solid evidence of this founding public position from St. George Tucker.

Tucker wrote his Commentaries on Blackstone to, among other things, demonstrate how American common law differed from the English common law. The U.S. Supreme Court in Heller informed on the importance of the words of Tucker when it comes to interpreting the Constitution. “[T]he examination of a variety of legal and other sources to determine the public understanding of a legal text in the period after its enactment or ratification. . . is a critical tool of constitutional interpretation. District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) (emphasis in the original). In this regard, the Court said that Tucker was an “important founding-era legal scholar[]” to whom it would look to determine what “public understanding” was on the issue in question, i.e., whether the Second Amendment protected individual rights to bear arms unconnected with militia service.

Tucker explained:

“3. Civil rights, taken in a strict and confined sense, as contradistinguished from natural and social rights, are such as appertain to a man as a citizen or subject, of this, or that, particular state or country; in his private and individual capacity as a free agent, and member of the body politic or state, in respect to the state or body politic; and contradistinguished from such as might be due to him as a magistrate, legislator, judge, or other public agent, character, or functionary. The right of electing, and being elected to, any public office or trust, may be considered as among the most important of these rights.

These civil rights 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.

***

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of III

Persons naturalized according to these acts, are entitled to all the rights of natural born citizens, except, first, that they cannot be elected as representatives in congress until seven years, thereafter. Secondly, nor can they be elected senators of the United States, until nine years thereafter. Thirdly, they are forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States. Persons naturalized before the adoption of the constitution, it is presumed, have all the capacities of natural born citizens. See C. U. S. Art. 1, 2.”

St. George Tucker, Blackstone's Commentaries (1803) , http://constitution.org/tb/tb2.htm

Founder and historian David Ramsay explained the same in 1789 when he said 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. David Ramsay, A Dissertation on the Manners of Acquiring the Character and Privileges of a Citizen (1789) (at page 6). Hence, birthright citizenship after July 4, 1776 was reserved only for the children of “citizens.” See my April 2, 2012 article entitled, Founder and Historian David Ramsay Defines a Natural Born Citizen in 1789 , at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2010/04/founder-and-historian-david-ramsay.html , for my full explanation of the importance of David Ramsay in understanding the meaning of a “natural born Citizen.”

Thomas Jefferson, early Congress, the James Madison Administration, and other Founders had the same position.

But under the Constitution, birth to “citizen” parents was not enough to make one a “natural born citizen.” We know that American “common-law” the nomenclature of which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution adopted for the Constitution the law of nations definition of a “natural-born citizen,” which requires both birth in the country and birth to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. See Vattel, Section 212, The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758) (provides this place of birth and “citizen” parents definition) (the 1797 anonymous English translator specifically linked “natural-born citizen,” which then appeared in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the Constitution, to Vattel at Section 212); The Venus (1814) (C.J. Marshall concurring) (same); Dred Scott (J. Daniels concurring) (same); Minor (1875) (unanimous U.S. Supreme Court same); and Wong Kim Ark (1898) (same). With respect to place of birth, both Wong Kim Ark and Rogers v. Bellei, 401 U.S. 815 (1971) also both explained that children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents are alien born, and, if Congress so choose, naturalized at birth by Acts of Congress.

The “natural born citizen” clause was written into the Constitution before there was any Congress and therefore before Congress passed any of its naturalization acts. But even early Congress, passing various naturalization acts, recognized and accepted the American “common-law” rule of needing not only birth to “citizen” parents, but also birth in the country to make one a “natural-born citizen.” We know from the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, that our nation required birth to “citizen” parents in order to inherit birthright citizenship by virtue of birth in the U.S. Under these Acts, any child born in the U.S. to alien parents was treated as alien born and in need of naturalization. But these acts also demonstrated that in addition to birth to U.S. “citizen” parents, the Founding generation also required birth in the country. From what Tucker wrote we can also see that the Founders and early Presidents were “naturalized” and not “natural born citizens,” but because they naturalized before the adoption of the Constitution, they were given “all the capacities of natural born citizens.” The same can be said of children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents under the Naturalization

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of III

Act of 1790, who the First Congress “considered” as “natural born citizens” (they were not true “natural born citizens” but only made so by naturalization act of Congress), but then whose status the Third Congress changed to that of “shall be considered as citizens of the United States” under the Naturalization Act of 1795, which status continues to the present.

It is critical that we understand that the constitutional definition of an Article II “natural born citizen” does not morph from one thing to another from the Founding to the present time, depending on who Congress at any given time thorough its naturalization powers decides shall be a citizen at birth. Rather, the definition, which is tied to the critical constitutional singular and all-powerful civil and military offices of President and Commander in Chief, which offices require the highest level of allegiance and loyalty to the United States which could only be sole and absolute allegiance and unity of citizenship to the United States from birth, was set when the Constitution was adopted and ratified and could be changed only by constitutional amendment. Hence, any argument that Congress can make “natural born citizens” by its naturalization acts is without constitutional or historical support. Under the Constitution, Congress does not have the power to make “natural born citizens.” Rather, it only has the power over citizenship to make uniform the laws of naturalization. As we shall see below, historically Congress knew what a “natural born citizen” was. That is the reason that in the Naturalization Act of 1790, the First Congress proclaimed that children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents “shall be considered as natural born citizens,” not that they were in fact “natural born citizens,” and that the Third Congress, with the Naturalization Act of 1795, changed that language to “shall be considered as citizens of the United States,” which status persists to today.

So, at the Founding and thereafter, any child who was not born to “citizen” parents, whether born in or out of the United States, had to be naturalized in order to be a “citizen.” Only by birth to “citizen” parents could one be born a “citizen” and not need naturalization. Hence, any child who acquired the status of a “citizen” and who was not born to “citizen” “parents” was a “naturalized” “citizen” and not a “natural born citizen.” As a “naturalized” “citizen,” he or she was “forever incapable of being chosen to the office of president of the United States.” Tucker. Hence, only if one was born to “citizen” “parents” could one inherit from his or her parents and thus possess the “civil right” to be elected President. Tucker and Ramsay.

This solid historical evidence supports Minor’s American national “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen,” being a child born in the country to parents who were it “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. From this historical and legal evidence, we can also understand why Minor said that at “common-law” children not born in the country to “citizen” parents were “aliens or foreigners.” All this evidence demonstrates that there was one and only one definition of the “natural born citizen” clause which continues to the present.

So, satisfying the definition of a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, or an Act of Congress does not make one a “natural born citizen,” not only because the text of that amendment, decision, or Acts does not says so, but also because the historical and legal record demonstrates that a “citizen of the United States,” even from birth, is not a “natural born Citizen.” On the other hand, satisfying the definition of a “natural-born citizen” under Minor does make one a “natural born citizen.” And that definition is a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.

Stranger said...

A. Nash writes:

Mario wrote: "..adding that the place of birth and the citizenship of the mother are irrelevant.

You make your assertion based on your personal opinion and without either historical or legal evidence.
"

My opinion? What opinion? I haven't expressed an opinion, I've merely stated foundational reality. It doesn't require the agreement of anybody. It pre-exists as an unchanging element of natural law.

Perhaps you really are hinting that natural law is just an opinion and doesn't really exist. If so, then neither to unalienable rights, including the right to own and be owned by one's blood relatives in a natural and mutual relationship bond, which includes membership in everything to which one's parents belong, including their country.

As for the nationality of the mother, have you really forgotten that all American wives were American citizens automatically by virtue of being married to an American man or having been born to an American father?

"Under English law, a person’s naturalization was retroactive and made one as though he or she [NOT SHE; THERE WAS NO NATURALIZATION FOR FEMALES] were a born English subject [and]became in the eyes of the law a “natural-born subject.”

Yes, that is exactly what I shared in a recent exposition: The British Roots of Presidential Eligibility http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/07/20/the-british-roots-of-presidential-eligibility/

What you've pointed out is the doctrine of citizenship equivalency. All citizens are natural citizens as though they were born as citizen, -citizens by nature. That being a philosophical legal fiction inherited from Britain.
Because of it John Jay could not simply encourage that the President be a natural citizen since all citizens were natural citizens, but all so-called natural citizens were not born being citizens in reality since some, a small percentage who were born being foreigners, were man-made natural citizens via the fiction of law. Hence the need to underline the word "born".

I've written extensively about the subject.

Stranger said...

A Nash writes:

Mario wrote: "a child born in the United States to an alien father could not inherit the right to be elected President from an alien father."

No one can claim an inherited right to be elected President, -only the right of citizenship. Some citizens could eventually qualify but many could not, including all females, all Blacks, Asians, non-Anglo-Saxons, uneducated, non-Protestants, adulterers, reprobate and criminals.

It's far more accurate to think of presidential non-qualification in terms of a right that is not possessed, but in terms of a nature with which one was not born. Meaning a political nature that is 100% American, and not half foreign.

It's not that children of foreigners are lacking some thing that they need, but rather that they are not something that they must be, -namely a born natural citizen.

"Founder and historian David Ramsay explained the same in 1789 when he said that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….”

Amen brother! Notice what he did not say? He did not say those born of citizen within any of the American States. Place of birth was not a factor. Period.

"Natural rights" are inherited from parents, -not from soil. Jus Soli -by right of soil, is in fact "by right of Law", rather than by right of blood.
If soil is involved, then it is because Law is involved since it is not the soil but the national borders of a political state that are in fact referred to. Borders, like laws, are man-made artifices and have nothing at all to do with natural rights, which are organic and of a natural origin.
The chief natural right within a society is the right of membership. It does not belong to outsiders, but is something into which the children of members are born. They are born being members because their parents are members.

Stranger said...

A Nash writes:

Mario wrote: "From what Tucker wrote we can also see that the Founders and early Presidents were “naturalized” and not “natural born citizens,”

That spin is a distortion of what he wrote and a false one at that. Naturalization is only effected by a process or a specific act of law. There was neither in 1776. They simply ceased being subjects of Britain while continuing to be natural citizens of their own nation, the State in which they were born and raised (as a rule).
Almost all of the founders' generation were natural born citizens of their own sovereign state. Repeating myself, the Constitution does NOT require the President to be a natural citizen of the United States.
There is no naturalization without naturalization law or process. It is something else requiring an appropriate name, and naturalization is not it.

Anyone who claims that Congress has the authority to naturalized children who are born being Americans is a fool. Natural law and natural membership are unaffected by location of birth. Parentage is everything.

The first Congress ordered all government personnel to recognize that all children of American men are Americans also, regardless of a domestic or a foreign birth location.
"Shall be considered as" is the wording that is a direct order as to how government personnel were to view such children. "Considered as" means they damn well better not consider American children to be aliens! But consider them to be what they are: Americans.

All of the naturalization acts used the same language ("shall be considered as", which meant such persons were in FACT citizens) for the same reason; -a directive to stupid and ignorant port authority workers who had no clue about the fundamentals of natural citizenship.

The founders did not want American parents to face with their foreign born children what Wong Kim Ark faced, but they wanted much more. They wanted them to be recognized as identical to their domestically born brothers and just as equally qualified to be President.
See: The Nature of Human Origin and Citizenship http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/07/21/the-nature-of-human-origin-and-citizenship/

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger or Adrien Nash at August 31, 2013 at 2:35 AM,

I of II

(1) You think that one can avoid having to admit that your position on the meaning of a “natural born citizen” is only your opinion by proclaiming that what you express is natural law. So under your view of things, only by uttering that one’s position is founded on “natural law,” all that one says is automatically converted to the truth. Wow, those are some powerful two words.

(2) I challenged you on your position on a “natural born citizen,” saying that you do not have historical or legal evidence for it. You answer by telling me what natural law is and that I do not understand it. This is a real red herring.

(3) I said that you do not give any relevancy to the mother’s citizenship in defining a “natural born citizen.” You responded that I forgot that a wife followed the citizenship of her husband. I did not forget that, for I have long-ago argued that point and demonstrated how that rule demonstrates that a child must be born to two U.S. citizen parents in order to avoid any foreign allegiance and loyalty attaching to the child at the moment of birth from one or two alien parents. But your biggest problem is that you do not address the consequences to making a “natural born citizen” of Congress changing the rule of merger of the wife’s citizenship into that of the husband. It is there that you deny the mother of a child any relevancy in the “natural born citizen” matrix.

(4) You said that under English law there was no naturalization for females. But did not the naturalization of the husband/father automatically naturalize his wife and minor children? Additionally, the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers adopted this rule for the new America.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

(5) You mention that John Jay underlined the word “born” in “natural born citizen” in his famous letter to George Washington. You say that he underlined “born” to show that he was referring to a true “natural born citizen” and not one made by law enacted or adopted by the nation (positive or man-made law). But the emphasis on “born” does not accomplish what you say was Jay’s goal, for Congress was given the constitutional naturalization power to make born citizens. Hence, under that power, Congress could make born citizens with varying degrees of allegiance at any time it chose and they would all be born citizens. Surely, Jay did not intend that. The correct emphasis is on the “natural born citizen” clause as a whole, which is a word of art, an idiom, a unitary clause. It is the entire clause as one unit which has one and only one specific meaning which signals that the child must be born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. Under that definition, there is no need for any positive or man-made law to create that birth status. Under that formula, the child is born a “citizen” as a matter of nature and not as a matter of law. So, Jay’s underlying the word “born” complemented his use of the whole clause; it did not just emphasize the word “born.” Jay was careful and astute enough to use the entire clause “natural born citizen,” rather than just “born citizen” as Alexander Hamilton had proposed. By using “natural born citizen,” Jay knew that any future Commander would have to satisfy the specific conditions that came with that word of art (birth in the country to “citizen” parents) and that Congress would have no constitutional power to alter those conditions.

And Jay was perfectly correct in his position, for we know that in 1790, with the approval of George Washington, James Madison, and many other Founders, the First Congress, through the Naturalization Act of 1790, added to the true “natural born citizens” by creating through its naturalization powers additional “citizens” who it naturalized at birth and said “shall be considered as natural born citizens.” And we also know that in 1795, through the Naturalization Act of 1795, again with the approval of George Washington, James Madison, and many other Founders, the Third Congress realized that it had erroneously legislated or it changed its mind as to who should be given by positive law the privileges, immunities, and rights of the “natural born citizens,” and so removed the “natural born citizen” language from its naturalization act and replaced it with “citizen of the United States” which has been the position taken by Congress to the present.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger and Adrien Nash at August 31, 2013 at 3:25 AM,

I of II

(1) I said, as modified:

“[A] child born in the United States to an alien father could not inherit the right to be elected President from that alien father.”

You said: “No one can claim an inherited right to be elected President.”

Both St. George Tucker and Chief Justice John Marshall disagree with you.

Tucker said:

“The right of electing, and being elected to, any public office or trust, may be considered as among the most important of these rights. These civil rights 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. “

In discussing citizenship and relying upon an earlier English translation of Vattel, Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus (1814) provided Vattel’s Section 212 definition of the “citizens” and the “natives or indigenes,” which he explained Vattel defined as:

“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 are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. Society not 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.”

The Venus, at 289.

In the 1797 anonymous English translation of Vattel, which came out after the Constitution and the “natural born Citizen” clause were adopted and ratified, “indigenes” was changed to “natural-born citizen.” So Marshall not only looked to Vattel for his definition of the “natives or indigenes,” who under the Constitution could only be and was confirmed by the 1797 anonymous English translator to be the “natural-born citizens,” but he also explained why that definition was needed, explaining that since the society needs to subsist and perpetuate itself, those children naturally followed the condition of their fathers and inherited all their rights. And such inheritance also included inheriting the right to be elected President, which Tucker called an inheritable “civil” right.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

(2) I said:

“Founder and historian David Ramsay explained the same in 1789 when he said 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.

You responded that Ramsay did not include place of birth in his statement. But you miss the point of what Ramsay said. He said “as a natural right.” Vattel tells us at Section 215:

“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. By the law of nature alone, children follow the conditions of their fathers, and enter into all their rights; 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 and political laws may, for particular reasons, ordain otherwise.”

So Vattel recognized that the citizenship status of a child born out of the country is not determined by nature alone, but also by positive law. He first explained that the matter of the citizenship of children born out of the country to “citizen” parents was determined by the “laws” of the countries involved. As Vattel later explained, these “laws” are not the laws of nature, but rather positive laws.

The definition of a “natural born citizen” that our nation adopted from the common law shows that we required, not only birth to “citizen” parents, but also birth in the country in order to be a “natural born citizen.” Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Our nation further confirmed the need for birth in the country when our early Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790 which gave through naturalization to the degree that it constitutionally could to children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents the immunities, privileges, and rights of a “natural born citizen,” but later cancelled that grant by calling those children in the Naturalization Act of 1795 “citizens of the United States.”

What is more telling is that in 1802, Congress considered children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents who acquired that status after 1802 as aliens. Their status as “citizens of the United States” at birth was not restored until 1855.

As Vattel explained, these laws must be followed.

Anonymous said...

macguireSimple one question here; should a child (US citizen) that under unique circumstance must have another citizenship due to his family movement to that other country that not recognize dual nationality at all. I had read the US traveler guide that sad that child will have dual nationality according to US law. Now my question is can that child still retain his/her natural born citizenship to applied as potus should his/her were once become another nation citizen or according to that regulation become dual nationality citizen? And what if he/she were alreadm renounce that other citizenship? And one more thing what if that child had never renounced his foreign nationality from that country? According to 14th amendment cant that person be a natural born citizen? If can't please let me know for I a little bit congfuse here and I don't wanted to misguided the US citizens.And also I can publish a free ebook regarding of Barry Soeotoro background as dual nationality in US regulations and Indonesian citizen in Indonesian law.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Macguiredelaporte1,

Being a U.S. “citizen” does not necessarily mean one is a “natural born citizen,” for U.S. “citizens” are comprised of both “natural born citizens” and “citizens of the United States.” If one became a U.S. “citizen” by being born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of one’s birth, then one is a “natural born citizen.” If a U.S. “citizen” does not satisfy those requirements and became such by some other means, then he or she is a “citizen of the United States,” either at birth or after birth.

A “natural born citizen” does not lose that status from actions taken by his or her parents during the “citizen’s” age of minority. Such a “citizen” could lose the status if upon becoming an adult, he or she affirmatively, knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily renounces his or her U.S. citizenship in satisfaction of applicable law.

A “natural born citizen” can later in life acquire a citizenship in a foreign country. Even though the person took such action, the fact still remains that the person was born a “natural born citizen,” which is what the Constitution requires, along with at least 35 years of age and at least 14 years of U.S. residency. Acquiring the other citizenship does not cause the “natural born citizen” status to be retroactively or prospectively lost under any law. A candidate’s possession of dual citizenship after birth can, however, be made a campaign issue and the people would be the final arbiters on whether such dual allegiance and citizenship should cause the candidate to lose the election.

Nor can renouncing after birth a foreign allegiance and citizenship inherited or acquired at birth make one a “natural born citizen.” The status of being a “natural born citizen” is inherited and acquired at birth and not after birth by any act of commission or omission. It is absurd to think that one could create a “natural born citizen” status by waiting for the politically opportune time to renounce a foreign allegiance and citizenship possessed since birth.

Finally, the Fourteenth Amendment defines a “citizen of the United States” at birth, not a “natural born citizen.” Hence, as Minor v. Happersett (1875) explained and as U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) confirmed, the amendment does not define a “natural born citizen.” Nor do Acts of Congress define a “natural born citizen.” The most that they do is naturalize a person to be either a “citizen of the United States” at birth or after birth. What does define a “natural born citizen” is American national common law which provides that a “natural born citizen” is a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth.

Stranger said...

A. Nash writes:
Foreign females as single women were not naturalized by Parliament unless perhaps one was a rare noble or wealthy widow or spinster. Women were chattel in effect because all of the civic rights belonged to men who were the heads of their families.

A foreign wife of a foreigner naturalized by Parliament was not herself naturalized, nor her children. Rather they were automatically what he was because they were a part of him, -an extension of him, so their national membership was via jus sanguinis with the husband and father being the blood source of their nationality.

My reference to American women being irrelevant to natural citizenship is in the only context that matters, which is the era when the Constitution was written.

Yes, automatic derivative citizenship for foreign wives of American men ended a generation or two ago and they therefore would not automatically be American citizens, but that is not the context of 1787 when the three words were linked together.

Allow me to clue you into another fact that has totally escaped your radar, and that is the inherent and clumsy redundancy of "born of two American citizen parents".
First: all babies are born of parents, not uncles or aunts or strangers, so using the word "parent" is completely unnecessary.

Second: delineating the number of parents is also redundant since no is is born of any number other than two.

That only leaves the necessary word "Americans". "Natural American citizens are all those born of Americans".
With Americans being plural, all that needs to be said is said. It sheds the clutter and useless confusion. Adopt it and you'll simplify things for everyone.

Stranger said...

A. Nash writes:

Mario wrote: "You say that John Jay underlined “born” to show that he was referring to a true “natural born citizen” and not one made by law enacted or adopted by the nation (positive or man-made law."

I wrote no such thing, which you'd know if you bothered to read things more carefully. I wrote "born" needed to be emphasized because not all "natural citizens" were such via birth since those who had been foreigners were deemed to be natural citizens via the fiction of law known as the doctrine of citizenship equivalency. NOT by "positive or man-made law" as you mischaracterized my words.
[see: The British Roots of Presidential Eligibility]

You wrote: "But the emphasis on “born” does not accomplish what you say was Jay’s goal,"

You're correct about "born" by itself, but you misunderstood. Jay's goal was that the President be a natural citizen, but saying that was ambiguous because some natural citizens are not real natural citizens since they were not born as natural citizens. He couldn't use "natural citizen" nor "born citizen" since both were ambiguous, so he had to combine them. I prefer a reverse order to emphasize the actual meaning: a born natural citizen.

But like "A young, pretty girl" the meaning doesn't change by reordering the adjectives: "A pretty young girl".

Mario wrote: "Congress was given the constitutional naturalization power to make born citizens. "

That is absolutely false. Congress was given no such authority and didn't attempt to exercise such an authority until the Civil Rights Act of 1866.

Congress was authorized to write a UNIFORM rule, and nothing else. Uniform for who or what? ?For the central government which had no authority over immigration and citizenship? Or a uniform rule for the sovereign States?

Stranger said...

A Nash writes:

The term "a citizen of the United States" is utterly ambiguous since the term "The United States" has at least five different meanings. I believe that it can clear some fog of confusion by using an alternate wording, namely; a citizen of an American State, or a citizen of one of the States of the Union, or a citizen of these united STATES.

Within the nation, citizenship was a State matter in the most direct sense. It only became a national matter if one left the country. In the Constitution, in reference to qualification for Congress, "a citizen of the United States" was, in the minds of very independent State leaders back home, (many of whom rejected a central government and reluctantly and barely ratified the Constitution) not a national citizen but a citizen of one of the States of the Union. UNION. Not "Nation" as in a counterpart of a Kingdom ruled mostly by a central government. 13 Nation-States with their own laws, governments, governors, courts and citizens.

State supremacy was the mind-set, not federal supremacy, so everyone needs to reset their view of the use of the words "citizen of the United States" to understand that it means "a citizen of these united STATES", -rather than THE United States.
Federal citizenship did not even exist when the Constitution was written, nor was it even possible until the central government owned land on which people could be born, nor did national citizenship enter anyone's thinking unless they were thinking internationally.

Stranger said...

“Founder and historian David Ramsay explained in 1789 that citizenship “as a natural right, belongs to none but those who have been born of citizens since the 4th of July, 1776….”
A Nash writes:
That was a vague and utterly ambiguous statement for the reasons I've stated previously. Was he speaking of national citizenship? If so, then his statement would be accurate. But if he was speaking of State citizenship, then it is inaccurate since all natives are natural citizens regardless of a change of government.
Governments may come and go but membership in one's own country does not change unless one moves away for good.

Mario wrote: "So Vattel recognized that the citizenship status of a child born out of the country is not determined by nature alone, but also by positive law."

It's been inescapably obvious for years now that you have a serious problem with word-for-word comprehension. You filter everything through the bias of your dogma and it comes out different.

Vattel absolutely did not write what you claim that he wrote. You falsely conclude "not determined by nature alone" "also by positive law" when Vattel indicated no such thing. He merely mentioned them as possibilities in nations that FAIL to stick to the PRINCIPLES of Natural Law (but instead legislate or issue royal edits contrary to Natural Law). America was not founded as such a country.

Your lame logic that because some governments violate the Law of Nature, that therefore the American government does likewise is insane. You need to do some serious rethinking. But as I've seen over and over, you are incapable of learning anything new if it doesn't support your golden theory that three English language words cannot possible mean what those three English language words actually mean.
You complain that I lack supporting authority for what I write and yet you declare to all that you know that those three words mean something other than what they mean, and yet you can provide no authority whatsoever for the transmogrification of those words into ~a term of Art~

Both you and the obamunists falsely cling to that delusion, -you just define it differently. But you are both wrong. The words mean what they mean as words. There is no "clause", -no term of art". There's only natural law or human law, but you insist on grafting the two together like a half-man, -half-goat creation.

Everything about jus soli is man-made, legal, mandatory, but you insist on splicing in onto natural law like a freakish monstrosity, justified by distorted assumptions.

Stranger said...

Mario wrote: "in 1802, Congress considered children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents who acquired that status after 1802 as aliens."

A. Nash responds:

That is utterly false. Congress did not write nor pass any act with that as the intent nor the outcome. One man incorrectly parsed the subtleties of its wording and arrived at an illogical conclusion, but was not intelligent enough to recognize or rethink his error.
Then because of his prestigious reputation, he was able to convince a lot of unthinking Congressmen that maybe he was right, -after all, everyone said that he was really smart, -he must know what he's talking about. But he didn't. His position was pure foolishness, -being that Congress put into effect a consequence by the mere absence of wording to prevent it.
But the truth is that just because Congress does not declare a thing to not be so, that therefore it is so. That is absurd but that is what he promulgated.

He and they failed utterly to understand natural membership and the automatic transmission of it via natural law. It doesn't need the approval of Congress or the courts. It is not dependent on government because the membership of citizenship is natural when the parents are natives or citizens.

"Their status as “citizens of the United States” at birth was not restored until 1855". Not really. That was merely the impression in the minds that bought into his error. It was an imagined problem but not one that the executive branch ever was confused about and acted in a way that caused a natural citizen to have to sue in the courts to be recognized as a citizen.

Anonymous said...

I've get it but you still not give me a short answer. According to that US travelers regulation that child can have dual nationality.I'm just a simple minded man. My question if you notes is just as plain and simple; just tell me yes or no will or will it not the dual nationality of that child make the natural born citizen non exist anymore. And what if I can get his passport while he was in adult stage by any means necessary to take it. Can that being use in the US court of law? If can please let me know.

Anonymous said...

My book consist that regulation of the US, my own investigation on his school transfer (it's not his school record after all), the regulation how to get it and finally all the law regarding to it. If you're interesting to see the book or you audience wanted to see that same book you can read that or contact me on my email macguiredelaporte1@gmx.com

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger and Adrien Nash at September 1, 2013 at 2:28 AM

You dance around your pesky problem of proclaiming that the citizenship of women is irrelevant to the “natural born citizen” matrix. You said it, you harped on it, you insisted on it, and you are stuck with it, unless, of course, you rewrite you blog articles and announce like a scoundrel that you knew the truth from the beginning.
You pompously come up with your little gems to try to show that you are smarter than anyone else. Your point about “parents” being redundant is asinine. Born to what? How else are we to express the jus sanguinis rule of citizenship? The words “parent” and “parents” have been part of citizenship law since the beginning of civilization. You even have such a grandiose vision of yourself that you tell and expect the public to adopt your nonsense.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger and Adrien Nash at September 1, 2013 at 2:56 AM,

I of II

You tell us that in your deluded presentation that you somehow make a distinction between “the fiction of law” and “positive or man-made law.” The reality is that your pretended distinction does not exist and even if it did, it does not impress anyone.

Based on what I wrote about Jay’s “natural born citizen” (with Congress having the naturalization power to create “born” citizens, underlying “born” was not sufficient for his purpose of keeping out of the Office of Commander in Chief of the Military a “foreigner,” but the word of art, idiom, unitary clause, “natural born citizen,” was), you have learned more about Jay’s intent and approach and now want to pass it off as if it was your discovery. You are so full of yourself. Is there anything that you ever learned from someone else or were you just simply born with all your knowledge?

I said that “Congress was given the constitutional naturalization power to make born citizens.” You said that “Congress was given no such authority and didn’t attempt to exercise such authority until the Civil Rights Act of 1866.” You are wrong again. The Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clause 5 gives Congress the power “[t]o establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization.” Section 8, Clause 18 also provides that Congress has the power “[t]o make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Office thereof” (the “necessary and proper” clause). With the input of many Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers, including George Washington and James Madison, the First Congress in 1790 through its naturalization powers, in addition to treating children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens themselves due to being born with jus sanguinis alienage, made through naturalization born citizens of children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents. Apart from the doubtful constitutionality of this law which attempted by way of a naturalization act to confer rights of a “natural born citizen” upon a person who was being naturalized (the statute said that such children “shall be considered as natural born citizens”), there is no doubt that such a law, acting upon persons born with alienage due to acquiring jus soli citizenship in a foreign country, was “necessary and proper” for executing Congress’s expressly given power to make uniform the laws of naturalization. It repeated that process in 1795, through the Naturalization Act of 1795, which correctly removed the reference to “natural born citizen” and provided that children born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents “shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Congress, repeated the naturalization of persons born out of the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents in numerous naturalization acts thereafter. Today, Congress exercises that power through 8 U.S. C. Sec 1401 et seq.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

The issue with the Civil Rights Act of 1866 was whether Congress had the constitutional power to act upon persons born in the United States (in that context freed slaves). Clearly, if any child is born with alienage, i.e., born to one or two non-U.S. citizen parents or born out of the United States, it does. The Fourteenth Amendment, which created a new class of “citizen of the United States” at birth by virtue of birth in the United States while being “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” was passed to remove any constitutional doubts with the Civil Rights Act, to lessen the standard for birthright citizenship by virtue of birth in the United States (we went from “not subject to any foreign power” to “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”), and to take away from any future Congresses the prerogative of repealing an Act of Congress such as the Civil Rights Act which repeal would have limited birthright citizenship by virtue of birth in the United States to the pure “natural born citizen” formula, a formula which prevented freed slaves, whites, Asians, and any other persons who were born in the United States to non-U.S. “citizen” parents from initial membership in the United States, let alone to being a “natural born citizen.” Again, to be clear, the Fourteenth Amendment did not repeal or amend Article II’s “natural born citizen” clause. Rather, it created this other class of “citizen of the United States” at birth, a first generation U.S. “citizen” vis-à-vis one or two non-U.S. “citizen” parents, who by constitutional definition is not an Article II “natural born Citizen,” who must be at least a second generation U.S. “citizen” vis-à-vis both parents at the time of birth.

Unknown said...

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. wrote:
"The language that is key to our understanding is: 'And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.' The Obots need to tell us where Congress says that the language only applies to children born out of the United States?"

We obots have no such need. We can simply pint out the laughable illogic of your theories. The early naturalization acts say *nothing* about the citizenship of children born in the United States. You tried your theory in court. You lost, and *that* is what we obots needed. (Technically, we needed the eligibility deniers not to win. They, not ABM or his supporters, chose to go to court.)


Mario Apuzzo, Esq. in another comment wrote:
"The Obots are full of contradictions and inconsistencies. They have taken such unreasonable positions on and told so many lies about the meaning of a 'natural born citizen' that they no longer know what is up or what is down. The only thing left for them to do is either convert to the side of the truth or self-destruct. Despite their wishful thinking, whether Obama is President and will stay President does not change their fate."

Obots simply prefer reality to your blogsphere world of make believe.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger and Adrien Nash at September 1, 2013 at 3:19 AM,

I of III

There is nothing ambiguous about “Citizen of the United States” as written in the Constitution and it does not mean a “citizen” of one of the individual states. It simply means all U.S. “citizens,” regardless of how they obtain that national character, who are not Article II “natural born Citizens.” So there is no misunderstanding on this, “natural born citizens” enjoy all the privileges, immunities, and rights held by “citizens of the United States” and vice versa, except “citizens of the United States” are not eligible to be President or Vice-President.
To understand what a “citizen of the United States” is, let us start with the name “the United States of America.” In pre-revolutionary times, the name of the continent where the 13 British colonies were located was America, with that name including both the northern and southern continents. The continents were named “America” after Amerigo Vespucci, the Italian explorer who set forth the then revolutionary concept that the lands that Christopher Columbus sailed to in 1492 were part of a separate continent. A map created in 1507 by Martin Waldseemüller was the first to depict this new continent with the name "America," a Latinized version of "Amerigo" (Amerigo to Americus (male) to America (female for land masses)) http://www.loc.gov/wiseguide/aug03/america.html . See also http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090629175731AA5xiXJ for an excellent explanation.

