Thursday, May 17, 2018

A Response to the Idea of Removing the Natural Born Citizen Clause From Our Constitution

A Response to the Idea of Removing the Natural Born Citizen Clause From Our Constitution

By Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 17, 2018

University of Richmond School of Law Professor Kevin C. Walsh proposes ridding our Constitution of its “natural born Citizen” clause.  See his article, “The ‘Irish Born’ One American Citizenship Amendment,” here . Professor Walsh writes that the original Constitution is not perfect and it is time to change its actual text.  In that connection, he advocates that naturalized American citizens should be eligible to be President.  He states: “There are not two classes of American citizenship, just one. It is time to repeal the Natural Born Citizen Clause.”  People have posted comments to his article and  Professor Walsh addresses them here and here .  I have picked two of the questions and Professor Walsh’s responses for my own comment.  They are: 
1.  Question:  If very few people care much about this amendment, why would anyone sponsor it?
Professor Walsh’s response:  Putting aside the fact that it is good for America generally, uses include: (1) deflection of false “anti-immigrant” accusations based on a lawmaker’s stance against illegal immigration; (2) attraction of votes from naturalized citizens and their friends; (3) rejection of “blood and soil” nationalism.
My comment:  We are supposed to believe without any explanation that this amendment would be “good for America generally.”  To avoid “’anti-immigrant’ accusations,” we are told we need to change our presidential eligibility by getting rid of the natural born citizen clause, a clause that the Framers included in the Constitution for national security’s sake.  We are also told to change our presidential eligibility so that some unstated person or party can garner more votes at the polls.  And the best of all, Professor Walsh tells us that removing the natural born citizen clause will get rid of “’blood and soil’ nationalism” from American politics.  In his actual article, he calls it “’blood and soil’ white nationalism.”  In that article he also says that politicians should be amendable to advocating getting rid of the natural born citizen clause to give the appearance of not being anti-immigrant(“easy inoculation against the virulent accusation of being anti-immigrant”) and not being associated with people who advocate such a bad idea.  His plan for getting the amendment accomplished is for Democrats to set up Republicans to do the job for them.  His scheme is for two-thirds of both Houses of Congress to propose the amendment, led by Republicans who for the sake of winning elections should want to give voters the appearance that they are not anti-immigrant or racists and supported by Democrats who are already on board.  It looks like in Professor Walsh’s world, there should be no problem with “Russian collusion.”  Did it ever occur to Professor Walsh that blood and soil is what makes a nation state and that it is the energy which when used properly keeps people free?   
2.  Question:  What about competing loyalties to country of birth for a candidate who is a naturalized citizen?
Professor Walsh’s response: Let’s remember we’re only talking about eligibility. Presumably voters can decide about allegiance. And there’s no good reason to treat circumstances of birth as a reliable proxy. (The Manchurian Candidate was born in the United States.) With respect to competing loyalties more generally, the naturalization process requires a choice and newly naturalized Americans are akin to converts.
My comment:  What Professor Walsh does not address is the question of whether it is voters or parties who produce our elected leaders.  He should examine why the Framers guaranteed the States a republican form of government and gave us the Electoral College as part of the process for electing our President and Commander in Chief.  If voters without more can in the heat and partisanship of an election be trusted to make the right decision about who shall be the single person to wield not only the executive power, but also all our military power, then why even have a Constitution or even laws?  Will Professor Walsh next be advocating getting rid of our republican form of government and replace it with mob rule?  He states that citizenship is no guarantee of allegiance.  If the natural born citizen clause is to die because it is not a guarantee of loyalty, then why have the age and residency eligibility requirements or any requirements for that matter?  Finally, he tells us that a naturalized person is as loyal as a natural born citizen because naturalization requires “a choice.”  What he fails to tell us is what exactly is that choice and how does it relate to allegiance to the United States. 
Needless to say, I am not impressed with the reasons that Professor Walsh puts forth for justifying his proposal to remove the natural born citizen clause from presidential eligibility and ultimately from the Constitution. The Framers inserted the clause into the Constitution to assure that the constitutional republic would be preserved by requiring that the nation be led in international relations and military combat by a person who had undivided allegiance and loyalty to the United States. For those reasons, the clause is worth preserving.      
