tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post5620608536309853905..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: The Faux Claims of John Woodman Regarding the “Natural Born Citizen” ClauseMario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger30125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-90052636249152372002012-09-16T18:37:16.125-04:002012-09-16T18:37:16.125-04:00A. "These were natives or natural-born citize...A. "These were natives or natural-born citizens."<br /><br />B. "These were natives, or natural-born citizens."<br /><br />1. Which version did Justice Grey actually write (with or without the comma)? I have seen it written both ways.<br /><br />ex animo<br />davidfarrarbatazoidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16396015090204043724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-33169239407099833892012-04-17T21:40:02.572-04:002012-04-17T21:40:02.572-04:00At his web site John Woodman says:
By the way, yo...At his web site John Woodman says:<br /><br /><b><i>By the way, you really have gotten desperate. I’m not the person whose claims have been shown to be false again and again and again.<br />I’m not the one against whose basic position at least 10 federal and state courts have ruled, and for whose basic position no court has ever ruled.<br />And I’m not the one whose painted himself into a corner with falsehood after falsehood and now sees no way out. </i></b><br /><br />Do you not realize "Mr. Wood Man" that using yet an other fake identity you spill out the words and feelings of Bari, your true person? Bari M. Shabazz, remember him or have you had the need to keep him way packed down in your mind so that you never ever slip out his name, Bari, which is of course your real true name? <br /><br />Anyway, Bari, it is time for you to stand back and count how many people you pretend to be. My cousin in New York's Harlem neighborhood told me to tell you this, that this is what any good therapist would advise you, that is any therapist who is not your crazy Uncle Fred - if the therapist saw you running all over the internet posting the same stuff but using many different names. Have you not stopped to ask yourself why you do this? Why, I am sure that America would love to know why a man with your success does such a thing, that's what my husband tells me when ever your name comes up. But to be fair by this time it may be too much accounting to do for a man in your high position, besides there are all those photo ops and speeches that must sound impressive and of course the big money you are needing to charm out of people who have not yet caught on to your scam. <br /><br />But we must get back to you, Bari, which of course is the reason for this friendly message - by your harsh words as "Wood Man" you reveal that the person in the corner is you, Bari, you, not Mr. Apuzzo and this corner has only one view, that is of the bars of the jail cell that is being prepped for you as we speak. <br /><br />As for the courts so called rulings what fool lives in America who does not now know of you posting as Unknown here at Mr. Apuzzo's blog bragging about your "first rate criminal intrigue". And also of your scam called Black Mail Incorporated aka Black Male Incorporated. Is this what you like to boast about yourself that you are a one man crime company? What is it with you and no friends? We all need friends, even you, no man is an island, Bari, no man or did not your mother teach you this? <br /><br />As wise people say in Saipan you are so smart Bari you have out smarted yourself, your first rate intrigue has led you straight in to first rate trouble and if I were you I would be respectful to Mr. Apuzzo there is fast coming the day that you will need his legal assistance.SaipanAnniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06758496585694256559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-37182336087772661942012-04-16T11:46:56.496-04:002012-04-16T11:46:56.496-04:00FINALLY
Somebody is tackling this hot issue.
Fol...FINALLY<br /><br />Somebody is tackling this hot issue.<br /><br />Folks, we need to jump on this with equal vigor as with the Obama disability. Otherwise we will have no credibility as constitutionalists. We will be simply regarded as opportunists looking for technicalities to score a political victory.<br /><br />It further has the advantage that the headwind on this will be much less - we can do this! Then, it will open the nation's eyes and we can direct them to the Usurper In Chief.Carlylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07371651852897376905noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-62722751259254006032012-04-10T18:12:24.141-04:002012-04-10T18:12:24.141-04:00STepper said...