Under the Declaration of Independence, which severed all political dependency between the 13 British colonies and Great Britain, there was created 13 free and independent states. The Declaration refers to them with capital letters, “Free and Independent States,” probably just for emphasis and surely not as any name title. At that time there still were colonies which became states that had names assigned to them (e.g. Virginia, New Jersey, etc). There did not exist any name that covered these 13 independent states as one nation, for these states were not united as one nation. The Declaration of Independence refers to “united States of America.” “United” was not part of any title. Rather, it was an adjective. “States” was capitalized under the then-German custom of capitalizing nouns. “America” was capitalized because it was a proper noun and the name of the continent.

The states, which were actually separate republics which also relied upon the law of nations to deal with each other, decided to unite for their mutual advantage. On November 15, 1777 they agreed upon and on March 1, 1781 they ratified the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, our first Constitution, to create a “Confederacy” of the states. The First Article of the Articles provides: “The Stile of this Confederacy shall be "The United States of America". Notice the name starts with the definite article, “The” capitalized, showing that the states were united in some capacity as one unit and given a name to refer to that union. When the Articles referred to “the United States,” with a lower case “the,” it meant the individual states. For example: “If any person guilty of, or charged with, treason, felony, or other high misdemeanor in any State, shall flee from justice, and be found in any of the United States, he shall, upon demand of the Governor or executive power of the State from which he fled, be delivered up and removed to the State having jurisdiction of his offense.”-Article IV. Clearly, “the United States” in “any of the United States” refers to one of the several states.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of III

Twelve states (Rhode Island did not attend the Constitutional Convention and was also a hold out until May 29, 1790), through “the United States in Congress assembled,” did not expressly adopt the name “The United States of America” when they adopted the Constitution in 1787. Nowhere in the original Constitution or amended one do we find the name “The United States of America” or even “The United States.” Rather, what we find is “the United States.” The Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers probably used “the United States” in deference to the free and independent sovereign states who were again joining together to create a stronger national government for the benefit of their collective governance. After all, the Constitution replaced the Articles and created, among other things, “a more perfect Union,” and expressly set out a plan of state and federal government in which the free and independent states continued to exist with all the sovereign powers granted to them by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and by the consent of the People, except to the extent any power was expressly or by implication granted to the central federal government of the states united as one. Whenever the Constitution refers to “the United States,” it refers to them as one united entity and never as any individual state. “States” is also always in the plural. Also, when the Constitution refers to the “citizens of the United States,” it refers to them as being members of all the states united as one entity and not as being “citizens” of any one state. Also, the Constitution does not say that the name of the union that had existed under the Articles was to change from what it had been, i.e., “The United States of America.” So, the Founders, Framers, Ratifiers, and the People kept the name, “The United States of America” for the new constitutional republic by custom, usage, and implication.

So you are wrong again. “Citizen of the United States” in the Constitution does not mean “citizen” of one of the individual states. If the latter were the case the Framers would have written “Citizen of any State.” Gouverneur Morris, who wrote parts of the Constitution and possibly its preamble, ushered in the idea of a person being a citizen of the United States and not the individual states. Furthermore, your theory runs greatly afoul of the Founders’, Framers’, and Ratifiers’ plan to make uniform and certain the naturalization laws, which implies a plan to make uniform and certain national citizenship in general. Also, there could not exist uniform and certain constitutional standards for eligibility to national office if the united nation of states were to rely upon citizenship as defined by each state which had for centuries used in varying degrees the English common law to define their citizenship. Lastly, it is utterly absurd to conclude that in the new nation, which through the American Revolution, “assume[d] among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle” it, there were only “citizens” of the individual states and no “citizens” of the nation as a whole.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of III

Finally, the question remains as to who were the “citizens of the United States” when the Constitution was adopted in 1787. With Congress not yet passing any legislation on the matter, those “citizens” were any “citizen” that existed under any state law (statutory or common law which was the English common law) and who were “citizens” of the respective states. These included English “natural-born subjects” from birth who became “citizens” of their respective states under the Declaration of Independence and through adherence to the Revolution (these were our early Presidents) and any “subject” of a colony or “citizen” of any state who gained that character through naturalization after birth under colonial or state naturalization laws and who also adhered to the American Revolution. These state “citizens” became the “citizens of the United States.” But when the First Congress passed the first naturalization act, the Naturalization Act of 1790, the states lost all power to naturalize any person after birth as a “citizen” of their respective state. And with that law, any state “citizen” also ceased to automatically be a “citizen of the United States.” Now a national “citizen,” called a “citizen of the United States,” took on a very specific uniform meaning. One could only come into being by the person satisfying the requirements of federal law. And regarding the “natural born citizens,” Congress had no constitutional power to define them and so let them be defined as they had been under the law of nations whose rules on citizenship became American national common law and incorporated into the Constitution as part of Article II “the Laws of the United States.”

So again, Mr. Nash, you are peddling nonsense as usual. Now I know that you will adjust your writings by incorporating what I have just explained to you into those writings and proclaim all of it as your own.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger and Adrien Nash at September 1, 2013 at 4:08 and 4:31 AM,

I of II

Mr. Nash, as I have told you before, you live in an imaginary world, created by you to serve your personal view of what should be. Now, do not misunderstand me. There is nothing wrong with humanity striving to improve the world and its condition. But it is contrary to reality to argue that being awake is sleeping and swimming is flying, when based on accepted human scientific standards they are not.

You espouse a notion that we all live in a state of nature. You seem to think that nature overpowers all things that are human, denying to mankind the power to alter that nature for the purpose of improving his condition. You put forth a theory that governments are subordinate to some undefined state of nature, and that all that they do is strictly controlled by who knows what. You fail to understand the fundamental truth that man has the intelligence to order his or her life and thereby create civil society through law and government, and has done so since the beginning of civilization, and by doing so has altered the state of nature to his advantage. What man says in law and custom about things that are natural, whether right or wrong, preempts what some undefined state of nature may allegedly say about them.

A nation or state (in the United States it is mostly the states) which is a democratic constitutional republic, has sovereign power given to it by the people which is exercised through written laws and custom to confirm or even change what nature has otherwise ordered, however that may be interpreted and understood. We call these the rules of civil society, which are handed down to us through millennia. If this were not a fundamental truth of ordered society we would not have the institutions of citizenship; contract; private property ownership and its inheritance upon death; responsibility for tortious and intentional injuries to another; death, loss of liberty, and other punishment for crimes committed; marriage, divorce, custody, child support, parental time, equitable distribution of property acquired during marriage, and termination of parental rights; adoption; corporations and limited liability companies; and so much more. Making such rules of ordered society is not what you call “violating the Law of Nature.” Rather, it is simply mankind ordering his world for his advantage.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

You fail to understand that in the mix of all this nations and governments can, through positive law and subject to their constitutions, define their rules regarding who shall be their members or who republics call “citizens.” In the United States, our constitution and other positive laws have accepted as its members “natural born citizens” and “citizens of the United States.” In keeping with what Vattel said so long ago, natural law and our positive laws (American national common law, national statutory law, the Fourteenth Amendment, and treaties) define these two separate classes of U.S. “citizens,” with a “natural born citizen” being defined by American national common law (a union of natural law and positive law) as a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth and all the rest of the “citizens” defined under Congressional Acts, the Fourteenth Amendment, and treaties and thereby called the “citizens of the United States.”

What I have provided to the public on the meaning of a “natural born citizen” has not been my personal, made up opinion which is so weak that I need to bolster it with for whom I have worked or with my resume. Rather, what I have expressed is based on world and U.S. history, the writings of our Founders, and legal records, all of which I have cited in my legal briefs to the courts and on this blog. On the contrary, you are the one who puts forth nothing but your personal opinions and state-of-nature philosophy, without citing to any source that supports you.
So, Mr. Nash, it plainly appears that the “problem with word-for-word comprehension,” “filtering through the bias of dogma,” “fail,” “lame logic,” “insanity,” “need for serious rethinking,” “incapability in learning,” “golden theory,” “falsely clinging to a delusion,” “half-goat creation,” “freakish monstrosities,” and “distorted assumptions” are all yours.

You also have not yet convinced me that you are not an Obot in sheep’s clothing.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Unknown,

So I see, if Congress says all “citizens of the United States” will be subject to national registration, the “citizens of the United States” living in Kansas are exempt because Congress said “nothing” about them. Unknown, you are a pathetic thing.

Also, you have become a nuisance here. You have nothing substantive to say. All you do is cheer lead and carry water for the Obots and repeat over and over about what some courts have done (your favorite is Judge Masin in Purpura and Moran v. Obama) which in any event, have misstated the issues and do not address the issues and arguments advanced. A better place for you to post at, with all its splendid color and images, is the sophomoric Fogbow. Why not give it a try there.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Helpsiscayovie,

An Article II “natural born Citizen” is a child born in The United States or its jurisdictional equivalent to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth. If a person meets that definition, and is at least 35 years old and has resided in the United States for at least 14 years, the Constitution is satisfied as to that person’s eligibility for the Office of President and Vice-President. Under the definition, the critical snap shot is taken at the moment of birth. The definition does not speak about dual nationality acquired after birth as being any constitutional disqualifying factor.

Unknown said...

Congress can make a born citizen, citizen at birth if they want but they cannot make a natural born citizen. When i hear obots use words like delusional and dishonest then i know they are referring to themselves. I got a sick feeling in my stomach after first reading minor last year. 9 supreme court justices were all in agreement about the natives or NBCs and this class of citizens were never in doubt according to them and yet we have a child of a foreign father as CiC? Minor will never be mentioned on the national networks and no member of Congress will give a reasoned explanation why the minor court was wrong. mark levin makes inane, dishonest comments about ted cruz being eligible too and yet self righteously claims to be mr constitution

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Leo derosia,

Mark Levin has lost credibility with many people due to his wild comments and poor attitude against the Birthers. He does not realize that the Framers, Founders, Ratifiers, and the People were the original American Birthers. He does not realize that John Jay, George Washington, and James Madison were leaders of the Birthers, and that they gave us the "natural born Citizen" clause.

Maybe Mark Levin can still redeem himself if he just takes the time to study the issue and then gives an intelligent response rather than the low-level presentation that he gave on his radio show. Mark Levin is entitled to his opinion on the matter. But whatever his opinion, if he is going to maintain respectability with his audience, he has to make a well-reasoned response rather than just shoot from the hip with trashy comments as he did.

Unknown said...

mario, i bet mark levin will never talk about vattel, minor and the differences between a citizen and natural born citizen. For him and jeff masin to sit there with a straight face and say people like cruz and obama are natural born citizens is a farce. One has to do severe contortions and flat out lie to make a son of a foreign father eligible for President based on the ecl and wong kim ark, neither of which had anything to do with a NBC. For the major networks, congress and judges to remain silent on this shows they are either controlled or have been threatened.

Unknown said...

i did not know what a nbc was until march of 2012 and up until then i would hear about state cases hear and there challenging obama. Those cases always went in obamas favor so i figured there was nothing to it but after i read the simple paragraph in minor and the inane reasons barry was allowed on the ballot i knew the fix was in. I watched masin give a 10 minute explanation on why he would not even allow your witness to testify on obama's bc being a cut and paste forgery. As i was watching masin bend over backwards for dear leader all i could think about is that this judge is a joke and a hack. He does not warrant being called a judge actually and certainly showed his pension was far more important than his country. I think the Founders, who risked everything for love of country wouldve been as disgusted as i was. John Jay, Morrison Waite and John Marshall all earned the right to be called a Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court

Stranger said...

A Nash writes:
Congress has no constitutional "power" over either naturalization nor immigration. It's authority ended at making the State naturalization laws uniform. It did that by setting a uniform time period before being allowed to seek naturalization. As well as setting a standard for character and background. Other than issues like that, citizenship was purely a state matter, and naturalized citizens were made solely by the States. The central government was not a party to it.

The naturalization authority of states dwelt solely with foreigners and their children, as expressed in the naturalization statutes of Congress which provided the uniform rule for the State's administration.
But Congress possessed no authority over the children of Americans, wherever they were born, since they were not aliens but Americans by birth. By natural membership they were born being United States citizens.

The incomplete wording of the naturalization act: "And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of..." has no logical connection to children born in America because that would be a fact that could simply not be overlooked inadvertently. It is hugely significant because of English common law.
Congress had rule making authority only over aliens and their foreign-born children, -NOT American born children. That authority was in the province of the States. They never surrendered it nor signed it away in the Constitution.
I've read that four states allowed jus soli citizenship for their native-born immigrant-fathered children. So that would mean that 9 did not. Congress had no say in the matter.

You've repeatedly used the phrase "state of nature", attacking a straw man of your own creation. You blindly overlook the fact that I've never used such a phrase nor implied such a state. That shows that you've understood NOTHING of what I've written. But then, when have you ever?

Stranger said...

About Mark Levine, A. Nash wrote this today at the end of a long exposition titled: The Origin of Citizenship: Predestination or Permission. (not online yet)

~There is no good reason to hope for a miracle, -for rescue to come, although that is a long-shot possibility. Not only will the truth about Obama's origin remain unknown, but even the simple facts about citizenship, as shared herein, will also go unknown.

After all, if a constitutional scholar such as Mark Levine can be totally ignorant of, and hostile toward, the facts of life herein shared, then the mountain of ignorance that blocks the American people from seeing and understanding the truth is one that very few people will ever climb. Congress won't climb it. The courts won't climb it. The executive branch and the military won't climb it. Nor will the main stream media.

We will remain in its shadow forever it seems. We will not learn from history nor nature nor common sense because we have a perfect substitute taking their place. Consider; a people and government too stupid to stop calling American Natives "Indians" (like from India) is too stupid to recognize and root out its ingrained and institutionalized errors. Once fixed in place, they, like cement, become permanent. And so it is with American concepts about citizenship.

~No one wants to investigate that boat much less rock it. That’s a political hornets’ nest that no one wants to disturb because of the massive number of aliens who have had babies in America without the sanction of federal or state law.

And so the status quo will continue, and Obama's constitutional treason, -along with that of much of the government, will go unknown or unacknowledged, unreported, and uninvestigated.

Statists in both parties, in both houses, in all three branches of government don't have a problem with violating the Constitution without hesitation or remorse since they can all do so with impunity, unless... the States fight back. Any hope pretty much lies with them and their willingness to assert their sovereignty against a century of treason against the Constitution and the 9th and 10th Amendments in particular.

Unknown said...

Congress does not have powers of naturalization? The Constitution i have read says they do.Children of americans born out side of us were citizens in the naturalisation act of 1795. A child of a alien and a us citizen are in USC 1401.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Bob Quasius left this comment at Café Con Leche Republicans:

"I am satisfied Obama is a natural born citizen, and more than a dozen court decisions explicitly reached that conclusion. Obama is one of our worst presidents of modern history. There are plenty of reasons he should not be president; lack of eligibility as a natural born citizen isn’t one of them."

POSTED BY BQUASIUS on September 2, 2013, at 12:38 PM, at http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/#comment-20807

Here is my response to him:

Bob Quasius,

The historical record demonstrates that the purpose of the “natural born citizen” clause was “to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and … that the commander in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on any but a natural born citizen.”

John Jay’s letter to George Washington, July 25, 1787.

The Founders, Framers, Ratifiers, and People were greatly influenced by the writings of Emer de Vattel. In The Law of Nations (1758) he explained:

§ 70. All the subjects of the two states at war are enemies.

When the sovereign or ruler of the state declares war against another sovereign, it is understood that the whole nation declares war against another nation; for the sovereign represents the nation, and acts in the name of the whole society (Book I. §§ 40, 41;) and it is only in a body, and in her national character, that one nation has to do with another. Hence, these two nations are enemies, and all the subjects of the one are enemies to all the subjects of the other. In this particular, custom and principle are in accord.

§ 71. and continue to be enemies in all places.

Enemies continue such wherever they happen to be. The place of abode is of no consequence here. It is the political ties which determine the character. Whilst a man continues a citizen of his own country, he is the enemy of all those with whom his nation is at war. . . .

***

Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, or Principles of the Laws of Nature, Applied to the Conduct and Affairs of Nations and Sovereigns, bk. 3, c. 5, sec. 70-71 (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758). Section 71 was relied upon by Chief Justice John Marshall in The Venus, 12 U.S. 253, 291 (1814).

Vattel explains that any person located in a nation’s territory who is a citizen of a nation with which that home nation is at war is an enemy of that home nation. In other words, according to Vattel, the Founders, Framers, Ratifiers, and People would have understood that any person located in the United States who was a citizen of a nation with which the United States was at war was an enemy of the United States. Can you explain how the Founders, Framers, Ratifiers, and People would have accepted as their Commander in Chief a person born not only a U.S. citizen but also a foreign subject or citizen and owing allegiance, and civil, political, and military obligations to two nations, with the potential of being an enemy of the United States, the nation he was elected to lead militarily, by being a citizen of the nation with which the U.S. could be at war?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger and Adrien Nash at September 2, 2013 at 7:12 AM,

You continue to utter nonsense.

(1) Once Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, the states no longer had any authority or power to naturalize anyone. The naturalization power given to Congress was exclusive. Chirac v. Chirac, 15 U.S. (2 Wheat.) 259, 269 (1817); United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 701 (1898).

(2) It does not take a constitutional expert to realize that we cannot have 50 states each telling us what a “natural born citizen” and a “citizen of the United States” are. Rather, we have in our constitutional system rules which bring uniformity and certainty to these definitions. Defining a “natural born citizen” is done by reliance on the constitutionally fixed American national common law the nomenclature of which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution. Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). On the other hand, defining the “citizens of the United States” by virtue of birth in the United States is done by reliance upon the Fourteenth Amendment. Wong Kim Ark. Finally, defining all the other “citizens of the United States,” whether at birth or after birth, is strictly the province of the national government acting through Congress through its naturalization powers (8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401 et seq.) and acting through the President and the Senate through their treaty powers. Article I, Section 2, Clause 2.

(3) You continue that the early naturalization acts such as the Naturalization Act of 1790 (drafted by Thomas Jefferson) and those of 1795, 1802, and 1855, did not apply to children born in the United States. As I have pointed out, the operative language is: “And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.” Congress in this statement did not draw any distinction between children born in or out of the United States. In fact, Congress did not say whether the children were to be born in or out of the United States. What controlled was “such persons so naturalized” not where the child was born. Regardless of where the child was born, if the child’s parent was a “person[] so naturalized,” then the child meeting the requirements of the statute became a “citizen of the United States” through naturalization after birth. We can see this from the plain language. In fact, the James Madison Administration, in the James McClure Case of 1814, interpreted and applied the Naturalization Act of 1802, which contains the same operative language, exactly in this manner.

There is also little doubt that Congress has the plenary naturalization power to act on children born in the United States. In fact, Congress acts on such children in 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1401(a) which is basically a repeat of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Despite all this evidence, you just want to invent that Congress excluded from the universal language of these early naturalization acts children born in the United States and limited its language to children born out of the United States. Please provide how you arrive at your statement that Congress only acted on children born out of the United States. Please provide how you arrive at your conclusion that Congress excluded from this universal language children born in the United States.

Stranger said...

A. Nash writes:

The word "State" means Nation. The Constitution cobbled together 13 semi-sovereign Nations which could have been named "The United Nations of America".

What was one of the powers of each of those united Nations? The power to regulate, promote (or discourage) and legislate regarding immigration. With that power they also held and retained their power of naturalization. They did NOT surrender it in the Constitution, and there was no central government to replace them even if they had.

Before, during, and after the adoption of the Constitution, they were the supreme authority over which foreigners they allowed to be their citizens as long as they didn't violate the guidelines that Congress would write in order to make the naturalization requirements of all of the American nations UNIFORM.

You need to put on your thinking cap and grasp what UNIFORM implies. It means uniform across all the unified nations of the North American continent.

Understand this: the authorization to write guidelines is not the imbuement of Power that you imagine. Congress had no authority beyond its authorization to write a uniform rule, nor any over immigration. Those matters were State matters just like marriage. They alone administered them.

It's similar to your role as blog host. As long as commenters abide by your guidelines, they are free to exercise freedom of speech. You don't have to approve if your power is limited to setting simple guidelines of behavior.
That does not give you authority over what commenters think or write just as the future central government assumed no authority over the naturalization practices of the states.
The matter wasn't in their hands after the Constitution any more than it was before it.

You've misinterpreted what it says, probably along with the 13th Amendment, which you probably assume, like everyone else, bans slavery and involuntary servitude, which it does not. They are still perfectly legal. Am I the only person to ever point out that fact?

Stranger said...

A Nash writes:

“And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States,..."

Mario wrote: " Congress in this statement did not draw any distinction between children born in or out of the United States."

Actually, Congress could not draw a distinction between two classes of foreign-fathered children if it only addressed one class or no class.

You are missing the bigger picture in trying to parse the meaning of those words in isolation. Those words do not distinguish children by place of birth as you correctly assert, but ascribe citizenship to all of them if their father is naturalized.
Thus, if one was born with citizenship from birth in a State allowing jus soli for native-born immigrant children, the FEDERAL government was not therefore required to acknowledge that citizenship unless your father naturalized since there is no directive that it do so.

Foreign-born children were in the same boat. The wording addressing "dwelling" as the pivotal factor ignored all other factors except the father's naturalization.

It seems there was some contrary cross-currents at work between some States' practices and what the Federal government recognized. As with marijuana laws. States could grant citizenship to their native-born alien-fathered children, but the State practice was not controlling of the federal policy which did not acknowledge jus soli citizenship for federal purposes, -hence the need for State naturalization if one wanted to be recognized by the federal government as an American citizen and not just a State citizen.

I'd venture to say that if such a State citizen were to seek to travel abroad, the federal government would not supply him with American papers since his father was a foreigner.

Do you agree?

"There is also little doubt that Congress has the plenary naturalization power to act on children born in the United States. In fact, Congress acts on such children..."

Mario, "little doubt" is not the same as no doubt. There is a mountain of doubt. I'm asserting that the power they exercise in the post-constitutional America is not a power they were given but a power that they stole from the States.

Stranger said...

"I am satisfied Obama is a natural born citizen... Obama is one of our worst presidents of modern history. There are plenty of reasons he should not be president; lack of eligibility as a natural born citizen isn’t one of them."

A. Nash replies:
That despicable statement is the crown jewel of deception. First he assures us that he is one of us, coming from the same perspective, -another objective fact seeker who stands close to us, within dagger-strike range.
It doesn't get any more deviously clever than to authoritatively assert the one is "satisfied" that something is true, implying that if it were truly not true, then that great seeker of Truth would be DIS-satisfied and vociferously say so for all others to be well informed.

Such a considerate sharing attitude. Surely, deception could never come from such an upright deceiver.

His crowning achievement is in putting the matter to rest by confidently supplying the bottom line fact of the matter. That is a prime example of assertion equaling explanation. When the authoritative voice says that something is so, then it must be so, -end of story my friend. "I read it in the newspaper so it must be true."

How great it is to be the "Adult" in a conversation so that you can give the final word on a matter. Being the "Adult" you must know what you're talking about, and so there is no room to question the veracity of your subtle, biased, politically motivated lies.

Carlyle said...

Again, operating from thirty thousand feet, I would like to survey the forest.

Why is it that myself and every other "questioner of eligibility" I know is eager to get the issue fully aired out in a formal forum and get a court decision - LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY?

And EVERY OBOT runs screaming and otherwise twists and turns to avoid the exact same sunshine?

Shouldn't this simple fact alone be INCREDIBLY DIAGNOSTIC?!

I have no trouble with the courts or the American people, via elections, decide on the suitability of individual candidates for office. But FIRST, said deciders MUST have complete and accurate data to work from.

Why are our "truth in advertising" petitions being ignored and ridiculed at every front? How is it not a fundamental right for us to know the truth?

Stranger said...

There's some form of hideous, devious spirit at work in America when the likes of Mark Levine is infected with a mind-set that adamantly opposes any discussion about what a natural born citizen actually is. Why such a closed and hostile mind regarding the subject? There's something at work below the surface that is very ignorant, highly biased, and extremely defensive.
It may be related to the fact that the Constitution is in fact exclusionary when it comes to the Presidency, while being nearly universally inclusionary when it comes to every other office in the land. I guess some minds are unwilling to accept that such inclusion didn't include the presidency. A. Nash

Foggy of the Fogbow said...

Here's a law professor at Cornell who wrote a lengthy blog post where he concludes that there's no requirement for two citizen parents and Cruz is eligible, just like us Obots claim he is.

Good luck, Mario. Maybe you can do better against a law professor than you managed to do against a girl reporter.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2013/09/natural-born-citizens-marco-rubio-bobby-jindal-ted-cruz/

MichaelN said...

Foggy of the Fogbow said...

"Here's a law professor at Cornell who wrote a lengthy blog post where he concludes that there's no requirement for two citizen parents and Cruz is eligible, just like us Obots claim he is."
------------------
The requirement was for a US citizen father, which in the framing period equated to two US citizen parents, the wife automatically qualified for the same citizenship as her husband.

It's always been primarily about descent from the father.

Even the English 17th century common law required a native-born child to be "born under the ligeance of a subject" FATHER, if the child were to be a natural born subject.

Stranger said...

You idiot. By your lame reasoning, half of the Supreme Court is made up of idiots also because they don't want to go along with the other half.

Only a juvenile fool thinks that truth is determined by majority rule.

Opinion does not alter the truth, and a whole lot of opinion is not the result of unbiased investigation, but of very partisan politics, such as your own, you useful idiot obamunist.
A. Nash

Stranger said...

Check this out: "A Supreme Court Justice’s Affirmation of Nullification"

~Fugitive slave era scholar H. Robert Baker wrote, “Within these pedestrian operations of the law, Prigg v. Pennsylvania exerted no influence. People continued to turn to state law to determine procedures for fugitive slave rendition.”

And when Congress passed a new fugitive Slave Act in 1850, tailoring its provisions around the Prigg opinion, nearly every northern state passed new personal liberty laws, many with provisions interfering with the federally mandated process, in defiance of the Supreme Court.

Of course, the feds did try to “rely upon its own agency in giving effect to the laws,” and occasionally had success. But ultimately, the federal government didn’t have the resources to enforce the fugitive slave act, and it was effectively nullified.

Nullification does not depend on the sanction of federal courts. The people of the states make the final determination when it comes to the extent of federal power, as James Madison asserted in his Report of 1800.

"The States then being the parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be violated; and consequently that as the parties to it, they must themselves decide in the last resort, such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition."

And as Justice McClean said, states can resist federal power. It stands as a legitimate exercise of state authority to protect the rights and liberties of its people, and preserve the Constitution from federal usurpation. If no authority exists to resist federal overreach, if the federal government indeed determines the limits of its own power, then in reality, we live under an unlimited all-powerful federal government.

To quote Madison, a federal government of unlimited power “would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”

http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/08/25/a-supreme-court-justices-affirmation-of-nullification/#.Uia4wH9cVcQ

Unknown said...

the Cornell professor should read Article 2 and NA1795 and maybe he can put 2 and 2 together with regards to cruz

Stranger said...

For your enlightenment: Understanding Vattel, Citizenship, and Presidential Eligibility

Seven page exposition revealing the history behind misconceptions that shape the views of many regarding presidential eligibility, and the logic errors inherent in their interpretations. Posted yesterday @: http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/09/03/understanding-vattel-citizenship-and-presidential-eligibility/
A.Nash

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

NotLinda at Café Con Leche Republicans argues that “the born-in-the-country-of-two-citizen-parents theory to be utterly refuted and now crank nonsense,” and that since John McCain, born in Panama, was accepted as a “natural born citizen,” so is Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada. http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/#comment-20858 Here is my response:

NotLinda,

So you think that:

(1) America going through revolution from:

(a) monarchy under the imposed absolute divine right of Kings and authority of Parliament to a Republic guided by “the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God” and under the authority of the people, who now possessed the unalienable right to “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” but consented through contract to give their representative government limited governing powers over specific objects and retained all the rest not expressly or impliedly given;

(b) subjecthood (meaning the King and Parliament were absolutely sovereign over their people) to citizenship (meaning the members of the Republic possessed sovereign power and to better their station in life transferred by consent part of that power to their government and retained all that was not so transferred);

(c) children being under the absolute authority of the King in whose dominion they happen to be born to children being under the authority of their parents until reaching the age of majority;

(d) the authority of the English common law with its broad and absolute rules of allegiance (including perpetual allegiance) which applied in the individual colonies and states to the authority of the law of nations with its limited rules of allegiance (including the natural right to expatriation) which applied to the whole national territory; and

(2) the unanimous ruling of the U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) that, understanding all of this history, defined, under American national common law the nomenclature of which the Framers were familiar and which was based on the law of nations, a “natural-born citizen” as a child born in the country or jurisdiction of the U.S. to U.S. citizen parents, as confirmed by U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898);

is all “crank nonsense” that has been “utterly refuted?” How nice of you to attempt to manipulate all this American history out of existence and to just imagine “wins” in your own head.

Talk about “crank nonsense,” where do you get the absurd idea that current positions on the meaning of an Article II “natural born citizen,” which challenge Obama’s eligibility to be President, are not valid unless made before 2008? You do not have sufficient sense to realize that your stupid position also discredits your current views on the same issue since you did not express them before 2008. You peddle yourself as though your position on the meaning of a “natural born citizen” comes down to us from a politics-free heaven when in fact it is a corpse fully infected with the virus of partisan politics and ambitious interest.

Finally, John McCain, born in Panama, regardless of the exact location there, to U.S. citizen parents, is a “natural born citizen” because, being born to U.S. citizen parents who were stationed in Panama serving the national military defense of the United States, he was reputed born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents. See Emer de Vattel, Section 217, The Law of Nations (1758) (“[C]hildren born out of the country in the armies of the state, or in the house of its minister at a foreign court, are reputed born in the country; for a citizen who is absent with his family on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory”). Moreover,

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Panama, which followed the jus sanguinis model of citizenship (citizenship inherited from parents) at the time of his birth, did not impose its citizenship upon McCain when he was born in its territory. Because of his unique birth circumstances, McCain was born with sole allegiance and unity of citizenship to the United States which makes him a “natural born citizen.”

If Obama was not born in the United States, he cannot make the McCain claim, for under the Congressional Act that controlled when he was born in 1961 (8 U.S.C. Section 1401(g), providing that the sole U.S. citizen parent had to have at least 5 years of U.S. residency after attaining the age of 14 years and thereby mandating that the U.S.-citizen parent be at least 19 years old at the time of the child’s birth), his 18-year-old U.S. citizen mother did not satisfy the residency requirement of the applicable statute and therefore could not transmit any U.S. citizenship to him. But even if Obama could inherit U.S. citizenship from his mother under the applicable Act of Congress, with that U.S. citizenship being transmitted to him from just one U.S. citizen parent, and with Obama having been born out of the United States or its jurisdiction to parents who were not serving the U.S. military, all causing him to be born with foreign allegiance and citizenship belonging to the foreign country of his birth and to the foreign country of his alien father, that Congress-provided grace of citizenship would not be “natural born citizen[ship].” Additionally, even if Obama were born in the United States, he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father (a British citizen) and therefore by jus sanguinis and the British Nationality of 1948 also a British citizen by parental inheritance and statute. Not being born with sole allegiance and unity of citizenship to the United States (at best he is a born British and U.S. citizen), he cannot be a “natural born citizen” even if born in the United States. The Founders, Framers, Ratifiers, and People, wanting to keep out of the Office of President and Commander in Chief all foreign and monarchical influence, would never have accepted in the future a person for those highly sensitive offices born owing natural and legal allegiance to two or more different countries.

Ted Cruz, born in Canada to a Cuban father and a U.S. citizen mother, also cannot make the McCain claim, for his father was not a U.S. citizen and his parents were not serving the U.S. military while in Canada, all causing him to be born as a citizen at birth of Canada, Cuba, and the United States. Again, the Founders, Framers, Ratifiers, and People, for the same reasons that apply to Obama, would never have accepted for the future a person for those offices born owing natural and legal allegiance to three different countries. Hence, since Cruz is not a “natural born citizen,” he is, like Obama, not eligible to be President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Stranger said...

A Nash writes:
I recently read about the naturalization act of 2000, and what was written gave the clear impression that until it was passed, American citizenship did not pass from an American mother to her alien-fathered child if it was born in the United States. The statutes preceding it only applied to a foreign birth location, so regardless of Obama's mother's age, in 1961 her citizenship would not have passed to him unless he was foreign-born, which he no doubt was, which makes him a derivative citizen by statute, and not a natural citizen by political inheritance.

Stranger said...