While I am at it, I might as well again state what my position is on the meaning of an Article II natural born citizen.  My years of research and litigation in the courts have led me to the conclusion that the definition of a natural born citizen comes from natural law and that under that law, which was codified into the law of nations, a natural born citizen is a child who becomes a member of society (“citizen”) at birth by virtue of his or her birth circumstances alone and therefore needs no positive law to make or deem him or her a citizen.  American common law at the time of the framing of the Constitution reflected this natural law and law of nations understanding.  See Emer de Vattel, The Law of Nations, Section 212 (1758) (1797) ("The citizens are the members of the civil society: bound to this society by certain duties, and subject to its authority, they equally participate in its advantages. The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country, of parents who are citizens"); Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875) ("all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became. . . natives, or natural-born citizens"); accord U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) ("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").
Hence, there are two necessary and sufficient elements in the definition of a natural born citizen under the common law with which the Framers were familiar when they drafted the Constitution and therefore under the Constitution, i.e., (1) birth or reputed birth in the country (2) to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth.  Again, these elements are both necessary and sufficient to make a natural born citizen (place of birth alone is necessary but not sufficient).  Satisfying just one of the elements will not be sufficient for producing a natural born citizen.  This definition is enshrined in the Constitution.  While the 14th Amendment could have changed this definition, it did not.  Nor can any Act of Congress supplant it.  Scholars and professors who have been publishing papers on the meaning of a natural born citizen argue whether place of birth or parentage is necessary or sufficient to make one a natural born subject.  They fail to understand that these two elements are both necessary and sufficient to make one a natural born citizen.  
One other point merits discussion.  New Jersey Administrative Law Judge Jeff Masin, in my latest New Jersey ballot challenges against Senator Ted Cruz, found in 2016 that English and U.S. naturalization Acts were incorporated into and became part of English and therefore U.S. common law and that therefore under that “common law,” a child born out of the United States to two or even one U.S. citizen parent is a natural born citizen. "The more persuasive legal analysis is that such a child, born of a citizen-father, citizen-mother, or both, is indeed a 'natural born citizen' within the contemplation of the Constitution," ALJ Masin wrote. The full decision can be read here:  Reduced, this means that he concluded that birth to one U.S. citizen parent, no matter where that child may be born in the world, is sufficient to make one a natural born citizen.  I objected to this position and holding, arguing that if it were correct that American common law had been so transformed by such statutes and such common law formed the basis of the constitutional definition of a natural born citizen, then all of Congress’s naturalization Acts since the beginning of our nation have been unconstitutional and the U.S. Supreme Court, which has ruled on the meaning of U.S. citizenship and interpreted those Acts throughout the centuries, has gotten it wrong.  The Supreme Court ruled in 1967 in Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967) that the government can expatriate an American citizen only after he or she commits a voluntary act that demonstrates an intent to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship. The Court said: “We hold that the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to, and does, protect every citizen of this Nation against a congressional forcible destruction of his citizenship, whatever his creed, color, or race. Our holding does no more than to give to this citizen that which is his own, a constitutional right to remain a citizen in a free country unless he voluntarily relinquishes that citizenship.”  Id. at 268.  If the Fourteenth Amendment has such power which I agree it does, then, if ALJ Masin is correct, it, along with the Fifth Amendment, can also be used as a basis for arguing that Congress has since the beginning of our nation violated the Constitution by not recognizing the natural born citizen status of all children born out of the United States to one or two U.S. citizen parents.  Neither ALJ Masin nor the New Jersey Appellate Division addressed my observation and objection.
The debate on the meaning of a natural born citizen continues.  It will not end until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on the merits of the meaning of the clause.  In the meantime, we should keep the natural born citizen clause right where it is, in our Constitution.  

Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
May 17, 2018
Copyright © 2018
Mario Apuzzo, Esq.
All Rights Reserved 


Carlyle said...

This is a bit sideways to your main thesis, but I was feeling sorry that no one has yet responded to your excellent new post. So, I am providing the following for your consideration.

According to The Hill:

President Trump on Monday shared a quote from a former Secret Service agent and conservative commentator, Dan Bongino, who slammed former CIA director John Brennan.

“’John Brennan is panicking. He has disgraced himself, he has disgraced the Country, he has disgraced the entire Intelligence Community. He is the one man who is largely responsible for the destruction of American’s faith in the Intelligence Community and in some people at of the FBI.” Trump wrote on Twitter.

“Brennan started this entire debacle about President Trump. We now know that Brennan had detailed knowledge of the (phony) Dossier...he knows about the Dossier, he denies knowledge of the Dossier, he briefs the Gang of 8 on the Hill about the Dossier, which.......they then used to start an investigation about Trump,” the president added.​

“It is that simple. This guy is the genesis of this whole Debacle. This was a Political hit job, this was not an Intelligence Investigation. Brennan has disgraced himself, he’s worried about staying out of Jail.’ Dan Bongino,” Trump said.​

And, remember, this is the same guy, some claim, who destroyed
Obama's passport that showed he is not a US Citizen. Hmmmm.
Do we see a pattern here?

Naw - Just ol' Carlyle being paranoid and reactionary again!!

ajtelles said...

Citizen vs Natural Born Citizen

Hi Mario,

There are many things in your recent post about which to comment, but I'll limit this to one item at this time.

In question #2 paragraph 4 you referenced U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, the SCOTUS positive law statement about "who" is -- not "what" is or "how" one is -- "who" is a U.S. "citizen", the Court's decision which did not negate the Article II Section 1 clause 5 positive law "Citizen" language which can only be based on natural law, specifically the "natural" and "born" language --

Paragraph 4

>> "accord U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898) ("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 1898 even the Supreme Court understood that there is a difference between a "citizen" and a "natural born child of a citizen". One thing that the Court did not do is adequately clarify what they meant with "by operation of the same principle". Would the 1898 Court have agreed with your two points about birth and place and two (2) U.S. citizen parents "at the time of the child's birth" being necessary for a child to be eligible to be president?

If the Court had clarified this point about "citizen" not "natural born citizen" in 1898 of the 19th century, "birthright citizenship" for the children of aliens who make it to U.S. hospitals and "plop and drop" a baby would not be an "issue" issue today in the 2018 of the 21st century.

Your point about being born on U.S. soil/jurisdiction is agreed with by the Court's language, "if born in the country".

However, as to your second point, being born to two U.S. citizens", the 1898 Court obviously was NOT implying that being "the child of an alien", even though "born in the country", is equal to being born to two U.S. citizen parents.

That's why Gov./U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley, Sen. Marco Rubio, Gov. Bobby Jindal, all who were born in the U.S. to two alien parents, do not qualify to be eligible to be president.

My good Texas senator Ted Cruz, born on foreign soil to only one U.S. citizen parent, also is not eligible to be president or vice-president.

A possible very good serendipity if University of Richmond School of Law Professor Kevin C. Walsh's proposal of a constitutional amendment to remove the “natural born Citizen” clause catches fire, it could result in Article V being implemented by "two thirds of the several States" who could "call a Convention for proposing Amendments" to protect the "natural born Citizen" language and maybe clarify your two points, "(1) birth or reputed birth in the country (2) to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth."


rxsid said...

Not only should the natural born Citizen requirement remain as is, but it should be expanded to require all executive branch cabinet members, all SCOTUS justices as well as Speaker of the House and President pro tempore of the Senate be natural born Citizens.

The states should also bring back the requirement for Governor as well.

We live in even more dangerous times than in the 18th century, there is plenty of foreign intrigue out there.

Great to see a new post from you Mario!

Unknown said...

I am glad to see that you are back. I regard the "natural born citizen" clause as very important. Unfortunately Professor Akhil Amar in one of his books on the Constitution goes way off the track even quoting Senator Hatch--Kissinger and Albright are two naturalized citizens who would have made good presidents; Amar tosses out Schwarzenegger as another example! I was born in Nebraska in 1942. Had I been born in another nation my early memories would be very different, possibly even have a different language. I would certainly feel and be less American. Professor Walsh and Amar have failed to check out the role of their early lives and how these influence one's life. We have just recently had eight years of the mystery president. Where he was born, who his parents were, where he went to school?, all those things about which are so clearly documented with the current president. Was he a phantom law student? He seems to have been rather phantom at Columbia. Walsh and Amar would like to be popular with their students is my guess. Amar has some other bad ideas as well--only one senator for low pop. states and popular election for president. The real struggle in America is between policies of wisdom and policies of foolishness.

Unknown said...