MichaelN has not found the correc...STepper said...<br /><br />MichaelN has not found the correct passage. I'd prefer for Mr. Apuzzo to respond since he is a lawyer and MichaelN obviously isn't.<br /><br />The paragraph to which I'm referring is this one:<br /><br /> "Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."<br /><br /> Mr. Apuzzo -- Chief Justice Fuller (who I think agrees with YOUR analysis of the natural born Citizenship clause generally), seems to disagree with your analysis of Wong Kim Ark, which he believes changed the law.<br /><br /> Please comment.<br /><br /> April 7, 2012 1:59 PM<br />-------------------------<br />But I did find the correct passage.<br /><br />And it is of little if any significance.<br /> <br />Fuller making a statement such as this, was in my opinion merely for the sake of those who might have misinterpreted the ruling that WKA was a birth-right "citizen" (ONLY),like those who might misunderstand or MIS-USE the ruling, especially with all the discussion that took place in the WKA court about "natural born" and birth-right citizenship.<br /><br />It is OBVIOUS that Fuller himself didn't think the WKA decision changed the law.<br /><br />STepper, you are clutching at straws.<br /><br />.MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-45524458592360013332012-04-08T11:14:02.742-04:002012-04-08T11:14:02.742-04:00Here is more on losing republics:
"The Rep...Here is more on losing republics: <br /><br />"The Republic of China, established in mainland China in 1912, governed most of mainland China prior to the outbreak of the Chinese Civil War; it received Taiwan and associated islands from the Empire of Japan due to its surrender at the end of World War II in late 1945. However, after four more years of continuous civil war, the ROC lost mainland China to Communist forces who founded the People's Republic of China (PRC) on that territory in 1949, and the ROC relocated its government to Taipei. The ROC government officially claims to represent all of China (in a definition including Taiwan) via its constitution,[17] but has not made retaking the mainland a political goal since 1992.[18] Meanwhile, the PRC, commonly known as "China", also officially asserts to be the sole legal representation of China, and actively claims Taiwan to be under its sovereignty, denying the status of the existing Republic of China as a sovereign state, and threatens military action against ROC/Taiwan if Taiwan becomes constitutionally independent from China, i.e. changing its name to 'Republic of Taiwan.'"<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TaiwanMario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-67311286394821949122012-04-07T17:24:03.465-04:002012-04-07T17:24:03.465-04:00STepper.
What say you about Justice Fuller, when ...STepper.<br /><br />What say you about Justice Fuller, when dissenting in the Wong Kim Ark court he said this?<br /><br />Quote:<br /><br />"Did the Fourteenth Amendment impose the original English common law rule as a rigid rule on this country?<br /><br />Did the amendment operate to abridge the treaty-making power, or the power to establish an uniform rule of naturalization?<br /><br />I insist that it cannot be maintained that this Government is unable, through the action of the President, concurred in by the Senate, to make a treaty with a foreign government providing that the subjects of that government, although allowed to enter the United States, shall not be made citizens thereof, and that their children shall not become such citizens by reason of being born therein.<br /><br />A treaty couched in those precise terms would not be incompatible with the Fourteenth Amendment unless it be held that that amendment has abridged the treaty-making power."<br /><br />http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.htmlMichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-66512820079787410182012-04-07T17:08:06.967-04:002012-04-07T17:08:06.967-04:00STepper.