NotLinda at Café Con Leche Republicans argue that “the born-in-the-country-of-two-citizen-parents theory to be utterly refuted and now crank nonsense,”
A. Nash writes:
As you are aware, I agree with her completely but also agree that her embraced citizenship ideology is an ever worse form of crank nonsense. I spend the day writing a clarifying exposition of citizenship by predestination, as well as another one the day before. They both will reveal new angles of perspective on natural citizenship versus legal citizenship. Here's a preview:

The children of Americans are predetermined from conception to also be Americans, while the children of foreigners have no right to American citizenship unless they meet all of the requirements of the law. If they do, then by legal right they are Americans, but not by natural right.
If the place of their birth, the event of their birth, and the witnesses to their birth are unacceptable or missing, then their legal right of citizenship does not exist.
None of those things negates natural citizenship since children of Americans are Americans just like their mother and father regardless of where or how they are born.

There is a name for such nationality determination, and it is “Jus Sanguinis”, meaning “by right of blood” and it is older than the Latin of the Roman Empire with which it is labeled. It is group membership by natural connection rather than by legal permission. It is membership, subject-ship, or citizenship by predestination rather than by the right of Kings and their royal prerogative of human ownership (which ties one’s off-spring to the owner of the land on which they were born), or by the magnanimous gift of the natural members of a nation of free people.

Such membership is no more natural than a perverse rule that if a strange woman were to give birth under your roof, -in your parents’ bed, then her child would be your brother or sister. Would such a rule make such a child your natural sibling or merely your legal sibling?

~posting will be tomorrow.

Stranger said...

A. Nash writes:
Following up on my pointing out that Congress had no authority over immigration and naturalization other than to make the laws of the States uniform by setting minimum standards, -because the States remained supreme over those matters, here's a few quotes from a great article at the 10th Amendment Center titled: Cato Chairman On Nullification: An Amalgamation of Revisionist History Covered in Judicial Fairy Dust

Levy writes, “In assessing constitutionality, our system of governance recognizes one Supreme Court, not 50 individual states.” This is partially true...The part Levy ignores is the Supreme Court is only supreme over the inferior courts that Congress may establish.
The Supreme Court is not supreme over the other branches nor is it supreme over the states or the states’ courts.

In properly assessing constitutionality one cannot brush aside the fact that each branch is co-equal with every other branch. One branch cannot dictate how the other two branches can act. The order in which each branch deals with a law doesn’t change the constitutionality of a law. More importantly, the judiciary is not supreme over the other branches or over the constitution itself. The judiciary is beneath the Constitution.

Levy’s asserts “states cannot impede federal enforcement of a federal law merely because the state deems it unconstitutional. That is up to the federal courts.”

This is pure fantasy as it completely ignores the supremacy clause found in Article VI of the Constitution. The supremacy clause is a rule of construction on interpreting the powers delegated to the federal government in the Constitution. The supremacy clause does not declare the federal government supreme in all matters. The supremacy clauses establishes Supremacy of Law; meaning that in areas where the federal government was delegated power to act and a law is passed in pursuance of those powers the federal law is supreme. In all other cases State law is supreme.

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2013/09/cato-chairman-on-nullification-an-amalgamation-of-revisionist-history-covered-in-judicial-fairy-dust/#.UioyKH9cVcQ

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger/Mr. Nash,

Did you not understand anything that I wrote. Under the applicable Act of Congress in effect when Obama was born in 1961, if Obama was not born in the U.S., then he would have needed to be born to at least one U.S. citizen parent to be at best a "citizen of the United States" at birth (not to be conflated and confounded with an Article II "natural born citizen"). But the problem for Obama under such a scenario is that his mother did not reside at least 5 years in the U.S. after turning 14 (hence requiring that she was at least 19 years old). Rather, she resided in the U.S. after she turned 14 years old just short of 5 years, for she was only 18 years old at the time Obama was born.

This means that if Obama was not born in the U.S., today he would be an alien.

Stranger said...

A Nash writes:

For your enlightenment; now online:

"Citizenship: by Destiny or by Destiny Event"

a quote:
Who else is a U.S. citizen besides natural citizens? Answer: Every person provided citizenship by law. Who else is an American besides natural Americans? Answer: Every person born of foreigners but allowed to be an American by law.

Why would one need to distinguish between those who have national membership naturally and those who have it by law? One would never, ever need to distinguish between the two origins of citizenship except in one setting which only happens once every four years when one is in the election booth selecting who shall be the President and Vice-President of the United States.

Nothing in American law distinguishes between them (although there is federal policy regarding top security clearances that definitely does) so no normal citizen in any context whatsoever will ever encounter a need to do so either except when it comes to being faithful to the United States Constitution.

It requires something that nothing else in American law requires of anyone, and that is that they be born as a natural citizen in order to be the President or Vice-President of the United States.

If you are not about to cast your vote for a presidential candidate with foreign parentage, then you have no connection to such a requirement and won’t encounter it anywhere in your life [unless you are subject to a Yankee White Single Scope background investigation in seeking a top security clearance].

Those who are not naturally either an American nor a citizen but are citizens nevertheless are those who were not born of Americans, -of United States citizens, but of foreigners known as “immigrant aliens” (or of one American parent and one foreign parent).

http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/09/05/citizenship-by-destiny/

Stranger said...

Mario wrote: "This means that if Obama was not born in the U.S., today he would be an alien."

A. Nash replies:

Everyone knows that and has known it for many years. But what I wrote about was news to me, namely the article about the naturalization act of 2000 which confirmed the fact that it is not merely my speculation that no law existed in 1961 by which U.S. citizenship passed from mother to child within the United States. The law then in effect only applied to foreign birth locations, meaning it had no effect on Obama Jr.'s supposed Hawaiian birth.

So if the article characterized the effect of the 2000 act correctly, then no one can say that Obama inherited U.S. citizenship from his mother since no law allowed that in 1961 for domestic birth. Thus, since his father was not an immigrant, and therefore the 14th Amendment did not apply to his son, he is not an American citizen by any means other than the institutionalized error of the Attorney General in 1898 following the Wong holding. His citizenship is thus merely a matter of presumptuous and erroneous federal policy and not federal law.

So your statement didn't go as far as it could have since he would be an alien even if he was born in the U.S.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger/Mr. Nash,

Every argument made by that Cato Chairman is a straw man argument.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger/Adrien Nash,

First, under modern (post Wong Kim Ark) Congressional Acts making “citizens of the United States” at birth (not to be conflated and confounded with a “natural born citizen”), the need for at least one “citizen” parent applies only to children born out of the United States.

Second, given Wong Kim Ark and how the decision (the meaning of “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”) has been liberally interpreted and applied by the Federal Government and courts for so many years, I believe you would probably lose the argument that Obama would not be a "citizen of the United States" at birth even if he was born in the United States.

On the other hand, if we could expect the U.S. Supreme Court to really look at and accept the Wong Kim Ark holding which for native born children includes the need to have domiciled and resident parents, an argument could be made that Obama's father was not domiciled in the U.S. which could put in jeopardy any such claimed native born citizenship.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I just left this comment for Patrick J. Colliano at Café Con Leche Republicans:

You said:

“Chester Arthur’s father did not become a naturalized citizen of the United States until Arthur was fourteen. Yes, there was a concern about his eligibility, but only because he was supposedly born in Canada. The issue of his parentage was addressed by Chester-Arthur-eligibility-investigator Arthur Hinman, and when a congressmen advised Hinman that this was utterly groundless, Hinman dropped the subject of his parentage and went straight after place of birth.”

I see that you are again making stuff up. Provide source and link to your phantom congressman who advised Attorney Arthur P. Hinman that parentage was not relevant to being a “natural born citizen.” On the contrary, it looks to me that Arthur knew very well that it was highly relevant. He even acted as though the Naturalization Acts of 1802 and 1855 did not confirm that he was, indeed, not a “natural born citizen” because he was born in the United States to alien parents. As Breckinridge Long pointed out:
“In this connection it will be pertinent to make a few illusions to the recommendations made to Congress urging them to clarify the situation [actually meaning to amend the acts]. President Arthur, in his Fourth Annual Message, in 1884, said: ‘Our existing naturalization laws also need revision. *** Section 2172, recognizing the citizenship of the children of naturalized parents, is ambiguous in its terms***.
‘An uniform rule of naturalization, such as the Constitution contemplates, should, among other things, clearly define the status of persons born within the United States subject to a foreign power and of minor children of fathers who have declared their intention to become citizens***.’”

But the truth of the matter is that the naturalization acts (1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855) were not “ambiguous.” Arthur’s reference to R.S. § 2172, was a revision from the Naturalization Act of 1802, Apr. 14, 1802, ch. 28, § 4,2 Stat. 155. The plain language of the 1802 Act can be read here: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=002/llsl002.db&recNum=192 . The 1802 Act clearly explained that upon the naturalization of the parents, their minor children, if dwelling in the United States, became “citizens of the United States” after birth. The Act made no distinction between such children based on whether they were born in or out of the United States. Since the act plainly and clearly did not make any such distinction, it is only the intellectually dishonest who insert into the acts such a distinction. Hence, clearly, any child who was born in the United States to alien parents was not a citizen at birth, let alone a “natural born citizen.” Remember that Minor also explained that at “common-law” the nomenclature of which the Framers were familiar, children born in the United States to alien parents were themselves like their parents “aliens or foreigners.” This very rule disqualified Chester Arthur from being President and Vice President (and it also disqualifies Barack Obama). He knew it and just played along as though it did not apply to him and even had the nerve to ask that the very laws which demonstrated he was not eligible to be President of Vice-President be clarified.

Also, if the public knew about Arthur being born to alien parents, we would think that since as Arthur said, the Congressional Act as written raised questions about whether such children were even citizens, someone would have challenged Arthur’s eligibility based on parentage, and not only on place of birth.

Finally, we saw how Breckenridge Long challenged Hughes for not being a “natural born citizen” and he clearly stated in his position paper his grounds. Those same grounds (not born in the United States to U.S. “citizen” parents) applied to Chester Arthur. So, it is only reasonable that if Long knew about Arthur being born in the United States to alien parents, he would have also explained that Arthur was also not a “natural born citizen.”

Stranger said...

"The 1802 Act clearly explained that upon the naturalization of the parents, their minor children, if dwelling in the United States, became “citizens of the United States” after birth. The Act made no distinction between such children based on whether they were born in or out of the United States."

A. Nash writes:
Mario,
From the stand point of the authority of the sovereign States, it appears that your approach to this is incorrect. Although representatives represented their own district principally, Senators represented the sovereignty of their State, and it included authority over all children born within their borders. That fact negates the authority of Congress as a whole to legislate regarding such children.
The only children that the federal government had authority over regarding citizenship were those born abroad of foreigners. That is why the wording is limited to "dwelling" within the United States and not born within.
Logic tells us that they were addressing children of foreigners who might still be in Europe, -either with their grandparents or with their mother. They were not dwelling in the U.S. and thus were not naturalized upon their father's naturalization. That makes perfect sense since there would be no telling that they would ever even come to America, especially if they were near adulthood and chose to not come to America with their father or parents (as Obama chose to not return to Indonesia with his mother).

That being the inescapable reality, it's not accurate to claim that there was no ambiguity in the statutes unless you view them from the perspective I've described. If the States were supreme over all native-born persons, then it is completely accurate and not as you've assumed.

Stranger said...

Mario wrote: "...the Wong Kim Ark holding which for native born children includes the need to have domiciled and resident parents, an argument could be made that Obama's father was not domiciled in the U.S. which could put in jeopardy any such claimed native born citizenship."

A. Nash replies:
It does more that put it in jeopardy, it destroys it. That is because no man, no parents, who are not domiciled are fully subject to the authority of the federal government since it includes the authority of conscription for war.

No foreign guest or tourist or student is so subject, and thus no son born to them is subject either.
They are exempt from the full federal political jurisdiction of the U.S. government and are thus incapable of fathering American citizens.
They must be legal immigrants to be fully subject because immigrants are members of the American nation and owe it a duty of service in national defense if needed and called.

Unknown said...

logic and NA 1802 says children of aliens dwelling within the US became citizens of the US after parents naturalised. My logical conclusion is that children of aliens dwelling in US became citizens of the US after parents naturalised.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger/Adrien Nash,

I of II

The Constitution categorically gave to the central government the exclusive power of naturalization. Additionally, it explained that the purpose for giving that power to the central government was to make uniform the laws of naturalization. No naturalization power was reserved to the states. Hence, it would be contradictory to reserve any such power when the purpose to give the power to the central government was to make those laws uniform and certain for the united nation as a whole.

The “dwelling in the United States” clause of the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855 applied to children born either in or out of the United States. If applied to children who were born out of the United States and still resident there while their alien father was residing in the United States. The alien father could naturalize in the United States. But only upon that child’s move to and “dwelling” in the United States could that child automatically become a “citizen of the United States” from the father’s naturalization in the United States.

But “dwelling in the United States” also applied to children born in the United States. Here are two examples how the principle worked. First, a child could be born in the United States to alien parents. The whole family could move back to their native country. The father could then return to America and naturalize there. His minor children then living out of the United States would be “considered as citizens of the United States” through the naturalization of the father and mother only if those children returned to live and dwell in America. Second, a child could be born in the United States to alien parents. The parents could naturalize which automatically naturalized their minor children dwelling with them in the United States, saying that such children “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” The parents could then return to their native country with their naturalized children. Since those children were no longer “dwelling in the United States,” they were no longer “considered as citizens of the United States.” This latter example demonstrates the power of Congress to include conditions subsequent as requirements to maintain the status of being a naturalized “citizen of the United States.” In other words, the status of being a naturalized “citizen of the United States” could be lost by failure to maintain a certain status as imposed by Congress.

The statue in its latter part expressly referred to children born out of the United States. So, Congress knew how to signal when it was referring to children born out of the United States. It made no such reference in the first part where it said: “And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States.” Such silence by Congress and the express words and the logic of the statute demonstrates that it applied to both children born in and out of the United States.

The plain reading of the statute’s complete text and Congress’s not expressing that it was only referring to children born out of the United States shows that children born in or out of the United States were “considered as citizens of the United States” as long as their parents naturalized during their minority and those children were “dwelling in the United States.” If a minor child should not be dwelling in the United States, that child never acquired U.S. citizenship or lost it if previously acquired.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

But apart from just reading the text of the statue, we also have historical evidence which supports my reading of the statute. For an excellent discussion of how the “dwelling in the United States” clause worked, see the James McClure Citizenship Case of 1814 (fully discussed in my court briefs and on this blog, the James Madison Administration held that the Naturalization Act of 1802 treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens who could naturalize as “citizens of the United States” upon the parents naturalization if done during the child’s minority and upon the child “dwelling in the United States” at the time or after the parents’ naturalization). See also Breckinridge Long, Is Mr. Charles Evans Hughes a “Natural Born Citizen” Within the Meaning of the Constitution,? Chicago Legal News, Vol. 146-148, pp. 220-222 http://libertylegalfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Breckinridge-Long.pdf (discussed and demonstrated through U.S. Supreme Court cases, several Presidents of the United States, numerous U.S. Secretaries of the United States, and an Attorney General that the early naturalization acts of Congress treated children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and in need of naturalization, meaning that since such children needed naturalization at birth in order to be “citizens of the United States” after birth, such children were not and could not be Article II “natural born Citizens”).

So, Mr. Nash, looks like you are wrong that the early naturalization acts applied only to children born out of the United States. Also, I have long argued, the early naturalization acts are incontrovertible proof that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers 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, meaning that only a child born in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent to U.S. "citizen" parents at the time of the child's birth was an Article II "natural born Citizen."

Stranger said...

Mario wrote: "The Constitution categorically gave to the central government the power of naturalization".

A. Nash writes: Allow me to quote: "The Congress shall have power to...establish an uniform rule of naturalization and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States." From that we learn these things:

1. The power of Congress begins and ends at establishing a uniform rule for all of the states so that naturalization isn't restricted to only two years of residency in one state while another state requires seven. And so forth.

2. The States that approved and ratified the Constitution continued as before it in being the sole authority over the process of naturalization and the management of immigration within their own borders, including the authority to make native-born children of immigrants citizens, or to not do so. Congress had no authority in those two areas beyond writing the uniform rule regarding naturalization rules for foreigners.

3. Since the Constitution did not declare native-born children of immigrants to be aliens, the Congress had no constitutional authority backing it to impose such a designation on the States. It was solely in the province of the States to decide, but the national government was not bound by the choices of the States. It view the alien-born as aliens, regardless of native birth.

4. Uniformity was requisite for such things as foreigners becoming Americans and bankruptcies being organized to followed uniform rules across the land.

5. The States retained absolute authority to such a degree that any of them could have restricted or barred immigration altogether because there was no authority higher than their own. They also could have suspended naturalizing foreigners, being only required to follow the uniform rule when they choose to allow it again.

Stranger said...

A. Nash continues:

Foreign women and mothers were never naturalized in America for over a century, with rare exceptions, because their citizenship was 100% dependent on that of the head of the family, -the father. He alone could naturalize because he alone could swear the oath of Allegiance and Renunciation, by which he'd bind himself to the duty to bear arms to defend his new nation. Women could not take that oath nor bear arms in national defense. Their citizenship, like their children, was derivative citizenship.
Neither wives nor children were naturalized citizens since the family was one unit, and its nationality flowed from the head, the father, via jus sanguinis. Whatever the head was, so was the rest of the family via their natural connection.
If a foreigner became a naturalized American, and then sent for his foreign domiciled wife and children, they would enter the country as American citizens (even though they couldn't prove it without her marriage certificate and her husbands citizenship certificate).

Where you went completely off the tracks was in asserting that Congress possessed the authority to rescind citizenship once it was bestowed. Like you, statists in the Congress believed the same thing for four generations, and passed such laws against naturalized citizens who returned to their own nation to live. They thought, like you, that they had the authority over citizenship and naturalization, but they had neither. They eventually were slapped down into their proper place by the Supreme Court when it over-turned 80 years of such legislation, -beginning with Afroim v Rusk.

What the high court knew was that citizenship is not something that the government owns, but instead is owned by the citizen. Only he has the right to expatriate. Congress has no such authority over naturalized citizens, because, as I've repeated informed you, there are no naturalized citizen in America. All citizens are natural citizens via the fundamental American and British doctrine of citizenship equivalency. It is as intimate a part of American principles as bone is to a body. It's core. Congress cannot strip citizens of their citizenship and that is why it no longer even considers such a thing.

Stranger said...

A Nash writes:

Mario, the link to the Breckinridge Long pdf is very essential to proving things I've been asserting for a few years now but lacking corroboration from the eras involved.

Now I have it, -in multiple subjects. I was most gratified to have read: "In view of the military draft proposed in 1862, on account of the Civil War, under the head of “aliens,” it was declared by the government at Washington that the following persons were exempt from draft for military service in the armies of the United States:
(1) All foreign born persons who have not been naturalized;
(2) All persons born of foreign parents and who have not become citizens.

You may not realize it but that is the Rosetta Stone that explains the meaning of the 14th Amendment's requirement of subjection to federal jurisdiction.
I've been asserting in dozens of expositions (without corroboration) that it meant just what the 1862 Draft proposal makes plain, namely, that prior to the Wong holding immigrants and their children were not subject to the draft because they were not viewed as being subject to the federal government since they were subject to a foreign power.
Then, as a side effect of the Wong ruling, they were made subject to the draft under the argument that if their child was subject, then so was the father through whom subjection flows.
Thus, he, being a member of American society, was equally responsible for the defense of the that society, but children of non-immigrant aliens are still exempt because they are not members of American society. That means Obama and his father.
They were not subject as the amendment requires and thus citizenship was not conveyed via it. Guests are not subject to the duties of natives & residents. You can't draft tourists.

Stranger said...

Quote: Congress under that authority enacted the following law: "The children of persons who have been duly naturalized under any law of the United States,..shall, if dwelling in the United States, be considered as citizens thereof.”

A Nash writes:
That statement contains an invisible but huge ambiguity. That's because it uses a term that is inherently ambiguous. That term is "the United States". It has at least five distinctly different meanings and yet only one of them comes to mind when reading that statute, and it is the wrong one. It is the one referring to the national government, -but that impression is a false impression resulting from the capitalization of a word that should not have been capitalized since doing so creates the wrong impression. That word is "United". It should be "united" in order to avoid the erroneous ambiguity of "the United States", which should read instead; "the united STATES.