Of the 45 Presidents of the USA only two appear to have failed the natural born citizen qualification: Arthur and Obama. [Professor Walsh seems to have a rather immature grasp of loyalty and to be more a politician than a professor of law.] One of the striking things about the whole matter is that of the many who either heard or read the Constitution during the ratification period no one seemed to find any problem with the presidential qualifications. Evidently the phrase natural born citizens was well understood and accepted. The same could be said for the whole of the 19th century. What about those who ran for president but failed? Were any of those unqualified by birth?

Now we have expressions which are probably fading out of use and will eventually puzzle people like ice box. I am currently looking into Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. I wonder what Justice Scalia thought about natural born citizen. Unfortunately we have no dictionaries of phrases from that time period--but the Law Of Nations was almost certainly the source of the expression. I wonder if there was an annotated Constitution published in the 19th century which deals with the phrase which has yet to be turned up? In any case a deeper look into loyalty ought to reveal why the Founders preferred for president a person having two citizen parents and born in the USA. While not a guarantee of loyalty it is superior to having potentially divided loyalties. But just how clear are Americans at this time on the very concept of loyalty? Vows and oaths do not seem to carry the same weight they once did. Marriage vows are regularly tossed aside.

So it would be interesting to know when the phrase natural born citizen slipped out of fairly common knowledge. When did a law student first ask a professor of law what it meant and found the professor uncertain? Strange that anything in the Constitution could just vanish without note.

Kanbun said...

Mario, I always appreciate your comments and analysis on the NBC clause, this being no exception. However, notwithstanding any "continuing debate", it is clear that this subject is essentially no longer an issue - when the establishment and media completely ignored Obama's clear ineligibility, the snowball began to roll and now is (in my opinion) irreversible. Now anybody can run for president, thus this idiot professor's opinion, while seriously flawed in the context of the proper interpretation of NBC, is of no consequence. The Ted Cruz situation being case in point. He literally made up his eligibility, and there were two other Republican candidates (Rubio and Jhindal) that were also ineligible, without even a whimper from the establishment or the press (Donald Trump being a temporary exception on the issue of Cruz). Further, Nikki Haley is also on the list of future candidates, similarly ineligible. The horse has left the barn and the barn door is closed.

The only thing I can possibly envision is some argument about what is a "naturalized" citizen. If a naturalized Cruz can run, perhaps another naturalized candidate can also, unless there is a critique of how that naturalization took place - i.e., when we have an anchor baby from Central America? Otherwise, this is a done deal.

Thanks for your hard work.

Unknown said...

Using Google Books Ngram Viewer

I found that between 1827 and 1836 "natural born citizen" was used far more often in books than at any other time between 1800 and 2000. The low point was 1980, but the real drop off begins in the 1920's. The greatly increased interest occurred before and during the presidency of Andrew Jackson. The drop off after Wilson.

I can imagine a scholar spending his life in the Library of Congress gradually coming to these conclusions. Hence, perhaps looking into books published at that time might bring revelations.

P.S. I have submitt4ed two comments which I am sure were acceptable this summer and neither have been published by you. Not sure what is happening but, hope you are well and thriving.

ajtelles said...

1 of 2

Early American Constitutional History: A Source Guide

Hi Mario,

Larry Solum posted another abstract from SSRN on his Legal Theory Blog on November 1, 2018 about a future American history resource that is being developed. A few months ago I forwarded Solum's first report of this original sources project. The title is "Baude & Campbell on Sources for Researching Early American Constitutional History", and it is an excellent summary of what is coming. It includes many urls for independent research.

This is the url for Solum's blog -

This is the SSRN url for the free PDF download -

This is the url for the 30 page PDF -

"William Baude (University of Chicago - Law School) & Jud Campbell (University of Richmond School of Law) have posted Early American Constitutional History: A Source Guide on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

"This is a concise guide to source materials relevant to late 18th-century and early 19th-century constitutional history in the United States, often with accompanying reflections about using these sources in historical and legal scholarship. The guide aims to be useful to those who are just entering the field as well as to more established historians and lawyers who want to keep up with newly available sources."

Highly recommended.