How do you explain, with all the discuss...STepper.<br /><br />How do you explain, with all the discussion and concern about "natural born Citizen" in the WKA court, that Wong Kim Ark ONLY got ruled as a "citizen" and not a "natural born Citizen"?<br /><br />Seems like a devastating ruling -- and by the Supreme Court of the United States.<br /><br />How do you explain the US Citizenship & Immigration Service recognizing TWO types of born citizens, i.e. native born and natural born?<br /><br />Quote:<br />"(7) Restoration of citizenship is prospective . Restoration to citizenship under any one of the three statutes is not regarded as having erased the period of alienage that immediately preceded it.<br /><br />The words "shall be deemed to be a citizen of the United States to the same extent as though her marriage to said alien had taken place on or after September 22, 1922", as they appeared in the 1936 and 1940 statutes, are prospective and restore the status of NATIVE-BORN OR NATUTAL BORN CITIZEN (WHICHEVER existed prior to the loss) as of the date citizenship was reacquired. "<br /><br />AND <br /><br />"The effect of naturalization under the above statutes was not to erase the previous period of alienage, but to restore the person to THE STATUS IF naturalized, NATIVE, OR NATURAL BORN citizen, as determined by her status prior to loss."<br /><br />http://www.uscis.gov/ilink/docView/SLB/HTML/SLB/0-0-0-1/0-0-0-45077/0-0-0-48575.html<br /><br />Seems rather devastating coming from a US Government service which specializes in citizenship.MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-48151239661081332662012-04-07T16:59:38.512-04:002012-04-07T16:59:38.512-04:00MichaelN has not found the correct passage. I'...MichaelN has not found the correct passage. I'd prefer for Mr. Apuzzo to respond since he is a lawyer and MichaelN obviously isn't.<br /><br />The paragraph to which I'm referring is this one:<br /><br />"Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."<br /><br />Mr. Apuzzo -- Chief Justice Fuller (who I think agrees with YOUR analysis of the natural born Citizenship clause generally), seems to disagree with your analysis of Wong Kim Ark, which he believes changed the law. <br /><br />Please comment.STepperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02913132137247227333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-16410789022170921372012-04-07T16:44:21.439-04:002012-04-07T16:44:21.439-04:00Part Two of Two
and
"The true bond which co...Part Two of Two<br /><br />and<br /><br />"The true bond which connects the child with the body politic is not the matter of an inanimate piece of land, but the moral relations of his parentage. . . . The place of birth produces no change in the rule that children follow the condition of their fathers, for it is not naturally the place of birth that gives rights, but extraction.<br /><br />And to the same effect are the modern writers, as for instance, [p709] Bar, who says:<br /><br />To what nation a person belongs is by the laws of all nations closely dependent on descent; it is almost an universal rule that the citizenship of the parents determines it -- that of the father where children are lawful, and, where they are bastards, that of their mother, without regard to the place of their birth, and that must necessarily be recognized as the correct canon, since nationality is, in its essence, dependent on descent."<br /><br />"Section 1993 of the Revised Statutes provides that children so born<br /><br />are declared to be citizens of the United States; but the rights of citizenship shall not descend to children whose fathers never resided in the United States.<br /><br />Thus, a limitation is prescribed on the passage of citizenship by descent beyond the second generation if then surrendered by permanent nonresidence, and this limitation was contained in all the acts from 1790 down. Section 217 provides that such children shall "be considered as citizens thereof."<br /><br />The language of the statute of 7 Anne, c. 5, is quite different in providing that<br /><br />the children of all natural-born subjects born out of the ligeance of Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, shall be deemed, adjudged and taken to be natural-born subjects of this kingdom to all intents, constructions and purposes whatsoever.<br /><br />In my judgment, the children of our citizens born abroad were always natural-born citizens from the standpoint of this Government."<br /><br />"Considering the circumstances surrounding the framing of the Constitution, I submit that it is unreasonable to conclude that "natural-born citizen" applied to everybody born within the geographical tract known as the United States, irrespective of circumstances, and that the children of foreigners, happening to be born to them while passing through the country, whether of royal parentage or not, or whether of the Mongolian, Malay or other race, were eligible to the Presidency, while children of our citizens, born abroad, were not."<br /><br />"Greisser was born in the State of Ohio in 1867, his father being a German subject and domiciled in Germany, to which country the child returned. After quoting the act of 1866 and the Fourteenth Amendment, Mr. Secretary Bayard said:<br /><br />Richard Greisser was no doubt born in the United States, but he was on his birth "subject to a foreign power," and "not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States." He was not, therefore, under the statute and the Constitution a citizen of the United States by birth, and it is not pretended that he has any other title to citizenship."<br /><br />And the list goes on.<br /><br />http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0169_0649_ZD.htmlMichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-1457034180592609912012-04-07T16:43:46.760-04:002012-04-07T16:43:46.760-04:00Part One of Two
STepper said ......