"...duly naturalized under any law of the united STATES" is how it is meant to be read. "any law" refers to any law of any State, -not any law of Congress because Congress only had authorization to write one law, -to make uniform the rules of naturalization across all of the divergent States.
~~~~

“An uniform rule of naturalization, such as the Constitution contemplates, should, among other things, clearly define the status of persons born within the United States subject to a foreign power and of minor children of fathers who have declared their intention to become citizens.”

And yet there was no such clarity. Why? Because Congress lacked the authority to inject itself into the State matter of persons born within their sovereign borders.

"President Cleveland, in his First Annual Message, in 1885, said: “The laws of certain states and territories admit a domiciled alien [presumably native-born] to the local franchise conferring upon him the rights of [State] citizenship to a degree which places him in the anomalous condition of being a citizen of a state and yet not of the United States within the purview of Federal and International law."

This clearly exposes the dual jurisdictions regarding children of aliens. The native-born sons were under State jurisdiction, while the foreign born were under the naturalization authority of Congress which could dictate pre-conditions regarding the father and the residency of his children "dwelling within" (or abroad). The States had the authority to make State citizens that the federal government did not recognize as United States citizens.

Stranger said...

Breckinridge Long:
"If you had been born in England of American parents, would it be necessary for you to be naturalized if you came to this country to reside? No. If he, born in this country of English parents, had returned to England to reside, would it have been necessary for him to be naturalized there? No. "

A. Nash writes:

He repeatedly makes it clear that natural citizenship is dependent on only one thing, -the nationality of the father. He does not marry or hybridize just soli with jus sanguinis because there is nothing natural about such a monstrous combination of opposite principles. It's either the one or the other; not Both!
A purely natural principle cannot be mated to a purely legal policy and have the combination still qualify as being "natural". It is no more natural than are the Borg.

One is either a natural citizen or one is a government citizen. There is no such thing as a natural government citizen. That would be like a natural mechanical bird.

Time to drop the "American national common law" doctrine and move back to pure natural law. The hybrid theory doesn't comport with straight logic and common sense, -nor equality.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger/Adrien Nash,

You have joined the Obots in maintaining that Congress’s early naturalization acts did not act upon children born in the United States, but only upon those born out of the United States. I have stated to you and the Obots that you are wrong about that, for those acts acted upon both children born in and out of the United States. In one of my latest comments to you, I cited as support for my position the James McClure Citizenship Case of 1814 and Breckinridge Long.

Among the many things in the Long Article which support my position, I want to point something out to you and the Obots that is found in the Long article which specifically supports my position. Long tells us that Congress proposed the military draft in 1862 because of the Civil War. Considering them as “aliens,” Congress exempted the following persons from the draft into the United States military: (1) All foreign born persons who have not been naturalized; (2) All persons born of foreign parents and who have not become citizens. You and your Obot allies might wonder what does this Civil War draft legislation have to do with Congress’s early naturalization Acts. Well, here is the answer.

Again, we see how Congress in (1) specifically referred to birth outside of the United States by referring to “foreign born persons” and in (2) did not distinguish between whether the person was born in or out of the United States. In the latter case, Congress did not distinguish based on place of birth because what it considered as controlling was whether the parents were U.S. “citizen,” either from birth or after birth. In the latter case, regardless of whether the child was born in or out of the United States, if the parents had not naturalized before that children reached the age of majority, both the parents and children continued to be “aliens.” So Congress again acted consistently with its Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, treating children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and in need of naturalization. And in the Civil War legislation, Congress was even more explicit and called persons born in the United States to alien parents neither of whom ever naturalized as “aliens.”

Given all this solid evidence that the United States did not adopt on the national level the jus soli rule of the English common law, but rather the jus sanguinis rule of the law of nations, consider how wrong it is to interpret Justice Gray in Wong Kim Ark to be saying that the jus soli rule was adopted on the national level (not only on the state level).

Also, are you willing to divorce yourself from the Obots and concede that you are wrong in stating that the early naturalization acts did not act upon children born in the United States?

Stranger said...

A Nash writes:
Mario, you've failed to process the significant quotes I supplied regarding the sovereignty of the States. You've failed to consider their complete authority over matters of State citizenship, -which was the only citizenship that had any meaning unless one were to depart the country. Federal citizenship meant nothing to anyone except world travelers and Americans working, studying, or serving abroad. What percentage of the population would you say they constituted? One percent? Probably less.

Whether or not Congress viewed itself as having authority over the national citizenship of native-born aliens is an issued countered by the authority of the States to make citizens of such children even if the central government did not recognize them as being United States citizens.
The issue that is of major significance is the citizenship of children of Americans born abroad, -not the citizenship of children of foreigners born domestically.

There is no problem with recognizing Congress as viewing itself as having authority over the national citizenship of all children of aliens, regardless of domestic birth, but that view had no impact on the authority of States to naturalize them at birth, nor on the natural birthright of all American children regardless of their irrelevant birth location.

Long repeatedly makes clear that citizenship is passed from father to child. Period. No jus soli element in that transmission. No dogma of domestic birth being required.
" If you had been born in England of American parents, would it be necessary for you to be naturalized if you came to this country to reside? No. If he, born in this country of English parents, had returned to England to reside, would it have been necessary for him to be naturalized there? No. "

Transmission is natural in creating natural citizens. All children dependent on birth in the U.S. for citizenship are government citizens by 14th Amendment naturalization upon birth.
If you had to be born in the U.S. in order to obtain citizenship, then you are not a natural citizen and are ineligible to be President since you are a citizen by government and not by nature.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger/Adrien Nash,

You forget that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers adopted and ratified the second Constitution to form a more perfect Union which involved giving a central government more power which they did, however, limit in scope. That power included, among many things, the authority to make uniform and certain the rules of citizenship and naturalization for “The United States of America” as one united nation and country which were to replace whatever each of the “Free and Independent States” had in place for their local circumstances.

After independence, as not to revert to a state of nature and to maintain a civil society, most of them did selectively adopt the English common law, until abrogated by their state legislatures. But this fact does not prove your argument that the states continued to naturalize anyone after birth or that their definition of a state citizen at birth determined who were going to be the national “natural born citizens.”

First, the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers never adopted the English common law and statutes for the national government. Each state adopted the English common law and statutes in various forms and degrees. There were many aspects to that law that were also not suited for a republic, including but not limited to that law institutionalizing the King and imposing upon the people an established religion with all its legal ramifications. In fact, the Constitution at Article I, Section 8, Clause 10 specifically incorporated the law of nations into Article III “Laws of the United States” and Congress, with the Naturalization Acts of 1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855, demonstrated that the English common law jus soli rule did not apply in the United States, but rather what did apply was the law of nations' jus sanguinis rule. In these statutes, Congress treated children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and in need of naturalization. Under English common law, they would have been "natural born subjects." But Congress decided that they were aliens.

Second, after Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, the states no longer had any authority or power to naturalize anyone after birth. They could continue to decide, based on their state common law or state statutes, who they considered to be their own state citizens at birth. But these state citizens did not become “citizens of the United States” of “natural born citizens” unless federal law was satisfied as to those classes of citizens.

Third, there is also no historical or legal evidence showing that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers used the definition of a "natural born subject" to define an Article II "natural born citizen." All the historical and legal evidence, which includes but is not limited to cases from our U.S. Supreme Court, demonstrates that the definition of a national “natural born citizen” came from the law of nations which was incorporated as American national common law and that definition as applied to the United States is a child born in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent to parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

Stranger said...

Mario wrote: " That power included...the authority to make uniform and certain the rules of citizenship..."

A. Nash replies: No, it did not. It was given no authority over citizenship other than to make uniform the already existing rules of the States regarding foreigners, including, and especially, how long they had to wait before applying for naturalization.

At that time there were no federal citizens since there was no federal land on which they could be born, so all citizenship was State citizenship. All natural born citizens were natural citizens of the States.
All State citizens were members of the Union, and thus by extension were United States citizens. But there was no government having any duty over citizenship unless one were to leave the country and need papers for admittance to foreign nations. Then, and only then, as a nation with citizens, their nationality was recognized, or not, and protected by the central government through the Dept. of State. Otherwise all of their inta-state relationships had no connection to the central government.

"But this fact does not prove your argument that the states continued to naturalize anyone after birth.."

English common law was irrelevant regarding citizenship in America except in four states that allowed jus soli for children of their immigrants. In the other states, they and their fathers were aliens subject to a foreign power until a State judge or magistrate (empowered to administer oaths) allowed the father, and/or adult son, to take the oath of Allegiance & Renunciation. The central government had no hand in that process before or after the Constitution's adoption.

"or that their definition of a state citizen at birth determined who were going to be the national “natural born citizens.”

You're confused. There was no such thing as a national natural born citizen. All natural born citizens were natural born members of their State. By their State being a party to the union, they therefore were members or citizens of the union also.
At the national level only CITIZENS were recognized regarding everything related to citizenship with the lone exception of the presidency. Otherwise, neither natural nor naturalized citizenship was relevant. All that mattered was: CITIZEN or foreigner?

Stranger said...

A Nash continues...

Mario wrote:
"Congress treated children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and in need of naturalization. Under English common law, they would have been "natural born subjects." But Congress decided that they were aliens."
That's a vitally important point but is made irrelevant in the mindless minds of the obamunists thanks to their clinging to the error that the 14th Amendment made all native-born alien children not just citizens but natural born citizens since they were not naturalized nor foreigners, -so by default the must be nbc.

That erroneous fantasy must be demolished because with it intact they will not address citizenship at the time of the Constitution's adoption.

"Second, after Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, the states no longer had any authority or power to naturalize anyone after birth."
Your giant misconception is that the act was an act of national sovereignty over foreigners and their nationality issues when it assumed no sovereignty over citizenship at all.
It was merely the uniformication of disparate State naturalization rules. Once they were made uniform, the authority of Congress ended.
You claim otherwise yet you have zero proof to support that claim. My assertion is that aside from writing that uniform rule, Congress had nothing at all to do with naturalization nor immigration since no administrative authority was given over either. You can't prove that it claimed any because it didn't.

That does not mean that the central government had no policy or say in the matter regarding who was viewed as a national citizen, because it most certainly did have a policy, but no law. It was the policy of single allegiance, single citizenship, jus sanguinis membership in the nation or naturalized membership, but no membership for children of foreigners who remained subject to a foreign power, -without regard for native-birth of their children.


Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger/Adrien Nash,

I of II

You are confused about who were “citizens of the United States” up to the time the Constitution was adopted and thereafter and who have always been the “natural born citizens.” I will make it real easy for you to understand. People who inhabited the colonies and who were British subjects by birth or by naturalization after birth, and who accepted the Declaration of Independence and adhered to the American Revolution became automatically naturalized citizens of their respective states. Any one of these state citizens existing at the time the Constitution was adopted became at once upon the adoption of the Constitution a “citizen of the United States.” The children born in one of the states to persons who became original “citizens of the United States” were the first true “natural born citizens” and needed no law to grant to them the rights of the “natural born citizens.”

In keeping with the definition of a “natural born citizen” and the Constitution’s command at Article I, Section 8, Clause 4 that Congress make uniform the rules of naturalization, after Congress passed the Naturalization Act of 1790, a “citizen of the United States” was no longer defined by state law, but rather only by Acts of Congress, which included, among others, the Acts of 1795, 1802, 1855, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. These acts treated children born in the United States to alien parents as alien born and in need of naturalization.

Only in the Naturalization Act of 1790 did Congress, through its naturalization powers, grant to children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents the rights of the “natural born citizens” by considering such children “as natural born citizens.” Since the Constitution specifically states that only a “natural born citizen” is eligible to be President and Vice-President and that command cannot be changed without constitutional amendment, it is doubtful that Congress could by a naturalization law grant to these children, among all the rights that it granted to them, also the right to be eligible to be President. In any event, in the 1795 Act and all that have followed ever since, Congress has never again attempted to grant to children born out of the United States, even to U.S. citizen parents, the status of the “natural born citizens,” let alone the right to be eligible to be president and vice-president. As another sign of how Congress viewed children born out of the United States, in the 1802 Act it treated children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents who acquired that status after 1802 as aliens. Congress did not restore to such children the status of a “citizen of the United State” at birth until it passed the Naturalization Act of 1855.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

In 1868, the nation passed the Fourteenth Amendment which defined a “citizen of the United States” by virtue of birth in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and confirmed also the “citizen of the United States” status of those persons who were naturalized in the United States. Given Wong Kim Ark’s interpretation and application of this amendment’s citizenship provision, the amendment cleared the way for another class of citizen to be created. Unlike a “natural born citizen,” who had to be born in the country to “citizen” parents, Wong Kim Ark held that it was sufficient for this class of citizen to be born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents. The amendment made clear that persons so born in the United States were “citizens of the United States” at birth and of the state wherein they resided. The former were national citizens and the citizens of the states were just that, state citizens.

The only “citizen” class that did not change during all this history is the “natural born citizen” class, with the first such “citizens” being children born in the United States to the original “citizens of the United States” and all the later ones being other children born in the United States to “citizen” parents, regardless of whether their parents obtained their citizenship at birth or after birth. Minor v. Happersett (1875). This means that today the definition of a “natural born citizen” continues to be a child born in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent to parents who were U.S. citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

I hope that this summary can be of benefit to you.

MichaelN said...

The oath of allegiance to become a US citizen is to the nation of US, and not to any single state.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

I left this comment for Patrick J. Colliano at Café Con Leche Republicans:

“Parents” in Vattel’s and the U.S. Supreme Court’s definition of a “natural born citizen” has to mean both parents.

First, the strongest reason for the need for two U.S. citizen parents is the purpose of the “natural born citizen” clause. Through the clause, the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers sought to provide a “strong check” on and to keep out of the Office of President and Commander in Chief of the Military all foreign and monarchical influence. Hence, the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers tied presidential and commander eligibility to a “natural born citizen” because it is a citizenship status which allows the child to be born with no foreign allegiance and citizenship. In other words, no other nation other than the United States can lay any claim to the allegiance of a U.S. “natural born citizen.” That is so because the child must be born in the United States (cutting off any foreign nation jus soli claim to the child) to two U.S. citizen parents (cutting of any foreign nation jus sanguinis claim to the child). If only one parent is a U.S. citizen, the child would still inherit a foreign allegiance and citizenship from the other alien parent through jus sanguinis citizenship just as much as if both parents were aliens. So, birth to just one U.S. citizen parent changes nothing for the child in terms of whether the child inherits a foreign allegiance and citizenship. For this reason, two U.S. citizen parents is required. So, your fitness center analogy proves nothing, for making one parent sufficient for children pool use could be sufficient for the center’s purposes (surely nothing do with the national security and safety of a nation and its people), but making both parents necessary for “natural born citizen” purposes is as we have seen necessary for national security and safety purposes).

Second, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) said that a child born in the country to alien parents is as much a “citizen” as the natural born child born in the country to citizen parents. This statement can only have sense if both parents are either aliens or citizens.

Third, your argument that Vattel’s French word “parents” means the “blood relatives” or the family is absurd. If you have any doubt about what Vattel meant by “parents,” consider these instances in which Vattel also used “parents:” “A man ought to preserve gratitude and affection for the state to which he is indebted for his education, and of which his parents were members when they gave him birth.” Section 122. Children are not born to brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc., but rather only to mothers and fathers. Again Vattel says that “country” “signifies the state, or even more particularly the town or place, where our parents had their fixed residence at the moment of our birth.” Section 122. Vattel’s definition of “country” would not be workable, for “blood relatives” could be literally scattered all over the world. Hence, we can easily see how wrong you are to define Vattel’s “parents” to mean anything other than a child’s both parents.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Fourth, your equal protection argument is a red herring. The maxim that explained that children followed the citizenship of the father was “partus sequitur patrem.” That was the rule under the law of nations. We also adopted this rule for the United States. The rule also existed that if the child was illegitimate, the child followed the condition of the mother. But no one is arguing that the “father’s” citizenship controls while that of the mother does not. Vattel refers to “fathers” because, not only did children follow the condition of their fathers, but so did wives. There was no such thing as the husband having one citizenship and the wife having another. So when Vattel said “fathers,” he really meant “parents” in the plural. Our U.S. Supreme Court has always interpreted Vattel’s “parents” to mean both mother and father.

Our nation adopted the doctrine that the wife acquired the citizenship of her husband. In 1922, through the Cable Act, women finally were able to have their own citizenship independent from their husbands. But this does not mean that we went from two parents to one parent in the definition of a “natural born citizen.” The definition always required two U.S parents and it continued to do so. What the Cable Act and later acts did is that they changed the mechanism by which one becomes a “natural born citizen” by requiring that both the husband and wife take affirmative steps to become a citizen before their children are born to them in the country if they want those children to be “natural born citizens.” This means that a wife no longer can just rely upon getting married to acquire her U.S. citizenship and then give birth to a child who her husband and she desire to be a “natural born citizen.”

So as you can see, the evidence is stacked against you that “parents” means anything other than both parents.

Unknown said...

colliano is a longtime obot and a big fan of a citizen at birth being a NBC. He is full of himself and his comments are nauseating. Maybe he can explain what country the child of a foreigner and citizen is a natural born citizen of? It would have to be at least 2 and as other commenters here have shown the US govt and King of England in late 1700s did not accept divided allegiance, you were one or the other.

MichaelN said...

Maybe he would also dare to explain, why the Framers of the USC, with their imperative to ensure all future POTUS be endowed with highest possible allegiance, would ignore the most common sense qualities to achieve this, i.e. both birth to US citizen parents AND birth in the US, the land of the parents citizenship.

The obot argument is absurd at the core.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Leo derosia,

I of III

Obots like “Patrick J. Colliano” argue that any child who is a citizen at birth is a “natural born citizen.” This is an erroneous constitutional position. The Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers gave to the “natural born citizen” clause just one definition at the time of the adoption and ratification of the Constitution. That definition, which Minor v. Happersett (1875) in one of its holdings confirmed was based on the “common-law” the nomenclature of which the Framers were familiar when they drafted and adopted the Constitution. Explaining what a native citizen and a “natural-born citizen” were under that “common-law,” the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court said:

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

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), in its decision in which it defined a native “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment (not to be conflated and confounded with a “natural born citizen”), cited and quoted this exact “common-law” definition of a “natural-born citizen.” This constitutional definition was part and parcel of “the Constitution,” and therefore, became part of “the supreme Law of the Land.” Article VI. This means that given Article V, this definition of a “natural born citizen” could be changed only by an Article V constitutional amendment.

Yet, Obots like “Colliano” maintain that the definition of a “natural born citizen” can change every day of the week by mere Act of Congress and without constitutional amendment. Under their thesis, all we need is Congress to just tell us what a citizen at birth is and we have a new definition of a “natural born citizen.” But Congress cannot change the Constitution by mere statute. Additionally, even if Congress could somehow define a “natural born citizen,” the text of its citizenship statutes does not contain the clause “natural born citizen.” Rather, its statutes define a “citizen of the United States,” which Article I and II clearly distinguish from a “natural born citizen.”

“Colliano” Obots also argue that the Fourteenth Amendment gives us citizens at birth who are also necessarily Article II “natural born citizens.” But neither the text nor the amendment’s history in any way suggests that the amendment repealed or amended the “natural born citizen” clause. Minor explained that the amendment does not define a “natural born citizen.” Wong Kim Ark, itself a Fourteenth Amendment case, cited and quoted Minor’s statement that the amendment does not define a “natural born citizen.” Constitutional scholar, Charles Gordon, agrees when he argues that “the fourteenth amendment has little significant relevance to the appraisal of the presidential qualification clause.” And so does Cornell Law Professor, William A. Jacobson, who, echoing what I have been arguing since 2008, recently concluded, “The 14th Amendment defines birth citizenship, but not ‘natural born Citizen[ship],’” for Fourteenth Amendment birthright citizenship is “a different concept than ‘natural born’ citizenship, at least in theory.” Professor Jacobson also cites and quotes Charles Gordon to support his position.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of III

Finally, “Colliano” Obots argue that Wong Kim Ark, a Fourteenth Amendment case that gave us a new class of native citizen at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, also defines a “natural born citizen.” First, we have seen that the Fourteenth Amendment does not define a “natural born citizen.” Given that the Fourteenth Amendment does not define a “natural born citizen,” and Wong Kim Ark is a Fourteenth Amendment case, logic dictates that Wong Kim Ark could not possibly provide a holding that defined a “natural born citizen.” Rather, what Wong Kim Ark did was distinguish an Article II “natural born citizen” from a Fourteenth Amendment native “citizen of the United States” at birth. Not being prevented by any express constitutional provision and operating under the mandate of the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, with the aid of the colonial English common law and by analogy to an English “natural born subject,” created another class of native citizen at birth by virtue of birth in the country. This native citizen is defined as born in the United States while “subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Under the Court’s holding, even children born in the United States to one or two domiciled and resident alien parents, who are neither foreign diplomats nor military invaders, are “citizens of the United States” at birth. This birthright citizenship status, other than being given by the Constitution itself and therefore being out of the hands of Congress to touch beyond how it can still correctly define what “born in the United States” and “subject to the jurisdiction” mean, is no different from the same birthright citizen status which Congress calls “citizen of the United States” at birth under its citizenship and naturalization acts.

The Obots say that I am wrong for maintaining that Wong Kim Ark did not define a “natural born citizen” any differently than did Minor. But there are constitutional scholars that agree with me. See, among others, Professor Jacobson (recently commented on Wong Kim Ark and its role in defining a “natural born citizen,” and explained: “[T]hat was not at issue in the case. . . ‘natural born Citizen[ship]’ was not the issue in the case, and the Court did not even purport to rule on the issue as to whether someone is a ‘natural born Citizen;” Charles Gordon (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”). See also Ankeny v. Governor of Indiana (concedes that Wong Kim Ark did not in words hold that Wong was a “natural born citizen,” but then attempts to make Wong Kim Ark into a “natural born citizen” case by arguing that the case interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment and then suggesting but without demonstrating that the amendment defines a “natural born citizen”).

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of III

As I have said and explained to Squeeky Fromm Girl Reporter in this article, the Obots and their supporters provide a logically invalid argument: all “natural born citizens” are citizens at birth; X is a citizen at birth; therefore, X is a “natural born citizen.” They argue that by the lone fact that someone is a citizen at birth (a necessary but not sufficient condition of being a “natural born citizen”), that person is a “natural born citizen.” This argument is invalid because it commits the fallacies of violating the rule of the undistributed middle and of affirming the consequent (poor Bubbles). Even if we were to convert their invalid argument into a valid one, i.e., all citizens at birth are “natural born citizens;” X is a citizen at birth; therefore, X is a “natural born citizen,” they still are wrong. With this maneuver, they would provide a logically valid argument. But the argument is unsound (a logically valid argument which contains a false major or minor premise which gives a false conclusion). The false major premise is that all citizens at birth are “natural born citizens.” This major premise is false because Squeeky Fromm and “Colliano” Obots have no historical or legal evidence that all citizens at birth are “natural born citizens.” Given this false major premises, it is error to conclude that simply because someone is a citizen at birth, that person is a “natural born citizen.”

So, simply showing that Obama (although he has yet to provide to any court competent evidence that he is a citizen at birth by birth in the United States), Cruz, Rubio, Jindal, and Haley are citizens at birth (just one necessary condition) does not prove that they are “natural born citizens.” Rather, what they have to prove is that they were born in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent to parents who were U.S. “citizens” (either “natural born citizens” or “citizens of the United States” at birth or after birth) at the time of their birth (all the necessary and sufficient conditions). As we have seen, their birth circumstances do not allow them to be able to prove these necessary and sufficient birth facts. They are all, therefore, not “natural born citizens.”

Unknown said...

a layman can plainly see a "citizen" is not eligible now in A2 and that would include a 14th amendment citizen and wka who was ruled a "citizen of the US" in big black letters by US Supreme Court. WKA being ruled a "citizen" under 14th was probably wrong decision anyways and yet we have to listen to this nonsense and BS from state courts using wka/ECL as justification for allowing obama on ballot. Obama has not shown any hard evidence he was even a US citizen in 1960s or now for that matter. Colliano should have his head examined if he thinks the Founders wanted a british subject as CiC.

Unknown said...

LOOK WHAT WE FOUND....PASTE THE LINK IN YOUR BROWSER...BINGO!...SORRY TED...YOU TOO, BARRY BOY!

http://giveusliberty1776.blogspot.cz/2013/09/look-what-we-foundpaste-link-in-your.html

Ray said...

Mitzi -

Here is the record of that hearing

http://commdocs.house.gov/committees/judiciary/hju67306.000/hju67306_0.HTM

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

This comment appears at Squeeky Fromm’s blog. Obot ballantine said on September 11th, 2013 at 9:11 am , at http://birtherthinktank.wordpress.com/2013/09/03/after-prof-jacobson-the-birthers-need-a-group-hug/#comments :

‘Seriously, what point are you trying to make. That Franklin had an edition of Vattel that didn’t have the phrase “natural born citizen” in it? All the framers had copies of Blackstone as well. Again, Professor Jacobson is correct. It is silly to argue the framers were relying on Vattel when no edition of Vattel contained such language. It is not a serious argument to claim they were doing their own secret translation that they told no one about.’”

Here is ballantine’s statement reworded by me to show how meritless ballantine’s position is:

Seriously, what point are you trying to make. That Franklin had an edition of Blackstone that didn’t have the phrase “natural born citizen” in it? All the framers had copies of Vattel as well. Again, Professor Jacobson is correct. It is silly to argue the framers were relying on Blackstone when no edition of Blackstone contained such language. It is not a serious argument to claim they were doing their own secret translation that they told no one about.

I have previously said that the Obots believe that everyone but them has a burden of proof in the “natural born citizen” debate. They act as though their position is correct and the Constitutionalists have to prove them wrong. They behave like they have all the evidence which undoubtedly supports their position. But the truth of the matter is that they have no historical and legal evidence that supports their theory that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers relied upon the English common law’s and Blackstone’s definition of a “natural born subject.” On the other hand, we have produced a great quantity of historical and legal evidence that they did rely upon the law of nations’ and Vattel’s definition of a “natural born citizen.”



Unknown said...

saying the french edition of vattel does not translate to natural born citizen is another dumb and dishonest argument by the obamabots. It sure as hell translated to natives which is the same as a NBC in minor.

Edward C. Noonan said...

@Mr. Apuzzo
Your name has been evoked at: http://www.examiner.com/article/historian-jesse-walker-discusses-birtherism-trutherism-and-aids-conspiracies#comment-1044357390

Dr Conspiracy claims you were given a fair hearing and were given a chance "to duke it out" fairly in court. Would you care to respond?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

Dr. Conspiracy wrote:

“Mr. Long was a partisan writing against a political opponent. He's no more an authority than Apuzzo is today.

I prefer what William Rawle, a friend of Washington and Franklin and Washington's appointed US Attorney for Pennsylvania, said:

‘Therefore every person born within the United States, its territories or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution, and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity."

http://www.examiner.com/article/historian-jesse-walker-discusses-birtherism-trutherism-and-aids-conspiracies#comment-1044357390 .”

Dr. Conspiracy’s quote comes from, William Rawle, who wrote in his A View of the Constitution of the United States (2nd Ed. 1829). Dr. Conspiracy’s only give us that part of the quote which benefits him. He leaves off the most important part which is that part that serves to support the “Therefore” or conclusion of Rawle’s statement. Here is the full quote which is needed to know what is the basis of Rawle’s conclusion as to what a “natural born citizen” is.

“[H]e who was subsequently born a citizen of a state became at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States. Therefore every person born within the United States its territories or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.”

“Therefore every person born within the United States its territories or districts whether the parents are citizens or aliens is a natural born citizen in the sense of the Constitution and entitled to all the rights and privileges appertaining to that capacity.” By introducing this sentence with “therefore,” Rawle is telling us that he already before this conclusory statement gave us the reasons which support his conclusion that follows after “therefore,” which conclusion is his definition of a “natural born citizen.” But if we look to what Rawle said prior to stating “therefore,” he only said “he who was subsequently born a citizen of a state become at the moment of his birth a citizen of the United States.” But this statement does not in any way support his conclusion.

First, Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 provides in relevant part: “No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution shall be eligible to the Office of President.” We can see that a “Citizen of the United States” was eligible to be President only if born prior to the adoption of the Constitution. Anyone born after the adoption of the Constitution had to be a “natural born citizen” in order to be eligible to be President.

Rawle concedes that those state citizens were only “citizens of the United States.” But as we can see from Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, not only is a “citizen of the United States” constitutionally different from a “natural born citizen,” but such a citizen was also no longer eligible to be President if born after the adoption of the Constitution. What Rawle does is conflate and confound a state citizen before the adoption of the Constitution with a “natural born citizen” following its adoption. He goes from someone being a “citizen of the United States” to being a “natural born citizen” without any explanation. Without explaining how his “citizen of the United States” becomes a “natural born citizen,” he in effect argues that a “citizen of the United States,” who was eligible to be President only if born before the adoption of the Constitution, is eligible to be President even if born after its adoption. We can see that this argument is erroneous from a plain reading of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Second, Rawle takes all state citizens and makes them “natural born citizens. But the new states had their own laws on citizenship. In many of those states, their laws were based on the English common law. But we know from case law that this state citizenship, based on the English common law, no longer created national citizenship after 1790, when Congress passed its first Naturalization Act. So, if state citizenship no longer created “citizens of the United States,” less so did it create “natural born citizens.” With passage of the Constitution and the Naturalization Act of 1790, the only way a child could be a “natural born citizen” was if he or she satisfied the American national common law rule that was confirmed in Minor v. Happersett (1875) (see below).

Third, Rawle made his statement in total disregard of how our First Congress in 1790, and later Congresses in the Naturalization Acts of 1795, and 1802 defined a “citizen of the United States” and by implication confirmed the definition of a “natural born citizen.” In those Acts, Congress treated children born in the United States to alien parents as aliens. This alien born status of children born in the United States to alien parents was confirmed by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor which explained:

“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.”

Rawle would fall in the category of “some authorities” that Minor mentioned. Rawle’s “natural born citizen” born in the country to alien parents would not even be a “citizen of the United States” if it were not for Wong Kim Ark. Wong Kim Ark did not alter the definition of a “natural born citizen.” What it did do was define under the Fourteenth Amendment a “citizen of the United States” at birth by birth in the United States, including therein children born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents.

Hence, the reasons that Rawle gave that are supposed to support his conclusion which is his definition of a “natural born citizen,” do not at all support that definition. Additionally, Rawle’s statement about what a “natural born citizen” is finds support neither from early Congress nor from the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor. At best, Rawle’s “natural born citizen” is only a “citizen of the United States” under the Fourteenth Amendment and Wong Kim Ark.

Stranger said...

Rawle did not profess to understand the principles underlying citizenship and its determination, and thus elucidated nothing in that regard. All he did was regurgitate what he had grown up being exposed to, and that was jus soli citizenship for children of foreigners if what I read some time back is true, -namely that Pennsylvania was one of the four states that allowed jus soli for its children of foreigners. Rawle was a Pennsylvanian and that background, not philosophy nor principles, was the reason for his statement.
For what one would hope regarding his intelligence and clarity as a lawyer, it's absurd that he would make such an unsubstantiated statement having no facts in evidence. It was like a religious statement that was true just because it was true and never questioned. So much for having a jurists objectivity.
A. Nash
read my latest: ~concerning slavery and citizenship... Everything You Think You Know Is Wrong Pt.1 http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/everything-you-think-you-know-is-wrong/

Unknown said...

The following is from an article written by JB Williams and posted at The Post & Email; which, requires a subscription in order to access articles there. Pay close attention to the names of the traitors who sponsored and co-sponsored these bills...

"The effort to remove the natural-born citizen requirement from the U.S. Constitution actuallybegan in 1975 when Democrat House Rep. Jonathon B. Bingham, [NY-22] introduced aconstitutional amendment under H.J.R. 33 which called for the outright removal of the natural-born requirement for president found in Article II of the U.S. Constitution – “Provides that a citizen of the United States otherwise eligible to hold the Office of President shall not be ineligible because such citizen is not a natural born citizen.”

Bingham‘s first attempt failed and he resurrected H.J.R. 33 in 1977 under H.J.R. 38, again failing to gain support from members of congress. Bingham was a Yale Law grad and member of the secret society Skull and Bones, later a lecturer at Columbia Law and thick as thieves with theUnited Nations via his membership in the Council on Foreign Relations.

Bingham‘s work lay dormant for twenty-six years when it was resurrected again in 2003 asDemocrat members of Congress made no less than eight (8) attempts in twenty-two (22) months, to either eliminate the natural-born requirement, or redefine natural-born toaccommodate Barack Hussein Obama II in advance of his rise to power. The evidence is right in the congressional record…

“Constitutional Amendment – Makes a person who has been a citizen of the United States for at least 35 years and who has been a resident within the United States for at least 14 years eligible to hold the office of President or Vice President.” – Co-Sponsor Rep Shays, Christopher [CT-4]

continued

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I just posted this to http://www.cafeconlecherepublicans.com/is-ted-cruz-a-natural-born-citizen/ :

NotLinda,

I have asked you numerous times to demonstrate how the Wong Kim Ark Gray/Binney quote that contains "an alien" and "a citizen" (“‘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’”) in the application actually means "an alien" and "a citizen" rather than what I paraphrased and explained it to say, "aliens" and "citizens," but you continue not to be able to do so.

You still fail to answer the question. Instead, rather than answer my question, you tell us about what some lower courts have done which has nothing to do with my question and surely does not answer it. Like I have said numerous times, when the Obots do not have an answer to one of my questions, they find refuge in the conclusions of some lower court decisions, conclusions which are not based on the historical and legal record, reason, and logic.

So, NotLinda, looks like you lose again.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

A three judge panel of the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed a lower courts dismissal of a case where the plaintiff contended that President Obama was not a natural born citizen.

https://www.vermontjudiciary.org/UPEO2011Present/eo13-162.pdf

While this is not precedential decision and I'm not sure how the arguments made by the plaintiff compare to yours, I was wondering what you think the impact of this decision might have on Paige v. Obama?

Slartibartfast said...

Mario, over at Cafe Con Leche Republicans, you said: "I told you that travel to Pakistan for an American back then was very dangerous and not advised."

It was so dangerous, in fact, that, in an article in their Travel section about travel to Pakistan around that time, the New York Times failed to mention either the danger or the travel advisory.

Was your statement dishonest or just ignorant?

Stranger said...

Here's something I just came across that has me baffled:
(a) PROTECTION FROM BEING CONSIDERED NOT OF GOOD MORAL CHARACTER- (etc.)

(1) IN GENERAL- Section 101(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(f)) is amended by adding at the end the following:

“In the case of an alien who makes a false statement or claim of citizenship, or who registers to vote or votes in a Federal, State, or local election (including an initiative, recall, or referendum) in violation of a lawful restriction of such registration or voting to citizens, if each natural parent of the alien...is or was a citizen (whether by birth or naturalization), the alien permanently resided in the United States prior to attaining the age of 16, and the alien reasonably believed at the time of such statement, claim, or violation that he or she was a citizen, no finding that the alien is, or was, not of good moral character may be made based on it.”
http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/PUBLAW/HTML/PUBLAW/0-0-0-23122.html

So I'm trying to figure out how a child of U.S. citizens can be considered an alien except perhaps in the eyes of the government because parentage has never been established legally.

I also just learned that minor foreign-born children of an American parent can be naturalized in the U.S. including taking the oath of Allegiance & Renunciation. A minor taking an adult oath which requires swearing to bear arms. How far from the original context has the government drifted!

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Slartibartfast,

You consider the New York Time equivalent to some government authority on international travel. I do not. But I do consider the United States State Department such an authority. And the record shows that Pakistan was not a place an average American would have traveled to in 1981-82. There was great civil and political unrest there and it was a dangerous place for an American to visit. There was a U.S. State Department travel advisory on it. Visas were good for only 30 days and if one violated one’s stay, one could not just freely leave the country.

I am, however, not aware of an actual travel “ban” from the U.S. to that country. But the point is not what type of ban there was, whether a legal travel ban or a self-imposed de facto ban. The point that the Obots hide is that the issue is what passport Obama traveled with to go to Pakistan. I have yet to see or hear of an Obama American passport existing in 1981-81. In short, the true issue is with what passport did Obama travel in 1981-82 to Pakistan, not whether there was a travel "ban" for Americans to that nation at that time. To this day, Obama has refused to disclose to the American people the passport with which he traveled to Pakistan in his youthful years.

And while we are on this topic, let’s talk about that pesky passport. Tell us, with what passport did Obama travel to Pakistan when he was 20 or 21? I hope the cat will not get your tongue or that you do not respond that the right to travel as one pleases is a natural right given to us by nature or God and so passports are not relevant.

And by the way, Slartibartfast, it does not matter what type of passport Obama used, whether he in fact used a U.S. passport, or that there was a publicly announced State Department travel warning or whatever other type of prohibition on travel to Pakistan, Obama still is no constitutional Article II “natural born citizen,” for he was born to a non-U.S. citizen father no matter where he was born.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Apuzzo,

You said, "But I do consider the United States State Department such an authority."

Would you consider John S. Brims, the United States Consul General in Lahore, Pakistan to be such an authority?

"One of the pleasures of the Foreign Service is being able to serve in cities like Lahore, and I would welcome an influx of Americans who might have been inspired to come by Barbara Crossette's piece, ''Lahore, a Survivor With a Bittersweet History'' (Travel Section, June 14)."

His only caution is where and when to pick up a 30 day visa.

http://www.nytimes.com/1981/08/23/travel/l-lahore-243000.html?sec=&spon=&scp=3&sq=lahore%20travel%201981&st=cse

Stranger said...

In the absolute absence of any facts regarding Obama's past, we have grounds to assume that the facts are kept secret because they are detrimental to Obama's narrative. So with that being the only logical possibility, we can legitimately speculate as to what it is that he is hiding.
First we must assume, since he has no future election ahead, that the hidden facts are major secrets rather than minor ones. So what sorts of major secrets could he have a need to hide? These:

1. He has no birth certificate from any American state.
2. He was adopted by Lolo Soetoro, and thus became an Indonesian citizen.
3. His Indonesian citizenship qualified him for an Indonesian passport, one which he acquired before traveling to Hawaii at age ten, -one needed for that travel because without an American birth certificate, he had no American passport and no American identification.
4. His parents were not divorced until 1980 when he was about 20 years old, so at that adult age he still had a renewed Indonesian passport, -one which he continued to renew into later adulthood because it was his sole source of identification.
5. There is no evidence that he ever used an American birth certificate to acquire any official form of identification.
6. His admission to American colleges was as a foreign student using a foreign passport as ID.
7. The reason he could not release a scan of the Hawaiian birth certificate that he had used all of his life to acquire American forms of identity and admission is because he never had a Hawaiian birth certificate that he could scan and release.

The question remaining is what form of vetting was required to obtain a license to practice law in Illinois? But that question presumes that he took and passed the State Bar exam, yet there is no evidence that he did.
There is an assertion that we was admitted to the bar but no proof, nor any proof of what the basis was of such an admission.
Was it merely via the exception that didn't require taking the bar exam for those who would only be working as legal instructors in a law college? That exception admits one to the State bar but without the authorization to practice law.
So what is the truth about the mystery man? Neither he nor his socialist minions in academia and government will ever spill the beans on him and his secret background facts. A. Nash

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

MANILA - Why is Sen. Grace Poe so interested in passing the freedom of information bill into law?

Speaking to radio dzMM, Poe said passing an FOI Law will not just help increase transparency in government but will also improve records-keeping.

"This is important not just to expose wrongdoing in government but also for historical archiving. This is very important," she said.

Poe cited the case of her father, the late Action King Fernando Poe Jr., whose citizenship was questioned when he ran for president in 2004. She said questions about her father's citizenship started because his birth certificate could not be found.

"My father lost his birth certificate. We had to get information from the Mormon Temple. Other countries are good at records-keeping but we can't compare," she said.

Various petitioners sought to disqualify FPJ in his bid for the presidency on the contention that he made a material misrepresentation in his certificate of candidacy by claiming to be a natural-born Filipino citizen when his parents were foreigners.

However, the SC voted 8-5 in favor of Poe and upheld a previous Commission on Elections ruling that Poe was a "natural-born citizen and qualified to run."

Read more at http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/focus/09/19/13/fpjs-birth-certificate-why-grace-poe-wants-foi-law

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

I left this comment for NotLinda at Café Con Leche Republicans:

NotLinda,

Your incessantly repeating that I lied to the court regarding Obama’s travel to Pakistan does not prove that I did. The facts that I laid out here showing the country conditions existing in Pakistan in the years when Obama was 20 and 21 which would have dissuaded the average American from traveling there show that I did not “lie” to the court.

You say that, in any event, “[t]he issue here is Ted Cruz being eligible.” Then why did you infect this thread with your Pakistan travel “lie” allegations against me which have nothing to do with whether Cruz is eligible to be president?

On the question of whether Ted Cruz is eligible to be President, I have written extensively on the issue both here and at my blog. Suffice it to say that when the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers (“Founders”) wrote the “natural born citizen” clause into the Constitution, Congress had yet to pass any law defining citizenship or naturalization. Hence, the Founders would have relied upon the then-existing common law to define the clause. The historical and legal record demonstrates that the common law that defined a “natural born citizen” had its source in the law of nations and not the English common law, which was selectively adopted in most of the states until abrogated by state legislatures, but not for the nation on the national level. Minor told us that that “common-law,” which could only be American national common law given how it defined a “natural-born citizen,” defined the clause as a child born in the country to parents who were its citizens. It also told us that under that same common law, all others persons were “aliens or foreigners” and that the Constitution gave Congress the naturalization power to make more citizens in addition to the ones this common law made. This common law definition became part of the Constitution. This definition, therefore, became part of the supreme law of the land and subject to change only by constitutional amendment.

With the Naturalization Act of 1790, the First Congress, which included Representative James Madison, and with the approval of President George Washington, passed the first statute defining citizenship and naturalization that was not of the “natural born citizen” class which as I have explained was defined by the constitutionalized common law. With the Founders requiring in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 that future Presidents be not only born citizens, but “natural born citizens,” giving Congress in the area of citizenship only the power to naturalize, and requiring changes to the Constitution only through an Article V constitutional amendment, the Founders did not give Congress the power to define a “natural born citizen” any differently than they defined one under American national common law. Nevertheless, in the 1790 Act, an act in which they did not legislate upon children born in the United States to U.S. citizen parents (these were the “natural born citizens”), but did legislate upon children born in the United States to alien parents and those born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents or alien parents, Congress said that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents “shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Hence, Congress, recognizing that they were not true “natural born citizens,” was still willing to grant through positive law to children born out of the United States to

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

U.S. citizen parents the privileges, immunities, and rights of a true “natural born citizen.” Here we can see that Congress was willing to grant birthright citizenship to children born to U.S. citizen parents even though born out of the United States, but it was not willing to do the same for children born in the United States to alien parents. Evidently, Congress followed the jus sanguinis doctrine of citizenship (citizenship inherited from parents) and not that of jus soli (citizenship acquired from the place of birth). Since only the “natural born citizens,” as defined under American common law, were eligible to be President, and Congress only had the power to naturalize, the rights that Congress gave to these children born out of the United States could not constitutionally include the right to be eligible to be President.

Congress recognized its limitations when it came to a “natural born citizen” and so in 1795, through the Naturalization Act of 1795 and with the specific work of Representative James Madison and with George Washington’s approval, removed the “natural born citizen” status of these children and replaced it with the status of “shall be considered as citizen of the United States.” Even if Congress could constitutionally grant the status of a “natural born citizen” to someone who otherwise does not meet the original common law definition of the clause, Congress never again extended the status of “natural born citizen” upon anyone born in or out of the United States.

Congress also did not extend “natural born citizen” status through the Fourteenth Amendment to children who, although born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” are not born in the United States to citizen parents. The amendment grants to these native-born children, who are not born to citizen parents, but rather to one or two domiciled and resident alien parents, the status of a “citizen of the United States” at birth. It does not grant to them the status of a “natural born citizen.”

The constitutional definition of a “natural born citizen” does not change because of race, color, ethnic background, sex, political party affiliation, or some other such factor.

Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother, but to a non-U.S. citizen father. Not being born in the United States, Cruz cannot benefit from the Fourteenth Amendment which requires birth or naturalization in the United States. But as we have seen, even if he could benefit from that amendment, it does not make him a “natural born citizen.” So, Cruz is required to look to Congress for his citizenship status, an institution which does not have the constitutional power to grant him the status of being a “natural born citizen.”

A naturalization Act of Congress bestowed upon Cruz the status of a “citizen of the United States” at birth. This Act naturalized him at birth to be a “citizen of the United States.” This act does not mention the clause, “natural born citizen.” Being a born citizen under a naturalization Act of Congress, which status it calls “citizens of the United States” at birth, is not sufficient, for he has to be a “natural born citizen” under American national common law, which is the supreme law of the land that has never been changed either by constitutional amendment or U.S. Supreme Court decision. As we have seen, this born citizen status is not and cannot be equivalent to that of a “natural born citizen,” which birth status is gained only by satisfying the requirements of American national common law, i.e. birth in the country to citizen parents. Since Cruz does not satisfy the American national common law test for being a “natural born citizen,” and he gained his born citizen status through a naturalization Act of Congress, he is, like Barack Obama, not a “natural born citizen.”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger said...

CITIZEN is to “subject” what Freeman is to serf.

Being a CITIZEN is an equal membership in an association of equals. Being a subject is being an unequal, monarch-owned, life-long possession of a dictator.The former is about self-sovereignty, while the later is about servitude. There is no equivalence between them. They are from opposite worlds. They can’t be inter-changed nor substituted for each other.

Adding adjectives in front of them does not change that fact, even if they are the same adjectives. It is not the adjectives that makes them identical because it is the nouns that make them different. The nouns are from wholly different universes.

One is natural while the other is dictator-imposed. “All the fruit of seed, sow, sheep, cow, serf, and slave belong and remain the property of the Lord of the domain because they came into existence on his property.” That’s jus soli.

Its opposite is the principle of Freedom. The off-spring of American Freemen do not belong to the King but to their parents, and they inherit their national membership from them, not from the King’s soil or his self-pro-claimed borders.

Freemen have an obligation to protect and defend their families and society, and that may include serving in the national military. But subjects have an obligation to obey and obey and obey because they are subject and not free. They are born to obey and be subservient all their life unless they are born into the elite ruling class.

But for the Freeman,the government is the one meant to obey, -obey the will of the People, which includes the will to be free.

Adrien Nash

September 19, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Stranger said...

A. Nash writes:

Mario wrote: Congress said that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents “shall be considered as natural born citizens.” Hence, Congress, recognizing that they were not true “natural born citizens,”

Mario, how can someone of your intellect fail to notice that the same language “shall be considered as" is also used in all instances in the Act and all that followed it in regard to "citizens of the United States".
It is a gigantic oversight or willful blindness to think that such citizens, and such natural born citizen, were merely to be "viewed as" such but in fact were not real, true citizens nor natural born citizens.
I'd ask you to explain how in the United States, founded on the doctrine of equality of citizenship (by which foreigners became natural citizens via natural-ization) you can explain asserting that the founders were instituting something totally in opposition to fundamental American philosophy, but I won't ask you to explain because I know that there is no explanation. You just assume facts not in evidence because they support your adopted dogma regarding Congress having authority over who is a natural born citizen rather than natural fact determining the truth of the issue.

You need to do some serious rethinking, but I know you won't because you are wedded to your dogma regarding an authority that Congress does not possess.

Being authorized to author a uniform rule of naturalization to make uniform the various naturalization statutes of the states for dealing with foreigners and their children in no way granted Congress any authority whatsoever over the nationality of those conceived and born with predestined unconditional citizenship. NO AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER!

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger,

You have missed my point which is, first, that the language “shall be considered as” signals that Congress was naturalizing. It makes perfect sense that Congress used the “shall be considered as” language in the early naturalization acts because they were, after all, naturalization acts. Congress in modern naturalization acts no longer uses the old language.

Second, because the First Congress knew “natural born citizens” existed at common law before Congress came into existence through the adoption and ratification of the Constitution, it said that the persons that it was naturalizing in the 1790 Naturalization Act “shall be considered as natural born citizens.” If “natural born citizens” did not already exist at common law, there would not have been any reason for Congress to want to bestow upon these foreign-born persons the privileges, immunities, and rights of those common law “natural born citizens.” But it was only the common law “natural born citizens” who were the true “natural born citizens” and eligible to be President. The Third Congress recognized and accepted this reality and so in the Naturalization Act of 1795, it removed the “shall be considered as natural born citizens” language and replaced it with “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” Congress then never again attempted to naturalize anyone to be a “natural born citizen,” including through the Fourteenth Amendment.

Stranger said...

A. Nash writes:
Mario, it is you who have missed your own point. It was not about Congress naturalizing, it was about that language signaling a form of citizenship that was not genuine, -not "real or true" natural born citizenship.
That point should be retracted because they were signaling no such thing. They wrote and they meant that all American children, regardless of the borders within which they exited the womb, were natural members of their parents country, and natural citizens of their nation.
You falsely create an artificial dichotomy which is the direct equivalent of saying that if your mother gives birth to a son under some roof other than that of your parents' home, then that child is not your brother other than by adoption. That is a direct analogy and reveals the absurdity of such a philosophical doctrine.
~Natural brother...adopted brother; natural citizen...adopted citizen. The only thing different is the parentage. The family example is the mother & father; the national example is the nation and its government which are the political parents of citizens.
One's political membership is either natural or it is as artificial as a corporate citizen because it is strictly a fiction of law. The fiction being that via natural-ization, a foreigner becomes a natural citizen.
But no natural citizen is eligible to be President unless he is born a natural citizen, and not made a natural citizen via a legal fiction (the doctrine of citizenship equality).

Stranger said...

A. Nash writes:

Mario wrote: If “natural born citizens” did not already exist at common law, there would not have been any reason for Congress to want to bestow upon these foreign-born persons the privileges, immunities, and rights of those common law “natural born citizens.
~~~
You continue to falsely presume facts not in evidence. It is false that Congress wanted "to bestow" anything. Congress had no authority to bestow citizenship on anyone.