Posted by Lawrence Solum on November 01, 2018 at 05:45 AM | Permalink

~ ~ ~

Well, Mario, by the way that some constitution scholars and thought leaders are still misrepresenting the original meaning of John Jay's "natural Born citizen" suggestion in his July 25, 1787 note to his friend and president of the constitutional convention, George Washington, hopefully the historical resource being developed by William Baude and Jud Campbell will help to clarify the original genesis original intent of John Jay's use of the natural law words "natural' and "born" and the positive law word "citizen" in a way that will help the "thought leaders" in the U.S. Congress and "constitutional scholars", some of which are currently sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court.

ajtelles said...

2 of 2

However, with "thought leaders" like Justice Stephen Breyer, author of "The Court and The World: American Law and the New Global Realities" and Justice Ruth Ginsburg, both of whom have said that the legal pronouncements of foreign courts could and should be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court, well, who knows what Congress and the SCotUS "think" about the original meaning of Article II Section 1 clause 5 as to the eligibility of a "natural born" child to be U.S. president? What do the "thought leaders" and "constitutional scholars" think about the positive law of either ONLY singular U.S. citizenship or ALSO the positive law of dual U.S/foreign citizenship? ONLY birth on U.S. soil/jurisdiction or birth on foreign soil not under U.S. jurisdiction? ONLY birth to two U.S. citizens or birth to one U.S. citizen? ONLY married to each other BEFORE the child is born or AFTER the child is born? Also, ONLY married to each other, NOT married to others when the "natural born" child would be "born" (a natural law word) out of "wedlock" - a positive law "legal" word, in a sense, which helps to determine forensic substance and, in the case of an "nBc", forensic presupposition and so definitive "legal" succession.

While the terms "natural Born citizen" and "citizen" (both of which are in their entirety "positive law" terms decided by a legal body and adopted and ratified in the U.S. Constitution) do not indicate a "substantive right" that defines Jay's original genesis original intent, they do have specific meaning. To avoid mangling the meaning of the noun "substantive right" I'll quote the American Heritage Dictionary: "substantive right - n: A basic right seen as part of the order of society and independent of, not subordinate to, human law". A society can decide that to be eligible to be president a child can be born ANYWHERE in the world to ONLY one or ONLY two foreign citizens who are NOT married to each other BEFORE or AFTER the child is born, OR a sensible society can decide that to be eligible to be president a child MUST ONLY be born ONLY on U.S. soil/jurisdiction ONLY to TWO U.S. citizens who are ONLY married ONLY to each other ONLY before the child is born.

Well, Mario, as you know there are so many things to consider as to how to decide what John Jay's original genesis original intent was when he suggested to Washington that the command of the U.S. military should "devolve" (a positive law word) ONLY to a U.S. "natural Born citizen". To me, "devolve" means passed on to a "natural Born" (two natural law words) "citizen" (a positive law word) - ONLY born on U.S. soil/jurisdiction ONLY to two U.S. citizen parents who are ONLY married ONLY to each other ONLY before the child is born, NOT after the child is born.

Finally Mario, if William Baude and Jud Campbell research John Jay's original genesis original intent for underlining the word "born" in "natural Born citizen" in his July 25, 1787 note to George Washington (less than two months before the constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787) and are directed here to your blog, for their consideration I close with your two succinctly stated points about a "natural born Citizen" which I quoted above in a previous comment: To be eligible to be president of the United States as implied in Article II Section 1 clause 5 requires "(1) birth or reputed birth in the country (2) to parents who were both U.S. citizens at the time of the child's birth."


Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...


Indeed, under natural law as codified by the law of nations which was incorporated into our national common law, natural born citizens do not need any positive law to acquire that status at birth, for they become such through their birth circumstances alone. Those birth circumstances are birth in the United States to parents who were citizens of the United States at the time of their child's birth. As to others wanting to be "citizens of the United States," they must look to the Fourteenth Amendment, naturalization Act of Congress, or treaty to be made citizens of the United States, at birth or after birth, as the case may be, but not natural born citizens.

Unknown said...

I posted several comments which have never appeared. Should I assume that during this quiet period they were lost or that you considered them of no value? I suppose there could be a third alternative which I can not currently bring to mind. Would appreciate knowing what the case is/was. I have shared your interpretation of natural born citizen for years. Now I am wondering about anchor babies? Personally I do not think they are legitimate citizens.

ajtelles said...

"Birth Circumstances" dittos

Yes and dittos also to "natural law as codified by the law of nations which was incorporated into our national common law" in 1787 in Article II Section 1 clause 5 regarding a "natural Born citizen" and eligibility to be president.