"How do ...Part One of Two<br /><br />STepper said ......<br />"How do you explain Chief Justice Fuller's dissent in Wong, where he indicates that the majority decision will allow those like Wong (born of two non citizen parents) to be elected POTUS?"<br /><br />Response:<br /><br />STepper, it seems you have your wires crossed.<br /><br />Fuller (Wong Kim Ark)<br /><br />Quote:<br />"Obviously, where the Constitution deals with common law rights and uses common law phraseology, its language should be read in the light of the common law; but when the question arises as to what constitutes citizenship of the nation, involving as it does international relations, and political, as contradistinguished from civil, status, international principles must be considered, and, unless the municipal law of England appears to have been affirmatively accepted, it cannot be allowed to control in the matter of construction."<br /><br />and<br /><br />"Before the Revolution, the view of the publicists had been thus put by Vattel:<br /><br />The natives, or natural-born citizens, are those born in the country of parents who are citizens. As the society cannot exist and perpetuate itself otherwise than by the children of the citizens, those children naturally follow the condition of their fathers, and succeed to all their rights. The society is supposed to desire this in consequence of what it owes to its own preservation, and it is presumed as matter of course that each citizen, on entering into society, reserves to his children the right of becoming members of it. The country of the fathers is therefore that of the children, and these become true citizens merely by their tacit consent."MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-51493524390517187672012-04-07T12:44:06.220-04:002012-04-07T12:44:06.220-04:00"any by" should have been "and by&q..."any by" should have been "and by". Sorry for the typo.STepperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02913132137247227333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-19442699216289920922012-04-07T10:54:55.102-04:002012-04-07T10:54:55.102-04:00Concerning your comments about U.S. v. Wong Kim Ar...Concerning your comments about U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark -- How do you explain Chief Justice Fuller's dissent in Wong, where he indicates that the majority decision will allow those like Wong (born of two non citizen parents) to be elected POTUS?<br /><br />Seems like a devastating observation -- any by a contemporary Chief Justice of the United States.STepperhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02913132137247227333noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-37848612721294237892012-04-05T22:48:10.798-04:002012-04-05T22:48:10.798-04:00Stockrock50,
I sincerely hope that you will be a...Stockrock50, <br /><br />I sincerely hope that you will be able to overcome your financial hardship and bounce back to economic health. Keep fighting to make things happen.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-88715187935402990102012-04-05T21:52:23.931-04:002012-04-05T21:52:23.931-04:00Dear Mr Apuzzo,
I had hope that I would be a lar...Dear Mr Apuzzo,<br /><br /> I had hope that I would be a larger contributor of this cause financially and more. I regret to say the economy has taken my business my life to a crossroad that I never thought I would see. I thank you and all that fight for our Country and Nations hope. As we all know the United States of America is at a crossroad and only the people that care about the founding principles will push back against the groups that seek to control us the individuals of truth,justice,compassion and human rights for the world.<br />They seek our destruction and demise in hopes to obtain power over this great Nation. Without you and others who fight for the truth we will surely fall. As we all can see we are being divided as a people by using race,gender,rich,middle class,poor,religion what ever it takes to divide us. We must stand together as one as Americans. I have fallen as a business after the past three years of fighting to stay afloat but have not fallen as an American. I will lead a charge a new beginning for freedom for all. Financially I am broken but my spirit stays strong. <br /><br />Good luck to all and prayers for most. <br /><br />Stockrock50 a spiritual ghost.Stockrock50https://www.blogger.com/profile/04757744380994282146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-18106281471703293612012-04-05T21:39:55.909-04:002012-04-05T21:39:55.909-04:00Dear Mr Apuzzo,