Its authority began and ended with writing a uniform rule for all of the semi-sovereign States to follow since citizenship and immigration were State matters (unless one were to travel abroad). But since in the Constitution the framers had over-looked natural citizens born outside American borders, they sought, and did so successfully in Congress, to remedy the failure to clarify that the federal government only recognized jus sanguinis as the basis of citizenship, which meant that place of birth was irrelevant.
All that mattered was the nationality of the father, -just as Vattel had repeatedly asserted.
Their sole purpose in mentioning the foreign-born Americans was to prevent ignoramuses from daring to presume that American sons born to foreign-located American Ambassadors and military personnel were in any way unequal to their domestically born brethren. And don't think that Congressmen didn't aspire to an Ambassadorial appointment.
The fundamental American doctrine is that ALL CITIZENS ARE EQUAL when it comes to Rights and Protections, -but not to privilege since there was the office of President that was not anyone's right to hold being as it was purely a privilege and honor to obtain.

You have no basis in law or logic to make the leap of presumption that you make regarding the purpose of singling out in the 1790 Act the nature of the citizenship of American sons born abroad.

The purpose was 100% all about presidential eligibility and how that language was intended to impact the right of seeking the presidency in a future race.

That issue needed to be clarified and the 1790 Act was as good a place as any, if not better.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger/Adrien Nash,

First, the First Congress in 1790 said that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents "shall be considered as natural born citizens." These were not true “natural born citizens,” but rather person naturalized at birth to have the same privileges, immunities, and rights as “natural born citizens” which could not constitutionally include the political right to be elected President. The Third Congress in 1795, acting upon those same children, specifically removed "shall be considered as natural born citizens" and replaced it with "shall be considered as citizens of the United States," demonstrating that such children born out of the United States, while enjoying all the privileges, immunities, and rights as enjoyed by “natural born citizens,” were not to have the political right to be elected President. Common sense dictates that Congress would not have bothered to do such legislative surgery if that is not the case.

Second, no Congress in any of its naturalization statutes has ever again used the clause "natural born citizen," showing that Congress does not believe that it has the power by statute to define a "natural born citizen" or to bestow the political right to be elected President upon anyone to whom the Constitution did not grant. Such legislative activity by Congress would be tantamount to changing the Constitution without constitutional amendment. In fact, the Congress that made Cruz a citizen at birth said that he is a "citizen of the United States," which under Article II, Section 5, Clause 1 is not eligible today to be President. Such Congress never declared in its naturalization act, even if it could, that Cruz is a “natural born citizen” like the First Congress declared that those same children “shall be considered as natural born citizens.”

Third, regardless of what Congress believes, it does not have the constitutional power to define a "natural born citizen" any differently than how one was defined under the Constitution which definition had its source in the law of nations which was adopted as the American common law definition of a "natural born citizen."

In short, Cruz or any other person born out of the United States (unless born within the jurisdictional equivalent of the United States such as John McCain) cannot point to any law, whether it is the Constitution, common law, or any Act of Congress, which makes him or her a “natural born citizen.”

Stranger said...

A. Nash writes:

Mario, you simply repeat the same baseless claim 've shown has a different explanation, and yet in repeating it you still lack even a single corroborating fact to support your imaginary claim. You have supported and proven nothing.

Logic does not support your claim but supports the explanation that I gave and which you failed to grasp nor refute on any basis other than that your claim is simply factual so any other view can't be.

So I challenge to with the appropriate words of "put up or shut up!" Prove it or drop it.

YThe first Congress, being comprised of many of the framers of the Constitution, absolutely knew what they were writing and what their words meant.

They did not mean pseudo-natural born citizens, nor quasi-NBCs. No such category exists except in your fertile imagination.
They meant actual natural citizens born as natural citizens by natural law (which you disavow with the false claim they were following common law), -just like naturalized citizens and their children are actual citizens of the United States by the very same language.
Will you next proclaim that that language implies that such citizens are also merely quasi-citizens?

Your view fails in many regards, including explaining how the founders wanted the children of their most respected fellow citizens (whom they entrusted with Ambassadorships) to be ineligible to serve their nation as its chief executive.

Several founders and Presidents served in that capacity for many years, and no doubt had children abroad. So they were disenfranchising their own children?

Your dogma is not only contrary to natural law but contrary to practical reality and American principles of equality of all American-fathered children.

The "legislative surgery" of the 1795 Congress was done purely because the issue in their minds was purely one of whether such children were foreigners or citizens.

They failed to grasp the purpose of the 1790 Congress in using the language that it did, which was to assure the presidential eligibility of such Ambassadorial children.
It was added to avoid the very confusion that you are proffering.

Stranger said...

Mario wrote: "Cruz or any other person born out of the United States ... cannot point to any law, whether it is the Constitution, common law, or any Act of Congress, which makes him or her a “natural born citizen.”

A. Nash replies:
I have to bite my tongue a bit since I'm disposed to shout from the roof tops that I've proclaimed that fact a thousand times but with the exact opposite conclusion.
To repeat, there is no law that can be pointed to because the Constitutional Convention was not in the business of codifying that which is natural and that which was in the purview of Nature and the States alone, -and not the federal government.

Your mind is so indoctrinated with a viewpoint that filters everything through lens of Law that you can't see the Natural Law forest in which the limited, finite realm of Human Law exists.

Natural born citizens are citizens naturally, -citizens by nature, just as one's natural born children are their natural children and not adopted children, just as natural natives are natural members of their own country, just as natural born tribal members are members of their tribe naturally.

Law has nothing to do with it.

Law only exists to cover the +/- 3% who are foreigners or children born to them. The other 97% of the nation are members naturally, -organically, -not legally. Their citizenship is UNCONDITIONAL and PREDETERMINED from conception.

Why is such an elementary concept beyond your grasp or manner of thinking? It's because of the tumor of legal primacy that has distorted your mind's manner of thinking.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger/Adrien Nash,

I of II

You are the one who just repeats himself. You argue that I am wrong in maintaining that the “natural born citizens” mentioned by the First Congress in the Naturalization Act of 1790 were not true “natural born citizens.” You say that there is no such thing as a not true “natural born citizen.”
Neither the historical record nor logic supports your position.

Vattel said: “The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children; and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent.” Looks like Vattel did not get your memo that there is no such thing as a “pseudo-natural born citizens.”

The English called their naturalized citizens English “natural born subjects.” Were they true “natural born subjects” or “pseudo-natural-born subject?” Sure looks like the latter to me.

Vattel explained in Section 214: “Finally, there are states, as, for instance, England, where the single circumstance of being born in the country naturalises the children of a foreigner.” We know that England called those children “natural born subjects.” But we also know that those children could not be “natural born citizens,” for as Vattel explained, even though they were born to alien parents, they became “natural born subjects” through being naturalized at birth through the single act of being born in the country. Hence, they could have been “natural born subjects” if born in England or the colonies, but if born in the United States after July 4, 1776, they were surely not true Article II “natural born citizens.”

In Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 256 (1830), Justice Johnson explained that there were “British subjects” and then there were “real British subjects” as provided for by the fifth article of the Treaty of Peace of 1783. He then explained who the “real British subjects” were. He said that they were “British subjects to whose allegiance the states make no claim.” Likewise, if any nation other than the United States could make a claim to the birth allegiance of any person “considered as a natural born citizen,” that person could not be a real “natural born citizen.” So, those children born in foreign countries, even though the First Congress said they “shall be considered as natural born citizens,” were still subject to the claim of alliance of the foreign nation in whose territory they were born. Since a foreign nation could make claim to their allegiance due to their birth circumstances, they could not be true “natural born citizens.”

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Natural law is only one source where we find the meaning of a “natural born citizen.” As Vattel explained in Section 215, when defining the citizenship of a nation’s children born out of the country, nature alone does not decide that child’s national character, for a nation’s positive laws must also be followed. Hence, Vattel gives the universal law of nations definition of a “natural born citizen” which takes into consideration both natural law and positive law, i.e., a child born in the country to parents who were its citizens. The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court, among other decisions, in Minor v. Happersett confirmed that this natural law/positive law definition is the definition of a “natural-born citizen” (cited and quoted favorably in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark). You can argue that place of birth is not relevant when defining a “natural born citizen” all you want, but Vattel, the U.S. Supreme Court, Congress, and the historical record do not agree with you.

If the First Congress was willing to consider those foreign-born children “as natural born citizens,” it was probably because many of those children were the children of Founders who were born abroad during the Revolutionary War. The First Congress was willing to grandfather those early children to be “considered as natural born citizens.” So, while the 1790 Act provided that a child born out of the United States to citizen parents was to be “considered as a natural born citizen,” it did so only retroactively. By 1795, there was not further need to continue to grandfather any children then born out of the United States. With the Revolutionary War well over, Congress also did not want the practice to be continued in the future. So, Congress stopped considering them as “natural born citizens.”

All this means that in modern America, any child born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents is a naturalized “citizen of the United States” at birth, but not an Article II “natural born citizen.”

ajtelles said...

The meaning...
1 of 2 -

Mario, you wrote "Natural law is only one source where we find the meaning of a 'natural born citizen.' ”

Dittos Mario, because 'natural law' is the basis of 'positive law.'

In addition to 'natural law' type questions, e.g., jus sanguinis and jus soli and Emer de Vattel's 1758 Law of Nations Sec. 212 comment, which I need to explain to some people, I have been asking friends, in person and online, 3 much simpler questions.

The 1st question is, what was the common sense 1787 'original intent' definition of 'natural born Citizen' in Clause 5?

After getting the usual uninformed responses that the meaning was not codified, the SCOTUS must define it, or something similar to that, it eventually became apparent to me that the easiest way to explain the 1787 common sense original intent meaning of 'natural born Citizen' was to point out that Clause 5, specifically the sixth word 'born,' was the, shall we say, the 'seminal' starting point.

"No person except a natural born Citizen, or ... "

The word 'born' is THE seminal definition of 'natural born Citizen' because the birth MUST take place on soil somewhere, right?

So, since a birth MUST take place on soil somewhere, the 1st question about birth MUST start with the location of the soil, right?

So, what was the 1787 original intent meaning of 'born' to the 1787 original birthers?

Was the original intent to suggest that 'born' was a reference to ONLY being born on U.S. soil OR was 'born' ALSO a reference to being born on foreign soil?

A simple question that suggests a simple answer, right?

Well, obviously the original intent of the original birthers was ONLY birth on U.S. soil, and NOT foreign soil ALSO, right?

If it is not obvious to them, I ask them to consider the 1783 Treaty of Paris.

The Treaty of Paris in 1783 was only four years before September 17, 1787, so it is obvious, is it not, that original birther John Jay would NOT suggest to original birther George Washington that foreign born citizens should ALSO be '...eligible to the Office of the President,' right?

That clarifies that the birth MUST be on the U.S. soil that was there BEFORE the birth could take place ON the soil, right?

ajtelles said...

The meaning...
2 of 2 -

The 2nd question is, what was the original intent meaning of 'natural?'

Of course, 'natural' means born by the union of two (2) persons, right?

The answer is 'yes, of course.'

Of course, a 'natural' union that results in a 'natural' birth on U.S. soil does NOT mean naturalization by 'oath' on U.S. soil, right?

The answer is, 'yes, of course not.'

Does 'natural' mean ONLY born by the union of two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents who were married BEFORE the child is born?

Or...

Does 'natural' mean ALSO born by the union of ONLY one (1) U.S. Citizen parent married or NOT married to a foreign citizen?

Married... NOT just living together?

In 1787 America?
What do you think?

The answer is, 'yes, of course.'

The answer to that is, yep... you betcha!!!

Finally, the 3rd question is about the original intent meaning of 'Citizen' in Clause 5.

After clarifying that in 1787 America the citizenship status of the husband determined the citizenship status of the wife, AND the citizenship status of BOTH determined the citizenship status of their child who was born BEFORE the father made the naturalization 'oath to support the constitution,' I ask another question.

Does 'Citizen' in 'natural born Citizen' mean born on U.S. soil with ONLY two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents?

Or...

Does 'Citizen' mean ALSO born on U.S. soil with ONLY one (1) U.S. Citizen parent who is either married or NOT married to a foreign citizen?

- - - - - - - - - -

Mario, sometimes it is tiring when talking with anti-birthers who do NOT want to consider the original intent of the original birthers.

Mario, I don't know everything about everything to know everything about any one thing, but one thing I do know is that you definitely are a 'natural born Citizen' heavyweight, and it is fascinating to read your 'toe-to-toe' intellectual slug fest with wanna be heavyweights.

Now, regarding your comment to Leo Derosia in your post on September 1, 2013 at 11:23 pm, about Mark Levin, a potential intellectual heavyweight sparring partner and hopefully NOT a competitor.

"Maybe Mark Levin can still redeem himself if he just takes the time to study the issue and then gives an intelligent response rather than the low-level presentation that he gave on his radio show."

What would definitely be fascinating would be an intellectual discussion between you and Mark Levin, and relating the Article 5 convention of state legislatures to propose amendments to the Constitution with the Article 2 Section1 Clause 5 perpetual words 'natural born Citizen.'

Yes, THAT would be a very productive discussion, right?

Paging Mark Levin...
Paging Mark Levin...
Paging Mark Levin...



Art

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

ajtelles,

By nature alone, children born in a state of nature belong to the parents to whom they are born. They follow their condition until reaching the age of reason at which time they are old enough and free to change that condition. But regardless of how those children may change their condition upon reaching the age of reason, they can never cast off the natural circumstances under which they were born. In other words, they may gain new and different privileges, immunities, and rights, but they cannot rid themselves of what nature gave to them.

When men decided to leave their state of nature and join together with like minded persons to form a civil society for the purpose of better preserving their life, liberty, and property, they at the same time had to create positive law by which that society had to be guided. With that positive law, the power to punish in order to preserve was given over to that positive law and those the positive law appointed to execute that law.

With this positive law also came the designation of who were to be the members of that society. As to a "citizen" and a "natural born citizen," that positive law which had its origins in the law of nature could be found in the law of nations, which defined a "citizen" as simply a member of society and 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.

The Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers, being students of the law of nature and the law of nations, chose this definition of a "citizen," and of a "natural born citizen" which they inserted into Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 for purposes of best preserving and protecting the new republic through the civil and military offices of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

Stranger said...

ajtelles said..."what was the 1787 original intent meaning of 'born' to the 1787 original birthers?"

A. Nash replies:

Born is from the same realm as the word "natural", namely the natural realm. You have mistakenly placed it in the legal realm by erroneously connecting it to an artificial, contrived, man-made construct known as national borders.

Borders are based on invisible, conceptual, and usually unnatural lines set by conquest or claim. That realm has nothing to do with the natural event of birth.

The only thing that is connected to birth is the mother and her womb. (Nine months prior, a father was involved) Thus, birth and born relate solely to a natural movement from inside of the womb to outside the womb; -from the womb to the world.
That event has no connection to imaginary borders. Its connection to "citizen" is via a recognition that it begins, at a minimum, at the completion of that transient event.
Those who are mere legal citizens via permission of human law, acquire citizenship upon, or at birth and not before, but those who are natural citizens are predestined from conception to be citizens, and the place of their exit from the womb is irrelevant to their political inheritance.

So there are two kinds of born citizens. One natural, and the other artificial via government allowance, permission, or mandate. They are adopted-at-birth citizens.
As for "natural", it modifies the noun "citizen", as in "natural citizen" via birth and not via the American fiction of law known as the doctrine of citizenship equality which views those who have been natural-ized as now being natural citizens also.

ajtelles said...

Natural Law, Positive Law and Original Intent
1 of 3

A sub-title could be, Mama Grizzly KNOWS that Natural Law is ‘Seminal’ so don’t mess with her cubs.

The repetition of words is simply as a mnemonic device, you know, drill, drill drill… until it sinks into the subconscious, or, what is a memory aid for.

- - - - - - - - - -

Mario, if I am reading you correctly, it is our mutual common sense and original intent understanding that natural law and positive law go together like hand in glove.

The natural law is the obvious ‘seminal’ basis which gives purpose to the positive law of a legislature, with the natural law being the hand that gives purpose to the positive law which is the glove.

This is not the place for it now, but it could also be posited that, depending on the context and which is being presented as ‘seminal,’ the natural law could be the glove and the positive law could be the hand.

Of course, before a child is natural law born, a legislature can enact positive law that designates ‘Citizen’ status or ‘natural born Citizen’ status, so in that case, the positive law determines the appropriate designation associated with the natural law birth.

In other words, relative to Clause 5, the positive law of a legislature is NOT the ‘seminal’ basis of what is inherent to nature, or what is inherent to the law of nature, or what is inherent to natural law, or however it is phrased.

Relating ‘seminal’ specifically to ‘natural born Citizen’ and not to ‘…or a Citizen at the time’ in Clause 5, the positive law designations of ‘Citizen’ or ‘natural born Citizen’ in Clause 5 and in the 1790 and 1795 Naturalization Acts are determined by positive law AND natural law and their unique purposes before and after natural law birth.

The confusion is which is natural law and ‘seminal’ and which has the positive law purpose of protecting that which is ‘seminal’ according to natural law, NOT ‘seminal’ according to positive law.

The naturalization ‘oath’ to ‘support the constitution, as stated in the 1790 and the 1795 Naturalization Acts, is positive law determined by a legislature, but BEFORE the positive law of an ‘oath’ is the ‘seminal’ and natural law birth of the child on natural law soil, either U.S. soil or foreign soil, since soil does NOT need positive law to articulate that natural law soil is indeed natural law soil.

The natural law ‘birth’ on foreign soil is the ‘seminal’ result of the natural law ‘union’ of two persons, and ‘birth’ is the natural law ‘seminal’ basis of the positive law designation of a ‘natural born Ctiizen’ in the 1790 Naturalization Act, and the natural law and ‘seminal’ basis of the positive law designation of ‘Citizen’ in the 1795 Naturalization Act.

The 1795 Naturalization Act positive law designation of ‘Citizen’ rectified the confusion caused by the 1790 Naturalization Act positive law designation of ‘natural born Citizen’ that was in conflict with the original intent of original birther John Jay who suggested to George Washington that the ‘natural born Citizen’ language be inserted into Clause 5 to prevent foreign influence in the executive office that controlled the U.S. army.

ajtelles said...

Natural Law, Positive Law and Original Intent
2 of 3

The confusion came from the conflict of calling children a ‘natural born Citizen’ when one child was born on U.S. soil with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents AND a different child was born on foreign soil also with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents.

Yes, both children are natural law and ‘natural born’ children of two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents, but ONLY the child born on U.S. soil is the 1787 Clause 5 ‘natural born Citizen’ WHO IS by positive law the natural law child who is ‘…eligible to the Office of the President.’

Conversly, ONLY the child born on foreign soil is the 1795 Naturalization Act ‘Ctizen’ who is by positive law NOT a natural law ‘natural born’ child and so is NOT ‘…eligible to the Office of the President.’

Both the 1790 and the 1795 Acts are referring to the ‘natural born’ result of a natural law union of two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents, not one (1) U.S. Citizen parent who is married or not married to a foreign citizen.

One example to clarify the original intent of the original birthers.

Example

It is the natural law inherent right of a living being to promote their own self-defense, so the positive law of the 1791 second amendment by the legislature had the purpose of codifying a natural law ‘right’ of self-defense by keeping and bearing arms for the purpose of protecting the ‘seminal’ natural law.

The purpose of the ‘glove’ of positive law is to protect the ‘hand’ of natural law.

When a legislature goes against the ‘purpose’ of natural law and the self-defense with arms is not allowed by a positive law of a legislature, the ‘glove’ of positive law is NOT protecting the ‘hand’ of natural law that is the ‘seminal’ basis that gives positive law its purpose.

It that case, the end result of a positive law glove that does NOT protect its own ‘seminal’ basis for existence is chaos and tyranny, with dictatorial control AGAINST what is inherent to the natural law hand.

In this case, it is the natural law ‘right’ of self-defense with natural law physical arms or natural law loud voices or natural law hands to pick up natural law dirt to throw at an adversary or natural law rocks or natural law handguns, etc., NOT the positive law ‘right’ to keep and bear arms.

A mama grizzly will give her natural law growl and make a natural law aggressive run at an intruder when she uses her natural law ‘right’ to protect her natural law cubs, and mama grizzly does NOT need a positive law of a legislature to give her the natural law ‘right’ of self-defense for herself and her cubs.

- - - - - - - - - -

ajtelles said...

Natural Law, Positive Law and Original Intent
3 of 3

- - - - - - - - - -

Mario, you mentiond to Leo Derosia in your post on September 1, 2013 at 11:23 pm,

"Maybe Mark Levin can still redeem himself if he just takes the time to study the issue and then gives an intelligent response rather than the low-level presentation that he gave on his radio show."

I have read Mark’s three best sellers, Liberty and Tyranny, Ameritoia and The Liberty Amendments: Restoring the American Republic, and I was as surprised as others that he has not studied the issue for the last 5 years, since 2008, and he was not aware that the words ‘natural born Citizen’ in the 1790 Naturalization Act had been repealed by the 1795 Naturalization Act and replaced with the single word ‘Citizen.’

When, not if, but when Mark becomes informed about the Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 ‘natural born Citizen’ issue and becomes as informed as he is about the Article 5 issue to have the state legislatures have amendment conventions to propose amendments to the constitution, THEN it will be a productive discussion if and when he invites you onto his radio program.

It’s still possible that you and Mark Levin could become common cause advocates for the common sense original intent of the oritinal birthers who were the original authors of the original words in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 AND Article 5, and discussion about BOTH Articles would promote constitutional recovery to restore the American Republic.

Paging Mark Levin…
Paging Mark Levin…
Paging Mark Levin…

Mario, it may be presumptious of me to speak on your behalf, but I would like to say to Mark, to whom I listen every day on MarkLevin.com, and who I consider a common cause friend along with Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck and others,

Mark, Mario Apuzzo is read to talk with you when you are ready to talk with him.

With three fingers folded down and thumb and little finger extended and hand held to the ear… call Mario Apuzzo, ok Mark? He can probable handle your toughest ‘natural born Citizen’ questions and arguments with half his brain tied behind his head.


Art
OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com

ajtelles said...

So, what's the answer....

- - - - - - - - - -

Stranger said...

ajtelles said..."what was the 1787 original intent meaning of 'born' to the 1787 original birthers?"

A. Nash replies:

Born is from the same realm as the word "natural", namely the natural realm.

You have mistakenly placed it in the legal realm by erroneously connecting it to an artificial, contrived, man-made construct known as national borders.

- - - - - - - - - -

You are adducing and explanation of 'born' that is interesting to read, but you do not answer the question about the original intent meaning of the word 'born' and what you think it might have meant to the original birthers who were the original authors of 'born' in 'natural born Citizen.'

It's a very simple question.

Since children have to be 'born' on soil somewhere that has to be there before the child is 'born' on that soil, did 'born' mean 'born' on U.S. soil or did it mean 'born' on foreign soil?

Well, obviously, with the 1783 Treaty of Paris that ended the war of independence from a 'foreign' power, England, only 4 years prior to 1787, the original intent of the original birthers, for example John Jay and George Washington, was that 'born' meant ONLY born on U.S. soil, NOT foreign soil, right?

What other 'original intent' could there be to the suggestion to original birther George Washington by original birther John Jay?

See, I did not 'mistakenly' place 'born' in the legal realm as you said.

However, you did mistakenly mistake my original intent question, it seems to me.

In my comments, I said that 'born' is the 'seminal' starting point, and 'seminal' is a natural law word, not a positive law word.

Art

Stranger said...

ajtelles said... "but you do not answer the question about the original intent meaning of the word 'born' and what you think it might have meant to the original birthers..."

A. Nash replies:
You are grossly over-thinking something that requires no thought. I didn't answer your question about "the original intent meaning" because there was and is only one meaning, and that is the one meaning ascribed by language and not by legal concept or theory.
Birth has no connection to anything that is non-biological other than inheritance which is a natural right.

You are distracted by the artificial contrivance of national borders, but they are not connected to the meaning of the word "born".
Also, you failed to grasp the fact of there being two kinds of born citizens and two kinds of natural citizens so neither term could be used alone in the eligibility clause because it would then be ambiguous.

The only way to eliminate ambiguity was to combine the two terms, which is what John Jay did, underlining the word "born" to emphasize that being a natural citizen is not enough because natural-ized citizens become natural citizens also via the fiction of law known as the doctrine of citizenship equality.

So to avoid conceptual ambiguity he made it known that only one born as a real natural citizen should be allowed control of the power of the Command-in-Chief position.
Merely being born a citizen was insufficient since some States allowed jus soli citizenship for the children of their immigrants. Result: "born citizen" is ambiguous also since some were not born of Americans but of aliens.
So "born" is not as seminal as "natural" since some (3% +/-)are born as citizens by law, and not by nature.

MichaelN said...

USC Article II "natural born Citizen" was descriptive of a US Citizen with the highest possible allegiance to the US.

Those with the highest possible allegiance were those who were the least susceptible to any foreign claim, influence, persuasion, etc.

The only way the Framers could achieve the imperative to have only those with the highest possible allegiance to the US be eligible for POTUS, was to require native US birth to US Citizen parents.

It is absurd to the extreme, to even suggest the Framers would have not opted for the highest possible allegiance.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Art and Stranger/Adrien Nash,

I have long argued that not all citizens at birth or born citizens are “natural born citizens.” On the contrary, Congressional Attorney Jack Maskell argues that any citizen at birth or born citizen is a “natural born citizen.” I have already exposed the fallacies of his position as stated in his CRS memo to Congress. Maskell’s thesis is that any citizen at birth is a “natural born citizen.” The problem with his position is that either, he argues fallaciously (logically invalid argument) that all “natural born citizens are citizens at birth, and if someone is a citizen at birth, then he is a “natural born citizen; or he fallaciously argues that all citizens at birth are “natural born citizens, and if someone is a citizen at birth, therefore that person is a “natural born citizen.” In this second argument (logically valid but unsound due to a false major premise producing a false conclusion), he has changed the definition of a “natural born citizen.” There is no historical or legal evidence to support his major premise that all citizens at birth are “natural born citizens.” This major premise is therefore false which leads to his false conclusion as to who is and who is not a “natural born citizen.” I have asked the Obots to help Maskell by demonstrating that his major premise is true and to produce evidence that all citizens at birth are “natural born citizen,” but no one has done so.

So what is the true picture of a “natural born citizen?” We have seen through the text of the original Constitution and amended one, and, among other legal sources, Minor v. Happersett (1875), that in the United States we have “citizens” and “natural-born citizens,” two distinct constitutional classes of membership in the United States. Minor explained that a “citizen” is simply a member of the United States. It also explained that an Article II “natural-born citizen” is defined under “common- law” the nomenclature of which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution. Given the definition of a “natural-born citizen” that it gave, i.e., a child born in the country to parents who were its citizens, this could only be American common law which had its source in natural law and the law of nations, not colonial English common law which made no reference to the citizenship of the child’s parents. Accord, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (cited and quoted Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” and defined a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment). Hence, presenting the Fourteenth Amendment or an Act of Congress as the means by which one becomes a citizen at birth is not sufficient to make one a “natural born citizen,” for those positive laws do not define a “natural born citizen,” but do confirm by implication how one is defined otherwise. In other words, relying upon the Fourteenth Amendment, Wong Kim Ark, or an Act of Congress for citizenship at birth status as the basis for being a “natural born citizen” is misplaced, for the text of these positive laws and this court holding, expressly mentioning a “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born citizen,” defines a “citizen,” not a “natural born citizen.” For the definition of a “natural born citizen,” we do not look to these laws, but rather to the American national common law, which has its source in the law of nature and the law of nations and which defines one as a child born in the country to parents who were both its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

The Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 demanded that anyone born after the adoption of the Constitution, in order to be eligible to be President, had to be a “natural born citizen.” In the same clause, it allowed “citizens of the United States” to be eligible to be President, but only if they were born on or before the adoption of the Constitution which occurred in 1787. So if anyone was born after the adoption of the Constitution and was a “citizen of the United States” and not a “natural born citizen,” that person would not be eligible to be President.