In that context of the "common law", "birth circumstances" by extrapolation means that the "natural law" inherent in the words "natural born" is the "substantive right" (as mentioned previously) that in the A2 S1 c5 "nBc" context gives credence to the positive law "citizen" who alone is eligible to be president. The "substantive right" inherent in "natural law" is that which is a "basic right seen as part of the order of society and independent of, not subordinate to, human law". In other words, "natural law" and birth circumstances is superior to "human law" (positive law) regarding definition of eligibility to be president. In other words, "natural law" and birth circumstances (born in the country to parents who are U.S. citizens) is superior to "human law" (positive law) regarding definition of eligibility to be president. Even an amendment to the constitution which removes the words "natural born citizen" and which declares that birth on U.S. soil or birth on foreign soil to only one U.S. citizen parent qualifies a child to be eligible to be president would NOT change the definition of a "natural Born citizen" as only meaning born in the country to two U.S. citizen parents.

It was the "natural law" of the "birth circumstances" which was "codified by the law of nations" and it is still the inherent meaning of the natural law which gives forensic credibility and legal meaning to the codified law which itself continues to give superiority to the natural law birth circumstances (born (natural law) in the country (positive law) to parents (natural law) who are citizens (positive law)) regarding eligibility to be president of the United States.

Mario, it seems to me that if the "thought leaders" and the "constitutional scholars" do not get in touch with the implications inherent in natural law, birth circumstances and implied in the words "natural Born citizen" in Article II Section 1 clause 5 regarding eligibility to be president, well, as the bible says, it will be a case of the blind leading the blind. Or, as Yogi Berra could have said, it will be like déjà vu all over again, or they came to a fork in the road and got lost when they took the wrong one, or, if you don't know where you are going you might not get there.

PS. Some Yogi Berra quotes -

_It ain't over till it's over
_When you come to a fork in the road, take it.
_If you don't know where you are going, you'll end up someplace else.
_You can observe a lot by just watching.
_It's like déjà vu all over again.
_The future ain't what it used to be.
_Baseball is ninety percent mental and the other half is physical.
_In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
_No one goes there nowadays, it’s too crowded.
_You've got to be very careful if you don't know where you are going, because you might not get there.


Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

So many of the anti-birthers (including politicians, law professors, scholars, pundits, media commentators, internet commenters, and other undisclosed interested persons), instead of addressing the historical and legal evidence and argument about how the founders and framers defined an Article II "natural born Citizen," simply dismiss the "birther's" position as mere white nationalism, racism, and lunacy. Do they take this position due to laziness, dishonesty, incompetency, or all of the above? When answering this question, remember that the first recent (there are more in history) presidential candidate to be challenged as a non-natural born citizen was Senator John McCain (white), who had Congress pass a resolution stating that he was a natural born citizen.

Carlyle said...

Perhaps it is time to start discussing the Presidential Eligibility of Kamela Harris?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I agree.

ajtelles said...


Hi Mario,

It seems that Sen. Kamala Harris is an 1898 United States v. Wong Kim Ark "anchor baby" with 3 citizenships.

At "The Post & Email" Sharon Rondeau has an August 19, 2018 long article about Sen. Harris -

Here we go again.


Unknown said...

Kamala Harris is clearly not qualified to become President, that is, assuming the accuracy of the birth data at Wikipedia. Anyone who makes that claim publicly will be treated to a stream of abuse. For some law professors it will be a way to gain popularity with progressive Democrats. All they will need to do is attack those who have really looked into the matter and claim they are being racist. I believe she claims she is black though she could equally claim to be East Indian.

We have all come across cheating. People cheat as it seems at the time the easy way to obtain something. Given her parentage and where she lived and went to school as an adolescent she seems barely American. She is probably a Trudeau fan.

There are many persons in America now who dislike reason and facts. For them truth is often a real hazard. They will fight tooth and nail for Kamala and her natural born status. Perhaps the courts now will be more open to taking on a case regarding the matter. Of course the judge should be prepared for death threats should he decide wrongly in the opinion of the people wandering the streets.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I just posted this comment at "FACT CHECK: Is Kamala Harris Not Eligible To Be President?", at :

The historical and legal record demonstrates that there is a critical constitutional distinction between a “natural born citizen” of the United States and a “citizen” of the United States. If Sen. Kamala Harris was born in California to parents who were not U.S. citizens at the time of her birth, she would be a “citizen” of the United States from the moment of birth by virtue of the Fourteenth Amendment. She would not be a common law “natural born citizen” of the United States.