I had hope that I would be a lar...Dear Mr Apuzzo,<br /><br /> I had hope that I would be a larger contributor of this cause financially and more. I regret to say the economy has taken my business my life to a crossroad that I never thought I would see. I thank you and all that fight for our Country and Nations hope. As we all know the United States of America is at a crossroad and only the people that care about the founding principles will push back against the groups that seek to control us the individuals of truth,justice,compassion and human rights for the world.<br />They seek our destruction and demise in hopes to obtain power over this great Nation. Without you and others who fight for the truth we will surely fall. As we all can see we are being divided as a people by using race,gender,rich,middle class,poor,religion what ever it takes to divide us. We must stand together as one as Americans. I have fallen as a business after the past three years of fighting to stay afloat but have not fallen as an American. I will lead a charge a new beginning for freedom for all. Financially I am broken but my spirit stays strong. <br /><br />Good luck to all and prayers for most. <br /><br />Stockrock50 a spiritual ghost.Stockrock50https://www.blogger.com/profile/04757744380994282146noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-40698810235651126882012-04-05T10:21:04.782-04:002012-04-05T10:21:04.782-04:00II of II
***
Louis Alphonse and Maria Margarita...II of II <br /><br />***<br /><br />Louis Alphonse and Maria Margarita had their first child, a daughter, named Eugénie on 5 March 2007 at Mount Sinai Medical Center, Miami, Florida. She was baptised at the papal nunciature in Paris in June 2007. Legitimists recognise her as Princess Eugénie (in Spain her name is Doña Eugenia de Borbón y Vargas). The couple had twin sons, Louis and Alphonse on 28 May 2010.[14] Louis has been given the title of Duke of Burgundy (duc de Bourgogne), and Alphonse the title of Duke of Berry (duc de Berry). Prince Louis, as Legitimist Dauphin of France, will succeed his father as Head of the French Royal House in Legitimist reckoning (in Spain, the twins are Don Luis and Don Alfonso de Borbón y Vargas).<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Alphonse,_Duke_of_Anjou#cite_ref-13. <br /><br />The Roman Republic was the period of the ancient Roman civilization where the government operated as a republic. It began with the overthrow of the Roman monarchy, traditionally dated around 508 BC, and its replacement by a government headed by two consuls, elected annually by the citizens and advised by a senate. A complex constitution gradually developed, centered on the principles of a separation of powers and checks and balances. Except in times of dire national emergency, public offices were limited to one year, so in theory at least, no single individual could dominate his fellow citizens.<br /><br />***<br /><br />The final victor in these civil wars, Octavian (later Augustus), reformed the Republic as a Principate, with himself as Rome's "first citizen" (princeps). The Senate continued to sit and debate. Annual magistrates were elected as before, but final decisions on matters of policy, warfare, diplomacy and appointments were privileged to the princeps as "first among equals" (or imperator due to the holding of imperium, from which the term emperor is derived). His powers were monarchic in all but name, and he held them for his lifetime, on behalf of the Senate and people of Rome. The Roman Republic was never restored, but neither was it abolished, so the event that signaled its transition to Roman Empire is a matter of interpretation. Historians have variously proposed the appointment of Julius Caesar as perpetual dictator in 44 BC, the defeat of Mark Antony at the Battle of Actium in 31 BC, and the Roman Senate's grant of extraordinary powers to Octavian (Augustus) under the first settlement in 27 BC, as candidates for the defining pivotal event ending the Republic.<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Republic. <br /><br />The Founders and Framers were wise in including the “natural born Citizen” clause. They studied the history of the Roman Republic and knew it went from monarchy, to republic, and back to monarchy. The “natural born Citizen” clause assured them the best they could that the new republic would not only be protected from foreign influence, but also not be taken over internally by monarchial power, for a “natural born Citizen” could only be born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents (the original citizens and their descendents had renounced any titles of nobility and naturalized citizens must do the same). Hence, there could be no legitimate title of nobility inherited at birth from any source and no future presidents could have any such titles. Louis Alphonse and Maria Margarita had three children, Princess Eugénie, Prince Louis, Duke of Burgundy, Prince Alphonse, Duke of Berry. Under just jus soli, U.S.-born Eugénie, Louis, and Alphonse, would be considered “natural born Citizens” and eligible to be President. But at the same time, they are not only Spanish and French citizens but also direct heirs to the French monarchy. Under a liberal interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, they are “citizens of the United States.” But under the correct definition of a “natural born Citizen,” born in the United States to two U.S. citizen parents, they would not be Article II “natural born Citizens” and not eligible to be President.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-78651114151045151842012-04-05T09:54:35.840-04:002012-04-05T09:54:35.840-04:00I of II
Unknown,