Through the Naturalization Act of 1790, Congress, exercising its naturalization powers, retroactively gave to children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents after 1787 all the privileges, immunities, and rights of a “natural born citizen.” But whether Congress accepted it or not, these rights could not include the right to be elected President, for that right constitutionally belonged only to those who satisfied the Constitution’s definition of a “natural born citizen” which was found in the common law and which definition was a child born in the country to parents who were both its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. Hence, a 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” looked and functioned like a “natural born citizen,” but was not really one completely. With Congress probably accepting that it did not have the constitutional power to make anyone a “natural born citizen” who was not one under the Constitution and with a “citizen of the United States” also having all the privileges, immunities, and rights of a “natural born citizen,” except for the right to be elected president, Congress in 1795 removed the “natural born citizen” status and changed it to that of a “citizen of the United States.” Through this legislative surgery, the Third Congress clearly signaled that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents were to be “considered as citizens of the United States, but were not to be “considered as natural born citizens,” meaning that there was not to be any doubt that given the clear exclusion language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, those children were not eligible to be President.

ajtelles said...

1 of 2

Mario, on September 23, 2013 at 6:38 PM you wrote -

“For the definition of a “natural born citizen,” we do not look to these laws, but rather to the American national common law, which has its source in the law of nature and the law of nations and which defines one as a child born in the country to parents who were both its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.”

On September 23, 2013 at 7:40 PM you wrote -

“Hence, a 1790 Naturalization Act “natural born citizen” looked and functioned like a “natural born citizen,” but was not really one completely.

With Congress probably accepting that it did not have the constitutional power to make anyone a “natural born citizen” … Congress in 1795 removed the “natural born citizen” status and changed it to that of a “citizen of the United States.”

Through this legislative surgery, the Third Congress clearly signaled that children born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents were to be “considered as citizens of the United States, but were not to be “considered as natural born citizens,” meaning that there was not to be any doubt that given the clear exclusion language of Article II, Section 1, Clause 5, those children were not eligible to be President.”

- - - - - - - - - -

Mario, in reading your September 23, 2013 at 6:38 PM comments in which you included my common sense original intent name with ‘Stranger’ whom I have read here and elsewhere but whom I do not know, my original intent common sense tells me that we, I mean you and I, are saying the same thing but simply using different words and emphasizing different original intent points.

In my comment September 22, 2013 at 6:47 PM I made these three original intent ‘seminal’ points –

“The natural law ‘birth’ on foreign soil is the ‘seminal’ result of the natural law ‘union’ of two persons, and ‘birth’ is the natural law ‘seminal’ basis of the positive law designation of a ‘natural born Citizen’ in the 1790 Naturalization Act, and the natural law and ‘seminal’ basis of the positive law designation of ‘Citizen’ in the 1795 Naturalization Act.”

“The 1795 Naturalization Act positive law designation of ‘Citizen’ rectified the confusion caused by the 1790 Naturalization Act positive law designation of ‘natural born Citizen’ that was in conflict with the original intent of original birther John Jay who suggested to George Washington that the ‘natural born Citizen’ language be inserted into Clause 5 to prevent foreign influence in the executive office that controlled the U.S. army.”

“The confusion came from the conflict of calling children a ‘natural born Citizen’ when one child was born on U.S. soil with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents AND a different child was born on foreign soil also with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents.”

- - - - - - - - - -

As you wrote,

“With Congress probably accepting that it did not have the constitutional power to make anyone a “natural born citizen” … Congress in 1795 removed the “natural born citizen” status and changed it to that of a “citizen of the United States.”

Again, Mario, as I clarify below, it looks like we are saying the same thing with different words and different emphases.

If it was not confusing in the 1790 Naturalization Act for the original birthers who wrote the original words to call both children a ‘natural born Citizen’ when born on U.S. soil AND born on foreign soil, my common sense original intent confusion spotter eventually told me that it soon became confusing to the original birthers, so 5 years later the language was changed by the third Congress from ‘natural born Citizen’ to ‘Citizen’ for a 1787 common sense original intent reason.

The original birthers who were aware of natural law, positive law, common law, Emer de Vattel, etc., spotted an original intent problem related to Clause 5 and ‘natural born Citizen’ language that in September 17, 1787 meant ONLY born on U.S. soil with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents.

ajtelles said...

2 of 2

Why did they change the language?

If the 1787 Clause 5 ‘natural born Citizen’ original intent definition of the original birthers was that ‘born’ ONLY meant being born on U.S. soil with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents, how could the original intent definition of ‘born’ ALSO mean being born on foreign soil with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents?

That is why I ask people if they ‘know’ what the original intent was of original birther John Jay who wrote to original birther George Washington, who was president of the Constitutional Convention, and they both thought it was a prescient idea that the positive law requirement of a ‘natural born Citizen’ for POTUS eligibility be inserted into the Constitution in Article 2 on September 17, 1787, AND John Jay underlined the natural law word ‘born’ to emphasize something natural law ‘seminal’ AND positive law perpetual.

In 1787, did ‘born’ mean to John Jay ONLY born on U.S. soil and NOT born on foreign soil?
In 1787, did ‘born’ mean to John Jay BOTH ‘born’ on U.S. soil AND born on foreign soil?

Well, obviously, to the original birthers in 1787 who were well versed in natural law, positive law, common law, Emer de Vattel, etc., their original intent only 4 years after the 1783 Treaty of Paris was that ‘born’ meant ONLY born on U.S. soil, NOT born on foreign soil too, right?

In analyzing the naturalization context of the 1790 and 1795 Acts and the change of language from ‘natural born Citizen’ in the 1790 Naturalization Act to ‘Citizen’ in the 1795 Naturalization Act, my common sense original intent confusion spotter told me that the John Jay original intent to prevent ‘foreign influence’ over the executive office and the U.S. military was ‘probably’ the FIRST reason to change the language of the 1795 Naturalization Act.

As you wrote,

“With Congress probably accepting that it did not have the constitutional power to make anyone a “natural born citizen” … Congress in 1795 removed the “natural born citizen” status and changed it to that of a “citizen of the United States.”

As you wrote in the quote above where you use the word “probably,” to me it is definitely common sense possible that the Congress recognized their lack of authority to “…make anyone a ‘natural born citizen’,” and I am willing to accept that as a common sense ‘authority’ FIRST reason for Congress changing the language to conform with the 1787 U.S. Constitution language in Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5.

Either or both ‘probably’ common sense reasons work for me since BOTH the original intent ‘authority’ and the original intent ‘foreign influence’ are applicable in original intent context and both conform to the original intent of the original birthers.

I certainly agree with your ‘…probably accepting’ language, and definitely agree with you that the first Congress “did not have the constitutional power to make anyone a ‘natural born citizen’ so by passing the 1795 Naturalization Act with the single word Citizen’ designation, the third Congress did the common sense thing to rectify the confusion with the 1787 Article 2 ‘natural born Citizen’ original intent.

As I wrote in yesterday -

Yes, both children are ‘natural born’ children, ‘born’ as the result of the natural law union of two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents, but ONLY the child born on U.S. soil is the 1787 Clause 5 ‘natural born Citizen’ WHO IS by the 1787 Clause 5 positive law the 1787 Clause 5 natural law natural born child who IS ‘…eligible to the Office of the President.’

Conversely, ONLY the child born on foreign soil is the 1795 Naturalization Act ‘Citizen’ who is by the 1787 Clause 5 positive law NOT a 1787 Clause 5 natural law natural born child and so is NOT ‘…eligible to the Office of the President.’


Art
OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com

ajtelles said...

Tell it to John Jay and George Washington...

- - - - - - - - - -

Stranger said...

ajtelles said... "but you do not answer the question about the original intent meaning of the word 'born' and what you think it might have meant to the original birthers..."

A. Nash replies:
"You are grossly over-thinking something that requires no thought.

"I didn't answer your question about "the original intent meaning" because there was and is only one meaning, and that is the one meaning ascribed by language and not by legal concept or theory.

"Birth has no connection to anything that is non-biological other than inheritance which is a natural right."

- - - - - - - - - -

A. Nash, why not just ask John Jay a common sense original intent mental question about his original intent in underlining the word 'born' in 'natural born Citizen?'

While your at it, why not ask George Washington a mental question about his original intent reason to accept Jay's written suggestion to insert 'natural born Citizen' into Article2?

After you ask these two original birthers their original intent, simply ask yourself this common sense original intent question.

Did John Jay intend to suggest to George Washington that limiting POTUS eligibility to ONLY a person born U.S. soil with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents was NOT his original intent and POTUS eligibility should ALSO include a person born on foreign soil?

Now, Stranger / A. Nash, if you do not want to ask John and George and yourself this 'seminal' natural law common sense original intent question and then answer my common sense original intent question, well, point / counterpoint has no point, and has come to a dead end, right?


Art
OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com

MichaelN said...

Congressional Attorney, Jack Maskell has willfully misled the US Congress and Senate in the matter of USC Article meaning of "natural born Citizen" and should retract his memo immediately.

Congressional Attorney, Jack Maskell is a traitor to the US Constitution and the citizens of the US.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

See Ret. Commander Charles Kerchner’s new article entitled, “A Lesson from History. Is Being a Born Citizen (Citizen at Birth) of the United States of Sufficient Citizenship Status to be President of the United States and Commander in Chief of Our Military? The Founders and Framers Emphatically Decided … It Was Not! You may read it at

http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2013/09/17/constitution-day-17-sep-2013-a-lesson-from-history-is-being-a-born-citizen-of-the-united-states-sufficient-citizenship-status-to-be-president-the-founders-and-framers-emphatically-decided-it-was/

ajtelles said...

Common sense original intent from CDR. Kerchner...

- - - - - - - - - -

From the large paragraph which starts with "Jay's proposal..."

Jay’s proposal recommended clause added the additional adjective before “born Citizen” that was proposed by Hamilton.

And that word and adjective “natural” means something special from the laws of nature that modifies just being born a Citizen of the USA such as being simply born on the soil of the United States.

Natural means from nature by the facts of nature of one’s birth.
Not created retroactively after the fact by a man-made law.

A natural born Citizen needs no man-made law to bestow Citizenship on them.

The added adjective “natural” comes from Natural Law which is recognized the world over as universal law and which is the foundation of the Law of Nations which was codified [sic] by Vattel in 1758 in his preeminent legal treatise used by the founders, The Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law.

- - - - - - - - - -

Other than the use of the word 'codified' in the reference to Vattel, this is an excellent dissertation about the common sense original intent of the original birthers John Jay and Alexander Hamilton.

I hope that somebody who knows Mark Levin will tell him about this Constitution Day article by Kerchner.

Paging Mark Levin...
Paging Mark Levin...
Paging Mark Levin...

I will be linking to this on my blog.


Art

Stranger said...

A. Nash writes:

Why is the irrelevant dogma of native-birth being requisite to natural citizenship so doggedly adhered to and defended?
Because certain reputations are staked on it, with our own Mario Apuzzo being at the top of the list. It used to include Leo Donofrio who left the practice of law, coincidentally, after he was clearly illuminated as to the error of that belief. It is a height too high to climb down from so he bailed out of the entire profession.

And what exactly does it have to do with the nature of the non-citizenship of the usurper in the White House? Absolutely nothing. Yet it is dogmatically embraced and preached as if it does, when in fact it is nothing but an irrelevant, erroneous article of faith, of doctrine, of presumption backed by no facts, -but instead by sophistical distorted logic only.

Mario used the word "probably" in defending the fantasy of his faith. It is the perfect word for what he promotes because it is build of nothing but "probables".

Exhibit #1 from the Kirchner essay:

"...requiring the Citizen to be a “natural born Citizen“, to block any chance of the person with foreign allegiances or claims on their allegiance at birth from becoming President and Commander of the Military.
No person having any foreign influence or claim of allegiance on them at birth could serve as a future President. The person must be a “natural born citizen” with unity of citizenship and sole allegiance to the United States at birth.

Where is this concept to be found in any writing in history up to the writing of the Constitution: "claim of allegiance on them at birth" in relationship to top executive political or military office?

NEWS FLASH! It is non-existent! It was concocted to defend the dogma that Americans are Foreigners unless the few and irrelevant minutes of their exit from the womb occurred within U.S. borders.
That is heresy and treason against Natural Law. Vattel would utterly condemn it on principle alone.

continued...

MichaelN said...

ajtelles said.....
"Other than the use of the word 'codified' in the reference to Vattel, this is an excellent dissertation about the common sense original intent of the original birthers John Jay and Alexander Hamilton."

Here's what John Adams, 2nd POTUS said about original intent of authors.

"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."
http://east_west_dialogue.tripod.com/vattel/id3.html

Here's some interesting stuff from Vattel.

(See 280 particularly)

http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/vattel/vatt-217.htm

Stranger said...

A. Nash continues...

How unacceptable is the truth to those who embrace the faith and dogma that links soil to blood? Just try to find a link to my website on Kirchner's. He has everyone else linked but my site is MIA even though mine has more original content than all of them combined.
That is because we both can't be right and he isn't willing to even entertain the suggestion that his dogma might be what is incorrect because it sounds so wonderfully secure as a policy (even though I've shown just how horrible it is in the real world, and in the view of our founders).

"unity of citizenship" -where exactly can one find this concept in the writings of any of the founders and framers as related to citizenship via the natural inheritance from one's father when he is an American?
Nowhere! Jus soli citizenship in a foreign nation (like Canada) is irrelevant to the principle of natural citizenship.
It is always nothing more than a gift with no strings attached.
Such a nation has no claim on such a child, and would never think it had any right to his military service since he belongs to the nation of his father.

Dual allegiance is only produced by parents with different nationalities, not due to place of birth.
Place of birth has no connection to allegiance. It only comes into play if one is born in and raised in the foreign nation of his foreign mother. Only them does he have an obligation to defend his foreign homeland via military service.
But if he is raised in America, that foreign nation has no claim on him whatsoever even though by happenstance he was born there.
This is Law of Nations 101 folks.


Understand this: no nation on Earth has any claim on any American who was born of Americans. Even if one thought it did, it would be TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to the founding fathers and the U.S. government. Americans who are born of Americans are Americans also, naturally, meaning not by operation of any law other than the law of natural membership. No exceptions. They are natural citizens by birth.

Stranger said...

On Kirchner's blog is found this:

title; Absolute proof the Founders knew and accepted Vattel`s French “naturels” to mean “natural born”

"This is pretty convincing proof that the framers did not need to wait for the 1797 translated edition of Vattel’s Law of Nations. It appears they were well apt to translate it themselves. This (")accepted translation(") of ‘naturel’ in 1781, predates John Jay’s 1787 letter to George Washington by 6 years.

A. Nash asks:

Clear as a bell? Or misconstrued?

What the original French proves is the opposite of what Kerchner reads into it.
Nowhere in the French is the word
"born" to be found. Instead, all that is seen is what I've preached til the cows come home: "sujets naturels", meaning "natural subjects"

The words "natural born citizen" are not present nor implied by "natural subject". That is proof that no such "term of art" as nbc existed.
There were natural subjects and subjects who were not natural subjects. No term of art exists in the lengthy Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789
FRIDAY, JULY 27, 1781.

http://cdrkerchner.wordpress.com/2010/10/08/absolute-proof-the-founders-knew-and-accepted-vattels-french-naturels-to-mean-natural-born/

The simplest and most revealing fact that reveals the truth of the matter is seen in the sub-title of section 212 of Vattel's Law of Nations.
If anyone with an honest mind looks at that sub-title, the truth will be evident to them. It reads:

DES CITOYENS Et NATURELS

Translation: "Of Citizens and Natives".

"Naturels" does not translate as "natural born citizens" but as NATIVES.

Were that not the truth then the title would be: Of Citizens and Natural Born Citizens.

Such a translation is laughable and absurd.
I might author an exposition with that title but Vattel never would have because he was not focused on the non-existent issue of American presidential eligibility which involves and is focused on the difference between citizens and natural citizens.

Time to smell the coffee.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger/Adrien Nash,

You are having trouble with the concept of a "natural born citizen" under American law being free from the moment of birth from any claim to his or her allegiance from any foreign nation.

Why do you think John Jay did not want the position of Commander in Chief of the Military devolving on anyone but a "natural born citizen?" He did recommend to George Washington that there be a "strong check" on the admission of "foreigner" into the administration of government. Does common sense not tell you that under Jay's requirements for the Commander in Chief of the Military, someone with allegiance to a foreign nation would not be a "natural born citizen?"

If common sense does not assist you, then consider that in Shanks v. Dupont, 28 U.S. 242, 256 (1830), Justice Johnson explained that there were “British subjects” and then there were “real British subjects” as provided for by the fifth article of the Treaty of Peace of 1783. He then explained who the “real British subjects” were. He said that they were “British subjects to whose allegiance the states make no claim.” Likewise, if any nation other than the United States could make a claim to the birth allegiance of any person “considered as a natural born citizen,” that person could not be a real “natural born citizen.” So, those children born in foreign countries, even though the First Congress said they “shall be considered as natural born citizens,” were still subject to the claim of alliance of the foreign nation in whose territory they were born. Since a foreign nation could make claim to their allegiance due to their birth circumstances, they could not be true “natural born citizens.”

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger/Adrien Nash,

So you want to know more about “unity of citizenship and allegiance.”

You can read all about it in my essay entitled, “Article II "Natural Born Citizen" Means Unity of Citizenship and Allegiance at Birth, found at http://puzo1.blogspot.com/2009/05/article-ii-natural-born-citizen-means.html

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger/Adrien Nash,

You said in reference to the position that a “natural born citizen” is free from claims of allegiance from foreign powers and “unity of citizenship,” that the concepts are “non-existent! It was concocted to defend the dogma that Americans are Foreigners unless the few and irrelevant minutes of their exit from the womb occurred within U.S. borders.”

But we can easily see that you are wrong in what you state. Minor v. Happersett (1875) explained:

“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.”

Did you see that. The unanimous U.S. Supreme Court explained that at common law with the nomenclature of which the Framers were familiar, those who were born in the country to citizen parents were not only “citizens,” but also “natural born citizens.” It added that all the rest of the people were “aliens or foreigners.” In simple English that means that at common law, only children born in the country to citizen parents could be “natural born citizen,” for all the rest of the persons were “aliens or foreigners.” Clearly, from what the Court said, under common law persons born in the United States to alien parents or born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents or alien parents were “aliens or foreigners.” Minor also explained how Congress through its naturalization powers could make such otherwise alien born persons, meeting its prescribed requirements, “citizens of the United States.” And we know that Congress since 1790 has exercised its naturalization powers to make persons born out of the United States to U.S. citizen parents “citizens of the United States” at birth. Under the 1790 Naturalization Act they were “considered as natural born citizens” but for only 5 years after which the Naturalization Act of 1795 said that they “shall be considered as citizens of the United States.” We also know that under the holding of Wong Kim Ark, the Fourteenth Amendment makes children born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents (not citizen parents) “citizens of the United States” at birth, not to be conflated and confounded with Article II “natural born citizens” who are defined only under American national common law to which Minor referred.

So, Stranger/Adrien Nash, as you can plainly see, the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court has told us that being born in the United States is one of the requirements of being a “natural born citizen.” The other requirement is that the child be born to U.S. citizen parents. These are the necessary and sufficient conditions of being a “natural born citizen.” Accord, U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) (cited and quoted Minor’s common law definition of a “natural born citizen” and defined a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment which it distinguished from that “natural born citizen”).

MichaelN said...

@Stranger/Adrian Nash, who said in part.....
"The simplest and most revealing fact that reveals the truth of the matter is seen in the sub-title of section 212 of Vattel's Law of Nations.
If anyone with an honest mind looks at that sub-title, the truth will be evident to them. It reads:

DES CITOYENS Et NATURELS

Translation: "Of Citizens and Natives".

"Naturels" does not translate as "natural born citizens" but as NATIVES.

Were that not the truth then the title would be: Of Citizens and Natural Born Citizens.

Such a translation is laughable and absurd."
-------------------
Reply:
Try this......
"In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”.

For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective.

In fact when Vattel defines "natural born citizens" in the second sentence of section 212 after defining general or ordinary citizens in the first sentence, you see that he uses the word "indigenes" for natives along with "Les naturels" in that sentence.

He used the word "naturels" to emphasize clearly who he was defining as those who were born in the country of two citizens of the country.

Also, when we read Vattel, we must understand that Vattel's use of the word "natives" in 1758 is not to be read with modern day various alternative usages of that word.

You must read it in the full context of sentence 2 of section 212 to fully understand what Vattel was defining from natural law, i.e., natural born citizenship of a country.

Please see the photograph of the original French for Chapter 19, Section 212, here birthers.org/img/Vattel.jpg in the original French if you have any doubts.

Please do not simply look at the title as some have suggested that is all you need to do.

Vattel makes it quite clear he is not speaking of natives in this context as someone simply born in a country, but of natural born citizens, those born in the country of two citizens of the country.

Our founding Fathers were men of high intellectual abilities, many were conversant in French, the diplomatic language of that time period. Benjamin Franklin had ordered 3 copies of the French Edition of “Le droit des gens,” which the deferred to as the authoritative version as to what Vattel wrote and what Vattel meant and intended to elucidate."

http://birthers.org/USC/Vattel.html

MichaelN said...

"US Department of State confirms Vattel
Posted on August 26, 2011 by nobarack08

The US Department of State posted the following and thereby confirms Burlamaqui and Vattel, both whom I and others here have stated defined the term ‘Natural Born Citizen’ as understood by the Framers, Founders, and signers of the United States Constitution.
“America’s Founders were inspired by the ideas and values of early Swiss philosophers like Jean-Jacques Burlamaqui and Emer de Vattel, and the 1848 Swiss Constitution was influenced by our own U.S. Constitution. Swiss commitment to democracy is an example for nations and people everywhere who yearn for greater freedoms and human rights.”

http://nobarack08.wordpress.com/2011/08/26/us-department-of-state-confirms-vattel/

Stranger said...

A. Nash writes:

DES CITOYENS Et NATURELS

Translation: "Of Citizens and Natives".

"Naturels" does not translate as "natural born citizens" but as NATIVES.

Were that not the truth then the title would be: Of Citizens and Natural Born Citizens.
That is not the title because that is not the correct translation.

The word "indigenes" is not correctly translated as "native" but as "the indigenous population".

Les naturels translates as the natural inhabitants.

Neither of those two words have anything to do with citizenship.

The French contains no use of the words "born" and "citizen" together as adjective and noun, i.e., "born citizen" nor the use of the words "natural" & "born" & "citizen" together.

Vattel wrote about the natural members of countries and natural citizens of nations, but he had no connection to any use of the words "natural born citizen".

Those words were not only not defined by him but were never even used by him.

To understand them does not involve Vattel but involves nothing more complex than the English language. No "authority" defines what those words mean because they mean what they mean as common words and nothing more. They never had and still do not have a "term of art" meaning.

No one can show that they can and must be put in that category. There is no "authority" that can attach any meaning other than their English language meaning.

Any attempt to change their meaning is a perversion of their meaning and cannot be supported by anything but presumptuous imagination.

~Natural born criminal~ Is that a term of art? No. "Criminal", like citizen, is from the legal realm. Natural & born are ordinary adjectives. This is not legal rocket science.

Stranger said...

MichaelN wrote:
In French, as a noun, native is rendered as “originaire” or “indigene”, not as “naturel”.