MickV said...

Tulsi Gabbard not eligible natural born Citizen either. Born in American Samoa.

Unknown said...

Barack Obama proved that virtually anyone could become President of the United States, even someone who was not qualified. Unfortunately Obama's birth certificate though proven a fake by two established document forensic experts has still remained a sort of hidden item. Here is an update from Sheriff Arpaio and his investigator.

Hopefully President Trump will eventually get the opportunity for this to be taken into court and for the truth to be known. What does it mean for a nation to go eight years with an illegitimate President? It would certainly undo many things.

As for Kamala Harris if one or both of parents were not citizens at the time of her birth it will definitely be a big fight. Regarding Tulsi Gabbard what is the status of one born on a territory? Were her parents US citizens?

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

I of II

You said: "While the government generally can’t revoke the citizenship of a natural-born citizen against their will, U.S. law recognizes some situations where a “free-will decision” by the individual can be held to constitute a voluntary renunciation of their citizenship." See

The Constitution makes a critical distinction between a “natural born Citizen” of the United States and a “Citizen” of the United States. Only the President and Vice-President must be natural born citizens. At common law with which the Framers of the Constitution were familiar a natural born citizen was a child born in a country to parents who were its citizens at the time of the child's birth. See Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167-68 (1875) (“The Constitution does not, in words, say who shall be natural-born citizens. Resort must be had elsewhere to ascertain that. At common-law, with the nomenclature of which the framers of the Constitution were familiar, it was never doubted that all children born in a country of parents who were its citizens became themselves, upon their birth, citizens also. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. Some authorities go further and include as citizens children born within the jurisdiction without reference to the citizenship of their [p168] parents. As to this class there have been doubts, but never as to the first.”). If one was a natural born citizen, there never was any doubt that one was a citizen. The doubts regarding citizenship have arisen when one was not a natural born citizen and one sought to demonstrate that one was a “citizen” either under the Fourteenth Amendment (“at birth”) or naturalization Act of Congress (by formal naturalization). So, for Muthana to be a natural born citizen of the United States she would have had to be born in the United States to parents who were both citizens of the United States at the time of her birth. If she satisfies the definition of a natural born citizen there would be no doubt that she is a “citizen” of the United States by birth and only by birth.

Mario Apuzzo, Esq. said...

II of II

But as we see, there are doubts whether Muthana is a “citizen.” Muthana was born in New Jersey to alien parents. She satisfies the place of birth requirement but not the citizen parents one. Hence, she is not nor can she be a natural born citizen. That is why there is doubt regarding whether she is a “citizen.” At most, she can be a "citizen" of the United States “at birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment (born in the United States and “subject to the jurisdiction thereof”). Assuming that she can show that she was born in the United States and that at the time of her birth she was subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (that she was not born to a father who was a foreign diplomat), she can be a “citizen” of the United States “at birth” under the Fourteenth Amendment.

But even if she can prove that she is a U.S. “citizen” “at birth,” we still have the issue of whether she renounced that nationality by voluntarily doing any of the statutorily prescribed acts with the intention to relinquish her nationality. See 8 U.S. Code § 1481. Some of those acts include (1) “taking an oath or making an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state or a political subdivision thereof, after having attained the age of eighteen years,” (2) entering or serving in the armed forces of a “foreign state,” or (3) bearing arms against the U.S. when such armed forces are engaged in hostilities against the U.S. When the U.S. government claims that one has renounced his or her U.S. nationality, the burden is upon the government to prove it. But that burden is only by a preponderance of the evidence, which is the lowest burden of proof in our legal system (it is not by clear and convincing evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt). Furthermore, under the same statute, “[a]ny person who commits or performs, or who has committed or performed, any act of expatriation under the provisions of this chapter or any other Act shall be presumed to have done so voluntarily, but such presumption may be rebutted upon a showing, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the act or acts committed or performed were not done voluntarily.”

Carlyle said...

ARGH, here we go again. A recent headline:

Nikki Haley lays the foundation to seize Trump's mantle in 2024

I like Nikki and wish she were NBC, but as some people fail to grasp,