Excellent find on your part....I of II <br /><br />Unknown, <br /><br />Excellent find on your part. Here is more follow up. <br /><br />Prince Louis Alphonse of Bourbon, Duke of Anjou[1][2] (French: Louis Alphonse Gonzalve Victor Emmanuel Marc de Bourbon; but "Louis" (Luis) was not originally among his given names Spanish: Alfonso Jaime Marcelino Manuel Víctor Maria de Borbón y Martínez-Bordiú;[3][4][5] born 25 April 1974, Madrid) is a member of the Royal House of Bourbon, and one of the current pretenders to the defunct French throne. As the senior male heir of Hugh Capet[6], being the senior descendant of King Louis XIV of France (ruled 1643–1715) through his grandson King Philip V of Spain, he is recognized as the Head of the House of Bourbon and rightful claimant to the French crown by the Legitimist faction of French royalists. Louis Alphonse is a great-grandson of King Alfonso XIII of Spain and first cousin once removed of King Juan Carlos I of Spain. Through his mother, he is also a great-grandson of Spain's former dictator Francisco Franco.[3]<br /><br />***<br /><br />On 30 January 1989, his father died in a skiing accident near Vail, Colorado (in 1994 Louis Alphonse would receive 150 million pesetas following a lawsuit against Vail Associated, which owned the ski resort where the accident occurred).[9] Louis Alphonse was recognised by some members of the Capetian dynasty as Chef de la Maison de Bourbon (Head of the House of Bourbon)[10][9] and took the title Duke of Anjou, but not his father's Spanish dukedom. He is considered the rightful pretender to the French throne by adherents of the Legitimist movement.[9]<br /><br />Louis’ father was elected by the French Society of the Cincinnati to be the representative of Louis XVI (leading to the resignation of the Count of Paris, who had represented the Admiral d'Orléans). Since 16 June 1994, Louis Alphonse was elected to succeed his father as the Representative of Louis XVI[11], whose military aid was instrumental to the independence of the United States of America. In accordance to the statutes of this Society, he represents the French king as the eldest male of the senior collateral line.<br /><br />Louis Alphonse possesses French, as well as Spanish citizenship, in right of his paternal grandmother, Emmanuelle de Dampierre, also a French citizen.[9] He attended the Lycėe Français de Madrid, obtaining his COU in June 1992.[9] He studied economics. He worked several years for BNP Paribas, a French bank in Madrid. Although he regularly visited France, where his mother lived for several years, he continued to live in Spain.<br /><br />His engagement to marry Venezuelan heiress María Margarita Vargas Santaella was announced in November 2003. They were married civilly in Caracas on 5 November 2004 and religiously on 6 November 2004 in La Romana, Dominican Republic. None of the members of the Spanish Royal Family attended the wedding. Though no official reason was given, it is not a secret that the King of Spain does not approve his cousin's claim to the French throne and the fact that Louis Alphonse issued the wedding invitations as "Duke of Anjou" did not sit well with the king.[12] The couple lived in Venezuela beginning 2005, where he worked at Banco Occidental de Descuento, before moving to the United States. They currently reside in New York.<br /><br />Continued …Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-83355631946348027032012-04-05T02:30:48.569-04:002012-04-05T02:30:48.569-04:00If simply being born in the country were enough to...If simply being born in the country were enough to be considered a natural born Citizen, the current Dauphine of France would then be Commander in Chief eligible.<br /><br />Prince Louis, Duke of Burgundy was born in New York City in 2010. He is the Legitimist Dauphin of France, will succeed his father as Head of the French Royal House.<br /><br />He could litterally be the King of France (if the House of Bourbon is restored, again) and the President of the U.S.<br /><br />Pretty sure this is not a situation the framers had in mind when they put in the NBC requirement for the President and CinC.rxsidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03703783502830759460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-43335019239240186242012-04-04T19:14:49.819-04:002012-04-04T19:14:49.819-04:00John Woodman says it all doesn't it?John Woodman says it all doesn't it?Chris Strunkhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02337733159961233163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-20856370363938043882012-04-04T17:09:59.587-04:002012-04-04T17:09:59.587-04:00I think the Obots include as NBC's anyone who ...I think the Obots include as NBC's anyone who is born a citizen regardless of the circumstances, not just native born. I guess if a law was passed declaring everyone born in France after a certain date was a US citizen they'd consider them NBC's too.Justinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06072695992597706526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-8228317512593555232012-04-04T03:39:47.216-04:002012-04-04T03:39:47.216-04:00Just thinking, any comments welcomed........