For “naturel” to mean native would need to be used as an adjective.
~~~
A. Nash writes:

You can't use the words "is rendered" as if the Law of Nations was written recently instead of over 250 years ago. As for "naturel", Vattel didn't use that word in that form.

He used "Les naturels", plural. That is a noun and means "the naturals" which can only imply the natural something or other. The implication is "inhabitants". That translates as "the natives".

Les indigenes translates as the indigenous population. "Citizen" is not connected linguistically to either because they relate to a country, -not a nation.

"Citizen" only relates to nations since it is a legal concept while the others are natural concepts.

It seems self-evident that the French used adjectives as nouns by dropping the implied nouns that they were naturally associated with in the common vernacular.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Bob Quasius posted this comment over at Café Con Leche Republican:

“It really doesn’t matter whether Rafael Cruz overstayed a visa or bribed his way out of Cuba. Ted Cruz’s citizenship derives from his mother’s citizenship. Though not a citizen via the 14th amendment, Ted Cruz nevertheless was born a citizen which also makes him a natural born citizen.”

Here is my response:

bquasius,

While all "natural born citizens" are born citizens, not all born citizens are "natural born citizens." The only born citizens who are "natural born citizens" are the ones who satisfy the requirements of the common law from which the Framers got their definition of a "natural born citizen." Minor v. Happersett (1875); U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1875). That common law 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. Satisfying a later-enacted Congressional naturalization act, while allowing one to be a born citizen through naturalization at birth, does not make one a "natural born citizen." To allow such a Congressional Act to define who may be a "natural born citizen" would be tantamount allowing Congress to amend the Constitution through a statute rather than through the required Article V constitutional amendment and thereby allowing naturalized citizens to be “natural born citizens.” Such a maneuver would read the “natural born citizen” clause right out of the Constitution and render it surplusage when compared to a “citizen of the United States” at birth. We do not expect Congress by statute to change the 35-year age and 14-year residency requirements by statute. We should also not expect it to change the meaning of a "natural born Citizen," which is the other eligibility requirement found in Article II, Section 1, Clause 5. Nor should we expect Congress to have the power to take the “natural born citizen” clause out of the Constitution by passing a naturalization act.

Ted Cruz was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and a non-U.S. citizen father. Hence, he was not born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of his birth. Still, by the grace of Congress, he became a “citizen of the United States” at birth under a naturalization Act of Congress. But for the foregoing reasons, he is only a naturalized “citizen of the United States” at birth, not an Article II “natural born citizen.”

Stranger said...

Mario, the Bob Quasius comment is not a statement of logical conclusion but one of dogmatic faith. How do you disabuse one of their faith? Words can't do it. It seems that nothing can.

But debunking such bunk is almost mandatory because otherwise it stands unrefuted and unopposed as if everyone agrees with its nonsense.
I find myself feeling obligated to debunk both of your faiths but support your effort to decimate the falseness of their embraced position which distorts logic and fact with far more baseless presumption than you do.

At least you adhere to a basis for your belief. They just make a giant leap from A to Z with no logical bridge in between.

You go wrong (and for no good purpose) in marrying soil and blood, -law and life. The two systems can't be married by any logic when you get the historical fact straight.
Is a Native American mother's child an alien to her tribe if not born within the boundaries of tribal territory? Does natural membership (like natural citizenship) not exist?
The simple fact is that the words that John Jay wrote were not an invoking of a term of art but simple common words which make perfect sense by their common meaning.
You cling to the dogma that they must be defined in a manner other than the meaning of their words and yet there is no precedent for such a belief. Who, before 2008, ever heard of the dogma that combines soil and blood as the authoritative meaning of what a natural citizen is?
Am I forgetting something or someone because I can't recall any answer to that question? In fact, I can't recall the question ever even being asked. So now I'm asking it. Please give some history as to where it first came into public literature. A. Nash

MichaelN said...

@ Stranger

Vattel was very popular with and very influential to the Framers.

No matter how much you try to pick and play with the French words, this is the part that matters, where the "naturels" are those who are NATIVE BORN IN THE COUNTRY OF WHICH THEIR PARENTS ARE CITIZENS.

Here, Vattel in French....

"Les naturels, ou indigenes, sont ceux qui son nes dons les pays, de parents citoyens....."

What is absurd, given the Framers and Founders imperative to exclude foreign influence, is the notion that the Framers and Founders would have settled for anything less than the highest possible allegiance to the US as qualities required for eligibility for the office of POTUS, no matter how those qualities were described/worded.

Birth to a US citizen only, i.e. without native birth in the country of the parents' citizenship, fell short of achieving the imperative of requiring the highest possible allegiance as eligibility for the office of POTUS.

There is no sound reason for the Framers to settle for anything less.

Stranger said...

Michael wrote:
"Birth to a US citizen only, i.e. without native birth in the country of the parents' citizenship, fell short of achieving the imperative of requiring the highest possible allegiance as eligibility for the office of POTUS."

A. Nash replies:

You don't get to make such a baseless and illogical statement and then back it by nothing from the real world. THE REAL WORLD is not where your dogma comes from because in the real world babies have nothing on Earth to do with your non-republican concept of "allegiance".
Ask yourself this question (and be sure to not stop asking it until it is logically answered):

How does an event that took mere minutes to occur, (movement from womb to world) is not remembered by any person on earth, imparts nothing to any soul, mind, or heart, somehow become a major factor in how one feels about their nation?
America has tens of millions of natural citizens who has no attachment to their nation at all. Where is the "native-birth" induced allegiance? Where???

Native-birth induces no allegiance, and apparently you are unaware that the only allegiance that concerned the framers was that directed to the Constitution. And THAT has nothing to do with native-birth.

Where in any oath of office is there any expression of allegiance, protection, or defense of the nation, or it government?

Such attention in federal oaths of office, including that for military officers, does not include such allegiance.
It never has and never will. America is and was different from its very inception.

All allegiance is to the CONSTITUTION, and the sons of American Ambassadors (and future Presidents serving as such) were, in effect, proclaimed to the nation and the government in the 1790 Act to be in fact natural born citizens of the United States just like their domestically born brothers.

Please explain how their allegiance to the Constitution was racked with disloyalty.
Explain how their devotion was any less firm and unwavering.
Explain how they could be loyal to the Constitution and to a foreign King simultaneously.

Explain from what source would come loyalty to any foreign King when Americans do not bow to kings nor recognize their legitimate moral authority.

Explain how the American Ambassador to any other nation would raise his foreign-born son to have feelings of loyalty to the government or King or nation on whose soil he happened to have exited the womb.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger/Adrien Nash,

I of II

You do present quite a confused landscape of the "natural born Citizen" clause. Unfortunately, your confusion leads to your error in how you interpret the clause.

As I have already explained in my briefs to the courts and on this blog, the clause "natural born citizen" is a word of art, an idiom, a unitary clause. It has been such for millennia. The concept of the clause can be found in both ancient Greek and Roman law. The exact clause "natural born citizen" can be found in ancient Roman Latin text translated into English. These are books which the Founders most likely read. The clause has always meant born in a country to parents who were its citizens.

Vattel wrote in French in Section 212 of his, The Law of Nations (1758), "Les naturels, ou indigenes," two terms to which he gave the same meaning and which he therefore used interchangeably. But what is controlling for our purposes is how he defined those two terms in French. Without any doubt he defined them as born in the country to citizen parents. This definition matched the definition of a "natural born citizen" which had already existed for millennia in Greek and Roman thought. So, the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers, many who were fluent in French, knew that Vattel was referring to the "natural born citizens" when he wrote "[l]es naturels, ou indigenes," and when he defined those terms as children born in the country to citizen parents.

Furthermore, the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers could read and understand the rationale that Vattel gave as to why a "natural born citizen" is that citizen best geared to preserve the civil society of which he or she is a members and its chosen government. We know that John Jay recommended to then-General George Washington in his famous letter of 1787, so that foreign influence be kept out of the administration of government (he asked for a "strong check" on foreign influence), that the Office of Commander in Chief of the Military devolve upon no one but a "natural born citizen." We also know that Washington agreed and thanked him for the "hint" and shortly thereafter, the Constitutional Convention removed "citizen" and replaced it with "natural born citizen" as the citizenship standard to be met by future Presidents and Commanders. We also know that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers were ardent students of natural law and the law of nations. Vattel's rationale, included in treatise on natural law and the law of nations, as to what a "natural born citizen" was and why he or she was important to best preserving the society and the country satisfied the Framers' thirst for doing what natural law and the law of nations dictated, and their need to keep foreign influence out of government as Jay had recommended. Hence, Vattel did not only confirm for them the concept of a "natural born citizen," but also gave them the underlying source and reasons for wanting to require that future Presidents be "natural born citizens."

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

The best contemporaneous evidence that exists that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers relied upon Vattel and his definition of "[l]es naturels, ou indigenes," is 1797 anonymous English translation of Vattel's French text. The Constitution had already been adopted in 1787 and ratified in 1789. The clause "natural born citizen" as prominently displayed for the whole world to see. Even though there is no recorded debate in the Constitutional and ratifying conventions on the meaning of a "natural born citizen," it is not possible that the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers did not discuss the meaning of the clause. The general population of the time would have been talking about what a "natural born citizen" was. After all, being the President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the new United States of America, which had defeated England in a war, was no small thing. It is only natural that the American and European people would have commented on the requirements to fill those offices, especially given that most of the countries in Europe were lead by hereditary monarchs. So, that English translator lived during a time that he would have learned from where the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers obtained their definition of a "natural born citizen." And it is most telling that the translator decided to produce another English edition of Vattel, this one in 1797, which specifically inserted the "natural born citizen" clause into Section 212 of his The Law of Nations and did not make any other significant changes to the previous English translations. It is also significant that the 1797 English translation was published in London and not in America, for the translator would also have had the benefit of learning the intellectual underpinnings of the English environment as it related to defining a "natural born citizen."

The English translator would have had no reason to surgically remove "indigenes" and replace it with "natural-born citizens" other than to show that the clause "natural born citizen," as it then existed in the American Constitution and which was associated with the most important Offices of President and Commander in Chief of the Military of the United States of America, got its definition from Vattel, and therefore, Vattel needed to be credited with not only mentioning the clause, but also defining it.

Also, the translator chose "natives, or natural born citizens" as the translation and sequential order of "[l]es naturels, ou indigenes," because both terms were in common use in America and "natives" and "natural born subjects" were in common use in England and meant the same thing. "Natives" introduced the citizenship status in common language (hence it was first in the order), and "natural born citizen" (not "natural-born subject" because the American Revolution replaced "subject" status with "citizen" status) followed and qualified the former because that phrase was the technical term used not only in a legal sense, but also in the Constitution and the new America (hence it was the second in the order).

Stranger/Adrien Nash, I hope that what I have presented to you helps you sort out all the confusion surrounding the true Constitutional meaning of an Article II "natural born Citizen."

Stranger said...

Mario wrote: You do present quite a confused landscape of the "natural born Citizen" clause. Unfortunately, your confusion leads to your error in how you interpret the clause.

obama--nation.com / A. Nash replies:

That response is a total cop-out. It completely fails to counter the things that I pointed out, nor even addressed them. That is because to address them would confuse you to your core.
Your clarity is false clarity resulting from a broad-scale doctrine that is founded on false assumptions. It is impossible to arrive at correct conclusions when the very premises of one's hypothesis are fictitious.

You know full well that nothing I have written is confusing in any way. It just minimizes the sphere of authority that you rely on to fabricate the zeitgeist that you have embraced like a religion.

Your root problem is the total denial of the reality of natural citizenship via natural law, -by inheritance, -by the Right of Blood. NOT the legal right of soil combined with the Right of Blood.
You cannot refute it head-on and so instead you simply ignore it and endlessly belabor your invented theory. But your theory does not exist anywhere in history.

No nation has ever embraced a doctrine that combined natural law with human law. It is either one or the other since they are completely unrelated.
There is no historical precedent for combining both soil and blood as the basis of citizenship.
You claim that the Romans adhered to it but that is not true. They adhered to natural citizenship via descent, although they may have been confused during some periods the same way that the British were.

What nation can you show ever permanently had statutory law mandating both soil and blood in order for natives to be recognized as natural citizens? And what nexus would such a nation have to the United States? None.
Natives are not dependent on government nor laws for their natural membership in their country because they are born with it regardless of national boundaries extant when born.
They constituted 98% of the nation when they wrote the Constitution and they were all natural born citizens of their home State.

Stranger said...

Mario wrote: "natural born citizen" is a word of art, an idiom, a unitary clause. It has been such for millennia."

obama--nation.com / A. Nash replies:

Problem: I, with equal authority, can claim that that is utterly false; -that the words have always meant what their everyday usage implies; that any translation is an inaccurate perversion unless those three words are found in the original language.

"The concept of the clause can be found in both ancient Greek and Roman law."
The concept can also be found in the imagination and warped to conform to an unsupported doctrine. What you really mean is that your interpretation of the concept can be found... -but that is unprovable unless you can read the minds of the long dead.

"The exact clause "natural born citizen" can be found in ancient Roman Latin text translated into English."
I'll believe you, but it does not follow that your grand presumption that the ancients included native-birth as requisite is something more than a leap of imagination unsupported by anything.
Mario, when are you going to be honest and state for the record that your assumptions are simply assumptions based on your embraced doctrine?
"Without any doubt he defined them ("Les naturels, ou indigenes,") as born in the country to citizen parents."

What? "without ANY doubt"? I have no doubt whatsoever that he did no such thing, and have revealed the truth in half a dozen lengthy expositions (none of which you have attempted to address or refute point by logical point).

It very disingenuous of you to assert an unquestionable quality of certainty where none exists.

"~and their need to keep foreign influence out of government as Jay had recommended."

When are you going to explain how foreign influence imposes itself into the minds of American Ambassadors' children who are born abroad during their service and are raised and schooled by an American mother and teacher?
When are you finally going to cease the nonsense of equating having an alien father with the irrelevant incidental momentary event of exit from the womb?

MichaelN said...

@ Stranger

To an individual, their place of birth is important to them.

It's only natural they have to some degree an allegiance to that place.

But the parents and or the nation which they are citizens of, if non-citizens to the place of birth, still demand allegiance to their "homeland", so then the individual has divided allegiance which may give birth to conflict.

The requirement for both birth-place allegiance and the parents' allegiance to the people and nation of that birth-place, as a measure to exclude as much as possible foreign influence and/or claim from bearing on POTUS, makes absolutely proper and sound common-sense in the circumstances of the Framing period.

USC Article II "natural born Citizen" describes one born in the US to US citizen parents.

Live with it.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger/Adrien Nash,

I of II

You said: “No nation has ever embraced a doctrine that combined natural law with human law. It is either one or the other since they are completely unrelated.”

Again you are wrong. Vattel in Section 215 of the same treatise explained:

“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. By the law of nature alone, children follow the condition of their fathers, and enter into all their rights; the place of birth produces no change in this particular, and cannot of itself furnish any reason from 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.”

Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758).

As a result of this natural law and positive law reality of nations, Vattel gave the law of nations definition of a “natural-born citizen” thus:

“The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound by this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The native, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

Vattel, Section 212.

You will note from the plain language in Section 212 that Vattel included, not only birth to citizen parents, but also “born in the country” as a necessary factor to be met in order for one to be a “natural born citizen.”

But Vattel gave further evidence of the need that one be “born in the country” in order to be a “natural born citizen.” In Section 217 he explained that “children born out of the country in the armies of the state . . . are reputed born in the country, for a citizen, who is absent with his family on the service of the state, but still dependent on it, and subject to its jurisdiction, cannot be considered as having quitted its territory.” Here, we can see how Vattel explained that those foreign-born military children were also accepted as “born in the country.”

Vattel’s Section 212 definition of a “natural born citizen” was also accepted by the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875), where the Court paraphrased him definition. U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) also cited and quoted Minor’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” and did not criticize it as incorrect for including either place of birth or citizen parents.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

You also asked: “What nation can you show ever permanently had statutory law mandating both soil and blood in order for natives to be recognized as natural citizens? And what nexus would such a nation have to the United States? None.”

Your question raises two straw man arguments. First, U.S. statutes do not create the right to be a “natural born citizen.” Rather, it is satisfying constitution American national common law that does. See Minor and Wong Kim Ark. Second, U.S. naturalization statutes create U.S. citizens based on either jus soli (born on U.S. soil) or jus sanguinis (born to U.S. citizen parents). These laws have never required both in order to be naturalized at birth or after birth.

But what is also true about these statutes, which date back to 1790, is that the only child that Congress has not ever had to act upon with its naturalization powers has been a child born in the United Stated to U.S. citizen parents. Indeed, these are the “natural born citizens” and that is why neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor any Act of Congress has ever had to grant to them any U.S. citizenship right at birth or after birth, for they obtain their right to be “natural born citizen” from American common law that predated the Constitution but was incorporated into it at its passage and ratification.

So, as we can see, being a “natural born citizen” is not only a function of natural law, but also of positive law. Vattel accepts this fact by giving us a definition under the law of nations which included place of birth as a necessary factor of being a “natural-born citizen.” If place of birth did not matter as you allege, Vattel would not have included it as part and parcel of the definition of a “natural-born citizen” and also would not have gone through the trouble to give us examples which show the legal fiction that even though physically born out of the country, a military child or other qualifying children are reputed born in the country. Our Congress and U.S. Supreme Court have always accepted the Vattel principles of being a “natural born citizen.” So, not only being born to citizen parents, but also being “born in the country” is necessary to be a “natural born citizen,” which means that both conditions are the necessary and sufficient conditions of being a “natural born citizen.”

You are simply wrong.

ajtelles said...

Dittos...

Mario, you comments to 'Stranger/Adrien Nash/obama-nation' about soil and birth require accepting the common sense original intent of the original birthers that 'soil AND birh' definitely go together like hand in glove.

For example, a birth MUST take place on the soil that is there BEFORE a birth can take place on THAT soil.

So the obvious original intent of the original birther John Jay when he suggested to George Washington that adding the word 'natural' to Alexander Hamilton's words 'born citizen' was U.S. soil, NOT foreign soil.

Does Adrien have an original intent comprehension issue that he is defending with such shallow analysis and definitions about soil and birth?

It is curious that he defends what is shallow and ridicules the original intent of the original birthers.

It reminds me of what I heard a theology professor say when he commented on a discussion about a certain theological issue.

One of the professors was minoring on the major issue and the other professor was majoring on the minor issue, and neither professor was majoring on the major issue.

Mario, in your comments to Stranger/Adrien it is obvious to this common sense original intent truth spotter that you are the professor who is majoring on the major issues and Stranger/Adrien insists on majoring on a minor issue.

Mario, you are obviously a very patient common sense original intent professor.

Since Stranger/Adrien did not answer my common sense original intent question about which soil did John Jay intend, U.S. soil AND foreign soil, I picture myself sitting in class while listening to a back and forth from the tenured professor and a student who thinks he as caught the professor in a cul-de-sac of thought.

- - - - - - - - - -

Mario, I was reading some of your previous posts and found a previous common sense original intent question that you posted on Thursday, December 16, 2010 -

"Would the Founders and Framers Have Allowed the Son of a British “Natural Born Subject” Father and U.S. Citizen Mother To Be President and Commander in Chief of the United States in 2009?"

You begin the post, "Sometimes it helps to break down a problem into its simple form in order to understand it better. Consider this."

It is an excellent, focused, succinct example of the common sense original intent of our original birthers.

Hopefully Stranger/Adrien will accept the major theme of your scenario where you "break down a problem into a simple form" so that he can focus his intellect on the major themes of the original birthers who were the original authors of 'natural born Citizen' and who intended it's perpetual existence from generation to generation, election to election, POTUS to POTUS.


Art
OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com

MichaelN said...

@ Stranger.

Native-born, and in your father's chosen place and nation community.

Stranger said...

MichaelN wrote: To an individual, their place of birth is important to them. It's only natural they have to some degree an allegiance to that place.

A. Nash replies:

That is not a universal truth, -as is revealed by the attitude of millions of gang members whose only allegiance is to their peers.

Also, you fail to grasp the proper context of 1787. The place of one's birth to which one "owed allegiance" was the individual American colony or nation / State in which they were born and raised.

What united the soldiers of the Revolutionary War was not national patriotism but national hatred and rejection of tyranny. They were not fighting for a nation other than their own homeland (colony / state).

"the nation which they are citizens of, if non-citizens to the place of birth, still demands allegiance to their "homeland", so then the individual has divided allegiance which may give birth to conflict."

Why are you wearing your thinking cap backwards? Babies have no allegiance to anything. Adults have no allegiance to anything other than that to which they are attached.

"Divided allegiance"? Divided by nothing since allegiance that isn't felt is allegiance that doesn't exist. How can you mischaracterized what allegiance even is? It's devotion. Loyalty.

You claim that nations of native birth place a claim on all souls born on their soil but that is irrelevant and highly questionable as being true or justifiable since it violates the law of nations.

The children belong to the father and he belongs, along with them, to his own nation. During the Civil War, native-born children of foreigners (immigrants) were in the category of "Aliens", and couldn't be drafted, and that was the reciprocal attitude of foreign nations toward foreign-born Americans. obama--nation.com


Stranger said...

Mario, your delusion has its roots in the mistranslation of these words:
"The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens.”

It's accurate except for the unjustified insertion of the completely unrelated term "natural born citizens".

The correct translation is: The natives, or indigenous population...

"les indigenes" does NOT translate accurately as anything other that what I've already pointed out to you: "the indigenous population (or peoples)"

Without "natural born citizen" improperly inserted where it does not belong, your whole dogma evaporates since it is established entirely on that one mistranslation.

What if it had been translated as: "indigenous peoples, or population" or "indigenous citizens" where would your orthodoxy be then?

Tell us this: without any reference to the mistranslation of Vattel, on what natural law logic does your doctrine stand?

Answer: NONE. The Apuzzian doctrine is not founded on Natural Law but on a Frankenstein monster that stitches together the Natural Law of blood and the dirt-based doctrine of the supremacy of man-made borders.

Like I said, there is no nation that has ever combined the two in regard to its individual citizens until Donofrio and/ or you came up with this invented idea.

Just name one. I won't hold my breath because that is a challenge that you will fail. No such nation exists nor ever has existed. You've fabricated a fiction of law that is pure fiction and not of law at all. A. Nash obama--nation.com
~~~
"There was little or no concept of being Italian at the time. You either were or were not a Roman citizen - and you could be a citizen wherever in the Empire you were born."

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger/Adrien Nash,

You claim that I made up the definition of a “natural born citizen.” I do not believe that the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor v. Happersett (1875) would be happy with your comment. As we all know, Minor did not look to the Fourteenth Amendment to find Virginia Minor not only a "citizen," but also a "natural born citizen." Without the aid of that amendment, here is what it said:

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

U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) cited Minor and quoted this exact definition. The dissent also accepted this definition of the clause. The majority did not reject the definition in any particular when interpreting and applying the Fourteenth Amendment.

This definition is a paraphrase of Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen” found at Section 212 of The Law of Nations (London 1797) (1st ed. Neuchatel 1758).

So where do you get that I invented the definition?

On the contrary, this is the definition of a “natural born citizen” as confirmed by both a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor and later the majority and dissent in Wong Kim Ark. Both state and federal courts are bound by this supreme law of the land. Current state courts have violated their state constitutions and the federal Constitution and federal courts have violated the federal Constitution when they ignored this settled constitutional law when deciding the question of Obama’s eligibility to be President.

ajtelles said...

Silly...

Mario, why do some people write such silliness?

"The Apuzzian doctrine
is not founded on Natural Law
but on a Frankenstein monster
that stitches together
the Natural Law of blood and
the dirt-based doctrine of
the supremacy of man-made borders."

Such 'blood and the dirt' nonsense would be laughed at and ridiculed by original birther John Jay and original birther George Wshington, as well as ALL of the delegates who accepted and adopted the U.S. Constitution on September 17, 1787 at the Constitutional Convention who knew that 'natural born Citizen' was ONLY a reference to being born on U.S. soil with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents.

Maybe Stranger should simply write a posthumous letter to the original birthers about their '...dirt-based doctrine of
the supremacy of man-made borders" and be done with such silliness.

But, then again, without wild opinions having free expression, we common sense original intent defenders of the original birther document of America, the U.S. Constitution, specifically Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5, would not have something to respond to with deeper insight as to the common sense of the original intent of the original birthers who thought that U.S. soil was AS important as birth on THAT U.S.soil.

So, I guess, THAT is the silver lining on our friend, yes, our friend, Stranger's drizzle cloud of thought that would not be accepted as credible in a court of law just as it is not accepted as credible in this court of public opinion.


Art
OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com

Stranger said...

Mario writes: "U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898) cited Minor and quoted this exact definition. The dissent also accepted this definition of the clause. The majority did not reject the definition in any particular when interpreting and applying the Fourteenth Amendment.

This definition is a paraphrase of Vattel’s definition of a “natural-born citizen”

A. Nash challenges: prove that what you are talking about is an actual "definition" and only after you have failed to do that can we talk about truth and reason.

I invite you to study the subject: "the definition of definition" at wikipedia but warn you that you won't like what you find because it destroys your whole little legal fiction world regarding the facts about Vattels description.

No doubt you are not inclined to have your little legal theory about the nature of natural citizenship destroyed and so you will avoid studying that about which you clearly know nothing, -namely, what a definition is and what it isn't.

I've illuminated the subject in numerous expositions; you have illuminated the subject in zero. So exactly why should anyone take anything you say seriously regarding the most important definition of all? They shouldn't because it is a subject which you are psychologically unprepared to comprehend.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

We have this comment to me from Slartibartfast at Cafe Con Leche Republicans:

"Nice change of pace, Mario—a “God of the Gaps” argument. You know perfectly well that several courts have recognized President Obama’s birth in Hawai’i (based on various evidence) and at least two secretaries of state have requested and received confirmation of the facts on LFBC from the Hawai’i DoH (which they seem to feel ended the matter).

While no court may ever utter the “magic words” that you are petulantly demanding, anyone who’s gotten a law degree and passed the bar has to understand that if a court was presented any evidence regarding President Obama’s place of birth and it was challenged that the court would simply ask Hawai’i for verification (which the Hawai’i DoH has shown the willingness to do for secretaries of state, the Hawai’ian legislature, the President of the United States, and ANYONE VISITING THIER WEBSITE) and that would be the end of it. Your desperate clutching at such a feeble argument which you must know is doomed to failure in the end is pretty pathetic, don’t you think?"

And here is my response to our legal scholar:

"Slartibartfast,

Your effort to change the standards of what is evidence in a court of law is pathetic. Either the competent evidence is in the record or it is not. Obama never introduced any competent evidence of his place of birth to any court. If he did, cite what that evidence is.

Under Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of our Constitution, anyone wanting to be president must conclusively prove that he or she meets that article's eligibility requirements for that office one of which is that he or she be a "natural born citizen." The Founders and Framers inserted that clause into the Constitution for the purpose of best preserving the life, liberty, and property of the people who under the new Constitution created the new constitutional republic.
If Obama was not born in the United States, he would not even qualify as a "citizen" under any Act of Congress, let alone "natural born citizen" under the Constitution, for his U.S. citizen mother was too young to transmit her citizenship to him when he was born in 1961.

Again, Obama may very well be born in Hawaii. My point is that he never conclusively proved that fact within the context of the many legal challenges to his eligibility. He never provided competent evidence of that fact to a court of law which under our constitutional form of government is supposed to be the people's judge to whom the people have given their trust to fairly and justly resolve controversies presented to it. Surely, the people deserve to know whether a person is constitutionally eligible to be their President and Commander in Chief of the Military. That is a question which under our Constitution our courts are highly competent to answer when presented to it in a case or controversy. The only thing that keeps our society a civil one is the rule and process of law. To turn a blind eye to the rule of law for purposes of political or personal convenience is a grave violation of the trust of the people.

So why do you not fill in the missing gaps for us and provide for us a list of what competent evidence of his place of birth was presented to any court in which Obama was challenged on his eligibility. You can use your Birther Scorecard to help you.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger, Adrien Nash,

I of II

I do not see the problems that you claim exist with my saying that our nation does, indeed, have a definition of the clause, "natural born citizen." I have provided that definition as found in the historical and legal record. For example, see Vattel; Minor; and Wong Kim Ark. That definition is a child born in the United States or its jurisdictional equivalent to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth.

Let us analyze why my definition of the clause is a valid definition.

Definition of definition (n)

Bing Dictionary

def·i·ni·tion [ dèffə nísh'n ]
meaning of word: a brief precise statement of what a word or expression means, e.g. in a dictionary act of defining word: the act or process of defining what a word or expression means, e.g. in writing a dictionary clarification: the act of describing or stating something clearly and unambiguously
Synonyms: meaning, description, explanation, classification, characterization, designation, delineation, demarcation."

I do not see any problem with saying that the description, explanation, classification, characterization, designation, delineation, and demarcation that I have provided is, in fact, the definition of a "natural born citizen."

I submit that it is a valid definition of a "natural born citizen" for these reasons which I borrow from the Wikipedia article which you say I am not intellectually capable of understanding.

My definition provides only one sense and one meaning. That sense is limited only to children who who are born in the country to citizen parents.

The Founders', Framers', and Ratifiers' intent is conveyed by the description. The elements of the definition gave to the Founders and Framers what they needed in order to make sure foreign and monarchical influence were kept out of the Offices of President and Commander in Chief.

Being an intensional definition, it contains necessary and sufficient conditions that are commonly understood, i.e., born in the country to parents who were its citizen at the time of the child's birth.

Is is a precising definition, for it includes persons who qualify and excludes persons who do not qualify for the special birth status of "natural born citizen."

It is a legal definition, as the clause it defines is contained in the Constitution and the definition creates rights regarding the Offices of President and Commander in Chief of the Military.

It is also an ostensive definition, for once a "natural born citizen" is defined, the whole world will agree that such a person so described is a "natural born citizen."

It is also an enumerative definition, for it tells us what persons are included and excluded from being a "natural born citizen."

The definition that I provide is not circular, unlike the Obots' definition which is a "natural born citizen" is a born citizen. Even though the definition oontains the word "citizen," it is not circular because we can readily come to understand what a "citizen" is, i.e., simply a member of American society who is given the status of "citizen of the Untied States" by the Fourteenth Amendment, Act of Congress, or treaty.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

It is not too broad, unlike the Obots' definition which grants the status of "natural born citizen" to anyone who may be a born citizen, no matter how such status may be obtained. The Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers simply could hot have intended such a broad definition for the special, singular, and all-powerful civil and military office of the President and Commander in Chief. Nor is it too narrow, for a "natural born citizen" as I define one grants that status to the great majority of American citizens.

It is not negative, unlike the Obots who tell us that all persons who are U.S. citizens and who are not "naturalized" (but denying that there is such a thing as naturalized at birth) are "natural born citizens."

So, I do not see what your point is. Maybe you can clarify it.

Also, in your next post, maybe you can tell us what the definition of "is" is.

ajtelles said...

The 'Wizard of Is'...

President Bill 'Wizard of Is' Clinton knows that the meaning of 'is' is tied to the intent of what is.

Mario, after Stranger gives his definition of 'is,' maybe he can tell the common sense court of public opinion what is the meaning of

"...the Natural Law of blood and the dirt-based doctrine of the supremacy of man-made borders."?

If it is what it is, well, what is Stranger's original intent in separating blood from borders?

Mario, since Stranger/Adrien can not continue our, his and my, point/counterpoint because he will not tell the court of public opinion what his definition of 'original intent' is, maybe he can tell the court what is his definition of 'natural' that original birther John Jay added to original birther Alexander Hamilton's 'born citizen,' and what is his definition of 'natural born citizen' that was adopted by the original birthers at the convention in 1787 who DID see the connection between 'blood and borders' because so many of their friends had died defending their soil with their blood.

Does Stranger/Adrien have an 'original intent' thought that agrees with the original intent of John Jay and Alexander Hamilton?

Just wonderin'.

Art
OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com

ajtelles said...

Confusion...

From a contributor at Independent Voter Network.

>> http://ivn.us/in-declaration/2013/08/13/defining-natural-born-citizen/#respond

"So what defines a “natural born citizen.”

"The answer has not been so simple over the years. "The framers left it fairly vague and up to us to interpret throughout our history, ... ."

[...]

"It should also be noted that under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 4 of the US Constitution, Congress has authority to create law regarding naturalization which includes citizenship.

"So now we know that Congress, under the 14th Amendment, can write legislation declaring what constitutes a natural born citizen."

- - - - - - - - - -

Mario, when I read these kinds of comments, my immediate response is, NO, there is NOTHING 'vague' about 'born' in association with 'natural' and 'Citizen.'

Also, NO, do NOT let the SCOTUS 'define' what is a 'natural born Citizen' unless, ... UNLESS... the SCOTUS adheres to the common sense 'original intent' of the original birthers.


Also, NO, because the definition is right THERE in the sixth word 'born,' "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen at the time ...."

The 'original intent' definition was understood by the original birthers because the ALREADY understood what Vattel had written in The Law of Nations, section 212; they understood natural law and positive law and common law, etc.

What 'born' obviously meant to the original birthers was to be 'born' on U.S. soil of the original 13 colonies AND obviously with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents, NOT 'born' on the foreign soil of England--Canada, NOT 'born' on the foreign soil of Spain--Florida, NOT 'born' on the foreign soil of France--Louisiana, etc., with OR without U.S. born married OR unmarried parents, and with OR without foreign born married OR unmarried parents.

Common sense in 2013 that is informed with common sense about the original intent of the original birthers who were informed by Vattel, the law of nations, natural law, common law, etc.

If the SCOTUS does not adhere to the original intent of the original birthers, the SCOTUS definitely should NOT opine on 'natural born Citizen' and A2 S1 C5.

Art
OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of IV

I just left this comment for “Patrick J. Colliano” at Café Con Leche Republicans:

Patrick J. Colliano,

You are spouting a lot of English common law (which the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers rejected for use on the national level of the new constitutional republic unlike the law of nations which they incorporated expressly into the Constitution) propaganda and other junk on here. I will briefly address all of it through the following:

You said:

“Sorry I haven’t been so prolific of late. As it happens, I’m working on another project related to the very issue we’re discussing. It will go live, soon enough.

***

Stuff and nonsense. Yes, the Northern California District Court ruling (with Judge Morrow presiding) DID affirm Wong Kim Ark’s citizenship relying on the 14th amendment (although he voiced his objections, believing that the citizenship following the parents was more logical and would create fewer problems, but also realized he couldn’t overrule the higher courts).

The Supreme Court did not, however. They relied upon English common law as the means to determine the framers’ intent behind “natural born citizen.” But they did NOT use the 14th Amendment.”

Seeing that your Fourteenth Amendment “natural born citizen” proposition is a loser, now you put forth the bunk that the U.S. Supreme Court in Wong Kim Ark did not rely upon the Fourteenth Amendment to make Wong a “citizen of the United States” at birth, but rather the Court “relied upon English common law as the means to determine the framers’ intent behind ‘natural born citizen.’ But they did NOT use the 14th Amendment.”

A brief look at Wong Kim Ark demonstrates that your long absence from this blog has caused you to lapse into some delusional state of being. Let me help you come back to a state of reality.

In Wong Kim Ark, the Court stated:

“It is conceded that, if he is a citizen of the United States, the acts of Congress, known as the Chinese Exclusion Acts, prohibiting persons of the Chinese race, and especially Chinese laborers, from coming into the United States, do not and cannot apply to him.

The question presented by the record is whether a child born in the United States, of parents 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 by virtue of the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution,

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

Notice the Court said the “question presented by the record.” It did not say that the question was presented by the parties. And it said that that question arose under the Fourteenth Amendment. In other words, the Court raised the Fourteenth Amendment question on its own from the record, not because the parties raised it. The Court even quoted the Fourteenth Amendment’s citizenship clause in full.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of IV

The Court then set out to analyze whether Wong was a “citizen of the United States,” not whether he was a “natural-born citizen.” If Wong was a “natural-born citizen” like Virginia Minor was in Minor, which the unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in Minor defined as a child born in the country to parents who were its “citizens” at the time of the child’s birth, it would not like Minor have needed to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment. Minor demonstrated that we did not need the Fourteenth Amendment to make “natural born citizens,” as they existed under the original Constitution’s common law. In that connection, while Wong was born in the United States, he was born to parents who were aliens and not U.S. citizens. Hence, the Court could not simply rely upon the same common law to which Minor looked when providing the definition of a “natural-born citizen,” i.e., the common law the nomenclature of which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution. Rather, if it was going to find Wong to be a “citizen of the United States” at birth, it had to and did interpret the new Fourteenth Amendment and the controlling aspect of the amendment under the facts of the case, i.e., what the clause’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” meant. The issue of the “jurisdiction” clause was squarely and inescapably in the case because, unlike Virginia Minor’s parents who were U.S. citizens, Wong’s parents were aliens and not U.S. citizens.

The Court then said, like Minor did, that the Constitution could be interpreted under the common law. The Court cited and quoted from Minor, demonstrating how Minor relied upon the “common- law” to define a “citizen” and a “natural-born citizen,” and quoted Minor’s Vattelian definition of a “natural-born citizen.” But since the Court was not interpreting the meaning of a “natural-born citizen,” it did not have to use the same common law that Minor used to define a “natural-born citizen,” i.e., American national common law which had its source in matters of national citizenship in the law of nations and which did not even mention the foreign diplomat or military invader exception. Rather, Wong Kim Ark looked to the English common law which had a much broader view of allegiance than did the American national common law to which Minor looked. Refusing to be bound by “international law” (the Court did not say the law of nations as understood by the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers when they adopted and ratified the Constitution) to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment and its “subject to the jurisdiction” clause as written in 1868 (clearly not construing the “natural-born citizen” clause which was written into the original Constitution in 1787 and as Minor explained was guided in its meaning by “common-law” which given that the definition of a “natural-born citizen” provided by the Court, could only have had its source in the law of nations and not the colonial English common law), it relied upon the colonial English common law, explaining that under that law any person born in the King’s dominion whose parents were friendly aliens and not foreign diplomats, regardless of their citizenship, was a “natural-born subject.” The Court was impressed that this jus soli rule not only prevailed in the colonies, but was adopted “in the United States” (it did not say adopted “by the United States,” showing that the Court meant by the states which are not to be confounded and conflated with the national government) after the revolution and even under the Constitution. (“The same rule was in force in all the English Colonies upon this continent down to the time of the Declaration of Independence, and in the United States afterwards, and continued to prevail under the Constitution as originally established.”) The court concluded that

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

III of IV

under that English common law jus soli rule, a child born in the country to an alien parent was as much a “citizen” as a “natural born” child born in the country to a citizen parent. Clearly, this statement would make no sense unless the Court was referring to “alien parents” and “citizen parents,” both in the plural, for the singular would never give us one class and not also the other. The Court then held, with the aid but not with complete reliance upon the English common law, that any child born in the United States to domiciled and resident alien parents, who were not foreign diplomats or military invaders, was a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment. The English common law, allowing children born in the King’s dominion to aliens who were temporarily passing through his dominion to be accepted as English “natural-born subjects,” did not require that parents be at least domiciled and residing in the King’s dominion. So, the Court, which did include the requirement of domicile and residency in its holding, did not completely rely on that law in framing its holding.

The Court further explained: “Doubtless, the intention of the Congress which framed and of the States which adopted this Amendment of the Constitution must be sought in the words of the Amendment, and the debates in Congress are not admissible as evidence to control the meaning of those words.” Clearly, the clause “natural born citizen” does not appear in the text of the Fourteenth Amendment. But even if the debates on the amendment were to inform us in any meaningful way relative to the “natural born citizen” clause, the only thing they do is show that Congress did not debate the meaning of the clause or that it in any way intended to amend its meaning.

The holding of Wong Kim Ark is consistent with this understanding, for it provided that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” at birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. It did not provide that he was a “natural born citizen” by virtue of the common law to which Minor had looked. The Court, relating back to the “single question stated at the beginning of this opinion” which it raised under the Fourteenth Amendment held that Wong was a “citizen of the United States.” It specifically said:

“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.”

Here, we can plainly see that the Court held Wong to be a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment and did not hold that he was an Article II “natural born Citizen.”

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

IV of IV

So, “Patrick J. Colliano,” you are full of bunk saying that Wong Kim Ark did not rely upon the Fourteenth Amendment to define Wong’s citizenship status. The opinion is full of references to the Fourteenth Amendment and Congress’s debates on the amendment. The Court even explained how Congress cannot through a naturalization act add to or take away from the rights that one may acquire under the Constitution from birth in the United States. You are also full of more bunk saying that Wong Kim Ark “determine[d] the framers’ intent behind ‘natural born citizen.’” There simply was no reason for the Court to analyze what the Framers’ intent was regarding Article II’s “natural born Citizen” given that Wong only had to be a “citizen of the United States” at birth by birth in the United States and without the aid of any naturalization act of Congress, it had to interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment which defined that exact “citizen of the United States,” the amendment made no reference to the “natural born citizen” clause, and the amendment was passed over 81 years after the original Constitution. You are also wrong saying that Wong Kim Ark defined a “natural born citizen” any differently than did Minor and that it relied upon the English common law to define a “natural born citizen,” when the Court used that law to interpret the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” and to find that Wong was a “citizen of the United States” at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment, not that he was an Article II “natural born citizen.”

Mr. “Colliano,” I can’t wait to see the “natural born citizen” project that you will be airing “live” as you state. I hope it will not contain the nonsense which you have written on this blog or maybe I hope that it does so that you will invite me on to demonstrate to the public how wrong you and your Obot coterie are.

ajtelles said...

Original Intent...

Mario, maybe you could bring up the common sense original intent of the original birthers as an original genesis spring board to help Bob Quasius, founder of Cafe Con Leche Republicans, Patrick Colliano, Robert Allen, and et alli to focus on substance and not on their definition of racism simply because BHObama is half black and half white and his Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 eligibility is questioned.

After reading a few of the remarks of Bob Q., Patrick C. and Robert A, NOW I know why you took a toe-to-toe stance on your post against the shallow and silly British common law comments of Patrick Colliano, and the racist comments by Robert A.


I did a word search at the two threads at Cafe Con Leche Republicans, 'Birther Madness' and 'Is Ted Cruz a Natural Born Citizen' and noticed that the two words 'original intent' are NEVER mentioned.

The word 'originally' is mentioned a few times, as is 'original public meaning, and other similar phrases.

Of course, in a positive and substantive way you mention American common law and Vattel's Law of Nations that the original birthers used to inform themselves about soil and birth issues, and which helped them to see the prescience of adding John Jay's single word 'natural' to Alexander Hamilton's 'born Citizen' to define the obvious meaning of 'natural born Citizen' as an explicit reference to being born on U.S. soil with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents.

Obviously, after reading Vatell's 1758 Law of Nations, the original birthers knew in 1787 that, since birth has to take place on the soil of the nation, well, obviously, 'born' in 'natural born Citizen' MUST be a reference to ONLY being born on U.S. soil.

Also, since 'natural' is a reference to 'birth' and not to naturalization by 'oath,' then obviously birth in 1787 America MUST be by the union of two (2) married persons, NOT just two (2) persons living together.

In 1787 America, since the U.S. citizenship status of the husband determined the U.S. citizenship status of the wife and their natural born child, obviously the citizenship status of the child was as a U.S. citizen who was a 'natural born Citizen,' not simply a 'Citizen,' which is what the citizenship status of the child would be if the father naturalized by 'oath' AFTER the child was born on U.S. soil.

Common sense, right?

Since BQ, PC, RA and others do NOT bring up 'original intent' in defining 'natural born Citizen,' maybe original intent would be a good place to start to pick off their Obama truther & birther nonsense comments one by one.


PS. If they try that 'racist' and 'sycophant' shallow rhetoric because of my comments here in support of your common sense original intent emphasis in adducing Emer de Vattel and his 1758 Law of Nations as well as American common law, aka common sense, there is only one 'original intent' response.

Hey, what was the original intent of original birther John Jay in suggesting to original birther George Washington, as president of the Constitutional convention, that Washington should bring to the attention of the delegates at the convention that the word 'natural' should be added to original birther Alexander Hamilton's 'a born citizen' as a way to protect against foreign influence?

Did John and George and Alexander mean ONLY born on 1787 U.S. soil or ALSO born on 1787 foreign soil.

That's a simple question that needs ONLY one simple answer.

U.S. soil, period.

Art
OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com

Stranger said...

"Obviously, after reading Vatell's 1758 Law of Nations, the original birthers knew in 1787 that, since birth has to take place on the soil of the nation,..."
ajtelles, you're wallowing in self-delusion. Where did Vattel say anything other than that a child's nationality is determined by that of the father? That is a claim he made as a certainty.
His observation that the natives of a country are those born of its citizens in their country contains no dogmatic requirement that without the normal happenstance of birth in their parents' land they are aliens.
So your dogmatic statement that "obviously, birth has to take place on the soil..." is not supported by reality nor logic.

",well, obviously, 'born' in 'natural born Citizen' MUST be a reference to ONLY being born on U.S. soil."

No, it must not mean that. Have you no comprehension of what "must" means? It means that the general truth is more than just the norm, it is also a HARD rule allowing no deviation or exceptions.
Please share the hard language that Vattel used to make such a hard rule when he was merely making an observation about social and national reality in general.

There is no such language so you cannot meet that challenge, and yet you embrace it like the voice of God anyway. That is because your dogma has supplanted your logic center, and done so to such a degree that it no longer functions normally.
If it did, you would not believe the thing you believe, nor write the way you write: as in "two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents". That's pure dogma jargon, -beginning with adding "(2)" after spelling out the word "Two" as if one or the other is insufficient, and then capitalizing citizen, and then requiring that they be married.
Here's the simple low-down: a natural American citizen was a child born of an American father and an American mother, whether married or not, or fathered by an American married to a foreign women who was automatically naturalized by marrying him. That's all. That's the sum total of natural law regarding citizenship because the wife and children were a reflection of the head of the family, having one nationality; his.

It was all based on patrilineal descent. Like father, like son, and only sons could be President.
The nationality of wives and mothers was irrelevant unless the mother was an unmarried foreign woman or the American widow of a foreign husband. A. Nash

Stranger said...

"since 'natural' is a reference to 'birth' and not to naturalization by 'oath,' then obviously birth in 1787 America MUST be by the union of two (2) married persons, NOT just two (2) persons living together."

A. Nash replied:
Obviously, if your foundation assumption is wrong, then your conclusion will be wrong also.

Natural is not in reference to "born" but to citizen. The three words are a combination of "born citizen" and "natural citizen". There is no combination of natural and born anymore than there is when using a phrase such as "pretty young woman".

Does "pretty" refer to "young" as in "pretty young" or does it refer instead to woman, as in "pretty woman"?
Your enthusiasm drives your logic to go a bridge too far and in the wrong direction. Dial it back and smell the roses.
As for the original intent; it was that the President never be someone born of a foreign father because foreigners could not be trusted to not embrace dangerous and rejected notions about the role of citizens in regard to their sovereign government.

We are still fighting the loyalists and statists to this day. Only now they are democrats and RINOs who don't believe that the American People are the true sovereigns in America because they think it is the government instead.

see: the new exposition "Of Children & Families; Citizens & Empires" at obama--nation.com

Stranger said...

"that the word 'natural' should be added to original birther Alexander Hamilton's 'a born citizen'"

FYI, Hamilton didn't use those words. He said that the President should be one who was then (before the adoption of the Constitution) a citizen of one of the States or afterward one born a citizen of the united States.
I've never yet come across the use of the phrase "a born citizen" by any of the founding fathers. It's possible that few or none of them ever used it, nor ever had need of using the phrase "natural born citizen" except in reference to the presidency.
As for American soil, it meant nothing to them since their consciousness was suffused with the much loftier concepts of Natural Law and Natural Principles. That fact resulted in rejecting jus soli membership and embracing natural jus sanguinis citizenship in its place.
You want to believe that they insisted that Americans were not Americans unless born on sacred American soil and within sacred American borders which meant squat to them regarding citizenship since it was determined first by State citizenship, and then only by extension was U.S. citizenship obtained.
I ask you to name one other country in world history that maintained an insistence that all of its natural members fulfill the requirements of both jus soli and jus sanguinis.
Don't bother trying to find one. None exist, and that is because that hybrid concept does not exist as a defining principle of citizenship anywhere or at any time.
A. Nash obama--nation.com

ajtelles said...

Alexander Hamilton said...

Stranger/Adrien, you got me!!! OUCH!

Correct, he said "born a Citizen," not "a born citizen."

The point stands.

John Jay added the prescient natural law word 'natural' to Alexander Hamilton's words "born a Citizen."

Natural is a reference to 'born' because BEFORE a person can be designated a positive law 'citizen' a person MUST be a natural law 'born' person with two (2) married parents who are positive law U.S. Citizens BEFORE their natural law child is natural law 'born' on natural law U.S. soil.

- - - - - - - - - -

Wikipedia.org

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

Constitutional Convention

"The Constitution does not explain the meaning of "natural born".[9]

"On June 18, 1787, Alexander Hamilton submitted to the Convention a sketch of a plan of government.[10]

"The sketch provided for an executive "Governour" but had no eligibility requirements.[11]

"At the close of the Convention, Hamilton conveyed a paper to James Madison he said delineated the Constitution that he wished had been proposed by the Convention; he had stated its principles during the deliberations.

"Max Farrand wrote that it "...was not submitted to the Convention and has no further value than attaches to the personal opinions of Hamilton."[12]

"Article IX, section 1 of Hamilton's draft constitution provided:

"No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States."[13]

On July 25, 1787, John Jay wrote to George Washington, presiding officer of the Convention:

'Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of Foreigners into the administration of our national Government, and to declare expressly that the Command in chief of the American army shall not be given to, nor devolve on, any but a natural born Citizen.'[15]

"While the Committee on Detail originally proposed that the President must be merely a citizen as well as a resident for 21 years, the Committee of Eleven changed "citizen" to "natural born citizen" without recorded explanation after receiving Jay's letter.

"The Convention accepted the change without further recorded debate.[16]


A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875

Appendix F has The Hamilton Plan.

>> http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=003/llfr003.db&recNum=620&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A@field%28DOCID%2B@lit%28fr0032%29%29%230030003&linkText=1

Article IX has the phrase,

>> http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llfr&fileName=003/llfr003.db&recNum=632&itemLink=r%3Fammem%2Fhlaw%3A@field%28DOCID%2B@lit%28fr0032%29%29%230030003&linkText=1

“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be new a citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”

- - - - - - - - - -

Soil and birth go together like hand in glove.

Original birther John Jay was prescient in suggesting to original birther George Washington that the natural law word 'natural' be added to original birther Alexander Hamilton's natural law word 'born' in association with the positive law words 'a Citizen.'

Common sense original intent, right?


Art

MichaelN said...

Stranger said...

MichaelN wrote: "To an individual, their place of birth is important to them. It's only natural they have to some degree an allegiance to that place."

A. Nash replies:

"That is not a universal truth, -as is revealed by the attitude of millions of gang members whose only allegiance is to their peers."

Ok, I will make it clearer for you.

To the FOUNDERS/FRAMERS, who were virtually entrusted with securing the new republic, any person's place of birth was important to THEM (i.e. the Founders/Framers).

It's only natural for THEM (i.e. the Founders/Framers)to consider and expect those who were born in and under the protection of the new republic, who were not of the gang mentality, naturally would have to some degree, an allegiance to that place.

It's really simple, to ensure the least chance of foreign influence, persuasion and claim bear upon any US president, to be born in the parents republic was the obvious choice.

The Founders and Framers were not so stupid as some moronic people suggest.

"Home-town boy"

Live with it!

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

I just posted this comment at Café Con Leche Republicans:

Slartibartfast,

You said:

“How many times do you need to be told: VATTEL DIDN’T USE THE WORD “PARENTS”, HE USED THE WORD “PARENS” WHICH MEANT, IN THE FRENCH OF THE TIME, “BLOOD RELATIVES”.
In other words, your argument is based on a mistranslation of your source and your challenge to me is completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.”

Your "parens" argument, i.e., that in Vattel's definition of a "natural-born citizen" "parens" (the French text says “parents” not “parens” as you submit) meant the extended family (what you call “blood relatives”), is absurd given biology, history, and the legal record.

First, children are biologically born to fathers and mothers who procreated them. They are not born to grandparents, uncles, aunts, cousins, etc., who had no direct role in the procreation process.

Second, John Locke, who attacked the validity of the notion of an absolutely powerful male monarch as existing in natural law and the right of divine Kings to rule over their perpetual subjects, only spoke about children being born to their fathers and mothers, treating them both equally when it came to power and influence over their children, and maintaining that children followed the condition of the parents (father and mother) until reaching the age of reason (21 years old then) at which time they were free as their parents to choose, expressly or by tacit consent, what allegiance and citizenship they wanted to live under. Locke never spoke about the children's extended family when using the word "parents" in his works. Rather, when using the word "parents," he only referred to the child's father and mother.

Third, you are taking the word "parens" (“parents”) as written by Vattel in French out of context. In the context in which Vattel used it, he meant father and mother. Read the rest of The Law of Nations and you will see that he speaks about a child being born to a father and mother. For example, Vattel states: “A man ought to preserve gratitude and affection for the state to which he is indebted for his education, and of which his parents [originally written as “parents” in French] were members when they gave him birth.” Section 122. Nowhere does he use "parens” or “parents” to mean a child's extended family or “blood relatives” as you claim.

Locke's works already existed when Vattel first wrote The Law of Nations in 1758. Vattel's definition of a "natural-born citizen" follows directly from John Locke, for he too wrote in Section 212 of The Law of Nations that children followed the condition of their parents (father and mother) until reaching the age of discretion at which time they were free to expressly cast off their allegiance and citizenship inherited from their parents and adopt another one or simply accept it by tacit consent which was the case for most children after reaching adulthood.

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

Fourth, Locke’s and Vattel’s natural law theory of citizenship, along with its positive law requirement of being born in the country, is what the Founders, Framers, Ratifiers, and People adopted for the new constitutional republic, as reflected, in among other sources, in all the early naturalization acts of Congress (1790, 1795, 1802, and 1855) and the words of various U.S. Supreme Court decisions that I have cited and commented upon (e.g. The Venus (Chief Justice John Marshall concurring in 1814), Inglis (1830), Shanks (1830), Dred Scott (Justice Daniels concurring in 1857), The Slaughterhouse Cases (1873), Minor v. Happersett (unanimous U.S. Supreme Court in 1875) , Elk v. Wilkens (demanding in 1884 that a new-born to be a citizen have at the time of birth complete political jurisdiction in and to the country in which he or she was born), and Wong Kim Ark (when confirming in 1898 Minor's definition of a "natural-born citizen").

Fifth, in the citizenship context, historically the law when extending derivative citizenship has always looked to children's fathers and mothers in order for citizenship to descend and required that the interested party establish the biological relationship between them and fathers or mothers and not between any other “blood relatives.” Some countries went, including England at one time, and even today (Italy for example) go as far as the grandparents.

So slartibarftast, it looks like you strike out again.

Stranger said...

A. Nash writes:

MichaelN, let me spell it out for you; loyalty does not develop due to no experience, no memory, and no subjective connection. None of those factors are involved in the involuntary event of a baby exiting its mother's womb at nine months.

Hence your imagined bond to the soil, people, government, borders, King or Parliament where that impossible-to-recall event occurred means nothing to a baby nor to the adult he goes up to be unless his own nation treats him like crap (as would have been the case of slaves only).
But you make an even greater error. You presume, in the absence of ANY evidence, that the founders prescribed in writing the requirement that you are peddling, when they did no such thing.

Where is it written that the President must not only be a natural American citizen but must also be something more (native-born)? NO WHERE.

The framers could have written: NO person except a native-born natural citizen shall be eligible.

THAT would be indisputable proof of your dogma. But they didn't, and the reason that they didn't was because that was not what they required.
All they required was that no President be born (and presumably raised) by a foreigner instead of a Freedom-loving American father.

Why don't you ask yourself this question: "Is a child born in America of naturalized parents (who immediately return to their homeland and raise him there) no different in outlook than the son of an American Ambassador (like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams) who returns to America after his birth and raise him there as a patriotic son of his State & Nation and the U.S. Constitution?"

Which would you rather have as President?
The answer betrays your own position, so maybe it's time for a rethink. Time to consider just how wise (or stupid) the framers were.

Requiring native-birth assures no allegiance whatsoever. It results only from what is instilled by the significant adults in one's life.
And what was foremost on the American list? Was it Patria, Government, or was it the U.S. Constitution?
What do oaths of office focus on? There you will find the answer.

Stranger said...

Nash writes: I left this reply to Startibarftast as Cafe Con Leche Repubs. Being my first post I'm not sure what's supposed to happen but it didn't appear. Hence, here it is:

It's true that Mario's logic is defective, but so is that of Slartibartfast. "the consensus of the last four centuries of jurisprudence is that all children born in the country are citizens of the country, excepting foreign diplomats".
Logical Fallacy: Consensus determines fact. The Earth is flat, consensus agrees....

Jurisprudence? Who is that and where is his writings so that I can read them?
Four centuries? So the American Revolution and over-throw of the British system and monarchy impacted nothing? Something as
fundamental a nationality is not a subject of Natural Law?

Natural Law was not the focus of those who wrote and signed the Declaration of Independence, including..."certain unalienable rights, Nature and Nature's God..."?

The Divine Right of Kings to own every soul born within his dominion continued on in America but instead of being the property of the Crown we became the subjects of the U.S. Government and were not American Freemen who freely created the government as their servant?

All souls born in a former colony belonged to its government and not to their parents as freemen who were the masters of their government?

In the new American nation children did not belong to their parents by natural right nor was their membership in their parents country
via natural right as well (and not via man-mandated government authority based on birth location and borders)?

Such a system is the foundation of totalitarianism, and it showed its mighty hand against the colonist who would take it no longer because they were of a freedom-loving mindset, and not submissive subjects as were their English brethren.

MichaelN said...

@ Stranger

At birth the child knows not parents nor place.

The FRAMERS though, knew that place would impact on the child over time, especially with especially those with parents who were loyal to, and protectors of, that place.


There is NO WAY the Framers would have excluded a certain measure of loyalty to place of birth, as a means of achieving the imperative to secure the most absolute allegiance as possible from those who may be eligible for office of POTUS, achieved simply by excluding, as far as possible, foreign influence, persuasion and claim of any type.

The "home-town boy", son of a nation, "home grown","all American boy", etc. was with absolute and undivided allegiance to the US.

Are you saying that the Framers excluded birth in the US, as a consideration for POTUS security, which was the imperative, i.e. to aim at highest allegiance?

Are you saying that a person who is born in US to alien parents, has the same degree of allegiance to the US, as a person born in US to US citizen parents?

Why would the Framers deliberately exclude such an easily implemented security measure, i.e. place of birth (the PARENTS' PLACE)?

It is an ABSURDITY to suggest or believe the Framers to be "loose" on security criteria for the office of POTUS.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger/Adrien Nash,

I do not understand from your comment how "Mario's logic is defective." Please explain.

Stranger said...

MichaelN wrote: "The FRAMERS knew that place (of birth) would impact on the child over time, especially with those with parents who were loyal to, and protectors of, that place.
There is NO WAY the Framers would have excluded a certain measure of loyalty to place of birth,..."

A. Nash replies:

"Impact"? Just how would that happen if one has no memory nor experience of a foreign land where they happened to have entered the world to parents who were Americans? Please explain the attachment that would have "impacted" a son of Thomas Jefferson, born in Paris while he served as the American Minister to France?

"loyal to, and protectors of, that place." How would such a son be any different from his brothers born in Virginia, all who whom were raised in Virginia by their father the President?

You are holding a fictional perspective. The founders and framers were not flag-waving nationalists. They were strong believers in Christ and the Kingdom of God, or strong believers in Natural Law and the Natural Rights of Man.
Neither is tied to soil or borders or governments, but what devotion was tied to them was not of a national nature unless you accurately understand that each State was a sovereign nation in and of itself in most regards, and retained all authority except the limited powers assigned to Congress.

The founders were not loyalists to the still non-existent central government nor the cobbled together union that it would hold together.
Their support of the union was not a matter of desire or nationalism but of necessity and self-interest since States needed to get along and stand together on the world stage and not stand separately as they did under the Declaration of Independence.
coninued...

Stranger said...

A. Nash writes:

MichaelN inaccurately reads the minds of the founders and attributes thoughts and words to them that they did not have nor write.
They did not write that the President had to possess a strong sense of nationalism for a union that was merely an amalgamation of loose ties in 1787. His perspective is from like the first World War, not the pre-Constitution epoch.
They did not write that he had to be native-born. They did not write that "a natural born citizen" is a "term of art" which they couldn't be bothered to define.

They didn't write that one born a citizen must be born within the borders of the States or the future federal government. Ditto for a natural citizen.
Their choice of common words meant merely that the President must be no one who was not a natural citizen by birth instead of a fiction-of-law natural citizen via the doctrine of citizenship equality.

The Union was built upon the foundation of Free, Independent, and Sovereign States.

“Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States…” Lee Resolution June 7, 1776

“We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, …solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be, Free and Independent States;
...and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do.” Declaration of Independence July 4, 1776

Allegiance was to one's State. The oath of allegiance for naturalization was to the State first and subsequently to the nation of which it was a part, or it may have been firstly to the Constitution.
That is my reasonable supposition. You can try to disprove it if your wish.

Stranger said...

"Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Stranger/Adrien Nash,

I do not understand from your comment how "Mario's logic is defective." Please explain."

Your defective logic is multi-fold.

I explain it all again in a new 4,888 word exposition that I've just now published online.

Of Presidents, Hybrids & “Terms of Art” Fantasies
~or how Presidential Eligibility has been warped by hybrid concepts

It will open your eyes in ways that you will not like, like a mirror held to the face of a has-been glamor queen.

"Let the Truth be revealed though the sky fall."

http://h2ooflife.wordpress.com/2013/10/01/of-presidents-hybrids-fantasies/

Unknown said...

Loren at Fogbow asks:

There have been at least 8 attempts in recent years to amend the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens, such as Arnold Gropinator, to be eligible for the presidency.

But there has never been any attempt to amend the Constitution to specify that citizens who are jus soli only, but not jus sanguinis, may be eligible. Why not?

The reason for that, of course, is that it isn't necessary. If you're born on U.S. soil (jus soli), you're a natural born citizen, regardless of the citizenship of your parents, just as stated by Jack Maskell, by the court in Ankeny, and by nine other courts who have considered the issue since President Obama was elected.

There's a reason why no textbook in any high school, college or law school says you must be jus soli and jus sanguinis, and that's because Wong Kim Ark settled the issue more than 100 years ago.

If the citizenship of your parents is so important, why isn't there any place on a birth certificate for stating that citizenship?

ajtelles said...

Example of original intent ignored...

Original intent, what a concept.

Mario, when the original intent of the original birthers is ignored and not adhered to as the original genesis place to start analysis of the original words, some people say that if a child is

"...born on U.S. soil (jus soli), you're a natural born citizen, regardless of the citizenship of your parents, just as ...."

- - - - - - - - - -

When original birther John Jay suggested to original birther George Washington that to prevent foreign influence over the executive office and foreign control of the military that the natural law word 'natural' should be added to original birther Alexander Hamilton's natural law word 'born' and to Hamilton's positive law words 'a citizen,' did John intend to suggest to George that the phrase 'natural born Citizen' was a reference to ONLY being born on U.S. soil or ALSO being born on foreign soil?

Obviously, a reference to ONLY being born on U.S. soil.

Did John Jay mean to say to George that the positive word 'Citizen' in 'natural born Citizen' was a reference to ONLY being born with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents or to ALSO being born with ONLY one (1) U.S. Citizen parent who was married or not married to a foreign citizen?

Obviously, in 1787 America, John Jay meant that 'natural born Citizen' was a reference to ONLY being born with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents who were U.S. Citizens BEFORE their child was born on U.S. soil.

John Jay and George Washington and ALL of the delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention were NOT confused about the natural law original intent meaning of Jay's word 'natural' and Hamilton's words 'born a Citizen' as a reference to ONLY being born on U.S. soil, so they NEVER discussed the meaning of 'natural born Citizen' before Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 was adopted.

Original intent, what a concept, right'

Original intent, what a way to start to analyze the original words of the original birthers who were the original authors of the 1787 Article 2 Section 1 Clause 5 words 'natural born Citizen' and '...or a Citizen.'

Original intent, what a way to start to analyze the difference between the 1790 Naturalization Act 'natural born Citizen' designation that was repealed by the 1795 Naturalization Act and was replaced with the 'Citizen' designation.

Original intent, what a way for the original birthers to start to '...form a more perfect Union' for themselves and for their posterity... into perpetuity, right?

Original intent, what a way to continue to analyze the original words of the original birthers, right?


Art
OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com

Stranger said...

You are unaware of a reality impacting the issue of native-birth citizenship.
There are institutionalized policies, principles, fictions of law, and opinions. U.S. jurisprudence is full of them. But unfortunately some of them are institutionalized errors.

Failure to grasp that fact reveals that one is still a naive child who thinks that all adults always get everything right, or when then don't they always recognize their error and correct it. Well, my friend, that simply is not the way that it turns out. Some opinions and policies become and remain official institutionalized errors, -and the mindless notion that native-birth citizenship is synonymous with natural citizenship is juvenile stupidity.
The framers of the Constitution could have required that the President be no one except a native-born natural citizen, and yet they didn't. Both sides that insist that they insisted that native-birth was a factor in natural citizenship are blind to reality.
The Wong opinion settled one and only one question: Are the children of alien immigrants Americans if born in America, or do they remain aliens like their father? [Can they be given a different nationality than their father, or must the family have a single unified citizenship?]
The court opined that the amendment naturalizes them from birth, making them U.S. citizens. But the Constitution requires that no citizen except one born a natural citizen be eligible to be President. No child of an alien father can ever be a natural citizen of a nation that is alien to his father whom he takes after.

Adrien Nash obama--nation.com

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

ajtelles,

The totality of the historical and legal evidence demonstrates that the original intent of the "natural born citizen" clause was that it mean a child born in the country to parents who were both citizens at the time of the child's birth. This original intent meaning of a "natural born citizen" became the law of the land, subject to change only by constitutional amendment or a reinterpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court which we know neither of which has ever occurred.

Doublee said...

Mr. Apuzzo:

RE: "This original intent meaning of a "natural born citizen" became the law of the land, subject to change only by constitutional amendment or a reinterpretation by the U.S. Supreme Court which we know neither of which has ever occurred."

Please clarify what you mean by the Supreme Court reinterpreting the definition of "natural born citizen." As far as I am concerned, that is the sad record of the Supreme Court. It has reinterpreted the Constitution out of existence. It has not adhered to original intent.

The only "reinterpretation" that I would accept regarding natural born citizenship is not really a reinterpretation, but a discovery in the historical records that the collective scholarship of legal experts and historians has been mistaken.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

I just left this comment for Slartibartfast at Cafe Con Leche Republicans:

Slartibartfast,

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.). “The interpretation of the Clause in the years immediately following the Constitution’s ratification is the most instructive historical analysis in discerning the original meaning. Indeed, such early interpretation is a “critical tool of constitutional interpretation” because it reflects the “public understanding” of the text “in the period after its . . . ratification.” Noel Canning v. NLRB, ___ F.3d ____ , No. 12-1115 (D.C. Cir. 2013) , http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/D13E4C2A7B33B57A85257AFE00556B29/$file/12-1115-1417096.pdf (citing and quoting Heller, 128 S. Ct. at 2804–05.) Noel Canning informs that in this connection, historical practice is relevant to the analysis. There have been 42 Americans that have served as President (not including Mr. Obama). Ten were born before 1787. Until Martin Van Buren (who was born in 1782 or six years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence) became President in 1837, all the Presidents had been born before 1776 to parents who, undoubtedly, at the time considered themselves to be loyal subjects of one of the Georgian Kings. All Presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur and Barack Obama, met the “natural born Citizen” criteria, i.e., born on U.S. soil to a mother and father who were themselves U.S. citizens at the time of the President’s birth. There have been 46 Americans that have served as Vice-President (not including Mr. Biden). Ten were born before 1787. All Vice-Presidents born after 1787, except for Chester Arthur, met the “natural born Citizen” criteria. Fourteen Vice Presidents have gone on to be President. Maybe that little bit of history explains why no one has questioned the eligibility of persons born in the United States to one or two alien parents to be President.

Concerning Chester Arthur, Attorney Leo Donofrio uncovered that Chester Arthur’s father, born in Ireland in 1818 or 1819, became a “citizen of the United States” after his birth through naturalization in 1843, when Chester Arthur, born on October 5, 1829, when was 14 years old. Leo concluded that Chester Arthur was allegedly born in the United States to a non-U.S. “citizen” father. So, he accepted that Arthur was born in Vermont. On the contrary, Attorney A.P. Hinman did an investigation which showed that Arthur was actually born in Canada. Hinman was not able to convince the public that he was born in Canada. Furthermore, before 1922, when the Cable Act was passed, a U.S. “citizen” woman who married an alien became herself an alien. Under those same prevailing laws, when the husband naturalized, the wife and their children became "citizens" of the United States. With his U.S. “citizen” mother marrying an alien, both of Arthur’s parents were non-U.S. “citizens” when he was born. There is no evidence that I have seen which shows that the public knew he was born to an alien father (and mother) who naturalized when Arthur was 14 years old. So either because he was born in Canada, or because he was born to two non-U.S. citizen parents (one or two), Arthur was not a “natural born Citizen” when he became Vice-President and President.

You say that under my definition of a “natural born Citizen,” Vice-President Spiro Agnew was not a “natural born Citizen.” You are wrong. Agnew’s father’s WWI draft registration has been located in the National Archives. Here is what it shows:

WWI Registration Card 559 A2691
Theodore Spiro Agnew
226 W. Madison St.
Baltimore City, Maryland
Age 40 Birthdate Sept. 12, 1878
Race White
NATURALIZED U.S. CITIZEN
Occupation Restaurant
Margaret M. Agnew, wife (nearest relative)
Registrar’s report
Height medium
Hair black
Eyes black
Build stout
No disabilities
DATE OF REGISTRATION: Sept. 12, 1918

Continued . . .

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

The 1910 census indicates that Agnew’s father was naturalized by the time that census was taken. His wife was born in the United States. Spiro Agnew was born in 1919 which shows that when he was born, both his parents were U.S. citizens. His mother either married a U.S. citizen or automatically regained her U.S. citizenship when her husband naturalized. So, Agnew was born in the United States to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of this birth. That made him a “natural born Citizen” under my definition and therefore eligible to be both Vice-President and President if necessary.

Concerning Obama, even if he was born in the United States (a fact that he did not prove in any court of law), he may be a "citizen of the United States" at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment (the amendment did not exist when Arthur was born in 1829). But that amendment does not grant to anyone "natural born citizen" status. Rather, it is American national common law the nomenclature of which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution which does. See Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S v. Wong Kim Ark (1898). Both Minor and Wong Kim Ark inform that that common law defined a "natural-born citizen" as a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. Obama, being born to a non-U.S. citizen father (before 1922, his mother would also have been an alien since she married an alien), regardless of where he was born, does not meet that constitutional common law "natural-born citizen" test and is therefore not an Article II "natural born citizen."

And nor is Ted Cruz, who was born in Canada to a U.S. citizen mother and non-U.S. citizen father, hence, not born in the United States and not born to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of his birth.

Slartibarfast, you have not been correct with anything you have asserted yet, but you can keep trying.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

Doublee,

Under our constitutional system, the U.S. Supreme Court is the final judicial arbiter and has the final judicial word on the meaning of the Constitution. The Framers made sure to check the power of any one branch of government and so our constitutional republican system of government also includes, in additional to a national executive, the national and state legislatures. And the Framers also gave Congress and the States power over the Constitution. Congress or the States can disagree with the Supreme Court and, following the procedure spelled out in Article V, propose and have ratified an Article V constitutional amendment which nullifies what the Court says. An example is the Fourteenth Amendment which overturned Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) and guaranteed to free blacks and anyone else born in the United States while “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” the right to be members of American civil or political society and enjoy all the privileges, immunities, and rights appertaining thereto by being made eligible to acquire the national character of "citizen of the United States" at birth. Or the Court can reverse itself on a prior ruling like in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) (separate is not equal). But whatever the Supreme Court says stands as the law of the land until either rejected by constitutional amendment or by the Court itself changing its mind.

The supremacy of the Constitution and how it is amended or given a different meaning by the U.S. Supreme Court has great consequences today for the “natural born citizen” clause. A “natural born citizen,” as defined under the original intent of the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers per Minor v. Happersett (1875) and U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), has always been a child born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth. This definition, which is incorporated into the Constitution and is the supreme law of the land, never having been changed either by constitutional amendment or by the U.S. Supreme Court itself, is still the definition of a “natural born citizen” today.

ajtelles said...

Dittos...

Mario, in your response to Doublee posted October 4, 2013 at 2:13 PM you state the 'original intent' that is undeniable and irrefutable by Squeeky Fromm or Jack Maskell and et alii.

You wrote:

"A “natural born citizen,”"as defined under the original intent of the Founders, Framers, and Ratifiers ... "has always been a child born in the country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child’s birth.

"This definition,
"which is incorporated into the Constitution
"and is the supreme law of the land,

"never having been changed
"either by constitutional amendment
"or by the U.S. Supreme Court itself,
"is still the definition of a “natural born citizen” today."

- - - - - - - - -

Mario, because it is irrefutable, maybe THAT is why the ORIGINAL INTENT of the original birthers, aka as you accurately identify as the Founders, Framers and Ratifiers, is NEVER adduced by those that say that a 'natural born Citizen' is anyone

- born on U.S. soil with ONLY one (1) U.S. Citizen parent (14th Amendment--BHObama),

- OR born on foreign soil with ONLY one U.S. Citizen parent married to a foreign citizen (1952 Immigration and Nationality Act--my excellent Texas Senator Ted Cruz),

- OR born on foreign soil with two (2) U.S. Citizen married parents (1795 Naturalization Act).

Original intent, what a concept.

Original intent, what a GREAT place to start to analyze and clarify the original words of the original birthers, right?


Art
OriginalBirtherDocument.blogspot.com

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 3182   Newer› Newest»