In t...Just thinking, any comments welcomed........<br /><br />In the founding and framing period of US Constitution, the minor children of the "citizens" (i.e. self declared citizens as participants of the revolution)may or may not have been native-born.<br /><br />The Framers chose the term "natural born Citizen" to describe a class of "citizens" of the US that must have existed at the time.<br /><br />These "natural born Citizen"s must have been the children to yet be born to the self-declared "citizens" and included also those children already born who were in their minority; otherwise the minor children that were already born of the self declared "citizens", would have been stateless, without any citizenship at all.<br /><br />There was no 14th Amendment at the time and there was no standard practice that gave native birth-right citizenship.<br /><br />At the time, the only "citizens" that existed were the self-declared and "natural born Citizen"s.<br /><br />The native-born children of the non-citizens could not possibly have been considered by the Framers or anyone else to be "natural born Citizen"s, even if native-born, as they would have been the children of loyalists, Tories, itinerants, fence-sitters, i.e. the native-born children of NON-citizens.<br /><br />Ergo: native-birth alone could not possibly have sufficed to make a USC Article II "natural born Citizen"MichaelNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05590753165515194315noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-80891267799879548472012-04-03T22:47:51.388-04:002012-04-03T22:47:51.388-04:00I have been interested in this point you make abou...I have been interested in this point you make about the national government abandoning the English common law. I have recently seen this clearly demonstrated in how the delegates to the Constitutional Convention changed Hamilton's definition of a natural born Citizen i.e. Qualification for President:<br /><br />“No person shall be eligible to the office of President of the United States unless he be now <br />a Citizen of one of the States, or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.”<br /><br />The Convention simply took out any state qualifying statutes, since they were based on English common law practices, leaving only,"... or hereafter be born a Citizen of the United States.” which is another way of saying "natural born Citizen. <br /><br />ex animo<br />davidfarrarbatazoidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16396015090204043724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-30942147748742808162012-04-03T12:42:34.118-04:002012-04-03T12:42:34.118-04:00HistorianDude,
I did not say that The Venus used...HistorianDude, <br /><br />I did not say that The Venus used "natural born Citizen." <br /><br />Your Vattel "translation" argument is frivilous given that so many of the Founders and Framers read and understood French and the U.S. Supreme Court has clearly established that the definition of a "natural born Citizen" came from Vattel. Even Minor and Wong Kim Ark, while not citing Vattel, quoted Vattel almost word for word when telling us how the "common-law" defined a "natural-born citizen."Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-77871504214150709112012-04-03T09:37:05.755-04:002012-04-03T09:37:05.755-04:00Re: The Amicus Brief in Tisdale v. Obama
In a foo...Re: The Amicus Brief in Tisdale v. Obama<br /><br />In a footnote on page 18 you write:<br /><br />"The pre-1797 editions used the words “natives, or indigenes.” The 1797 edition replaced those words with “natives, or natural-born citizens,” as did all other subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions such as Dred Scott, 60U.S. at 476, Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162, 167 (1875), and U.S. v.Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 680 (1898). This is strong evidence that even after the Constitution was adopted in 1787 the definition of an Article II“natural born Citizen” was thought to come from Vattel"<br /><br />In point of fact, it is untrue that "all other subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decisions" quote the anachronistic 1797 translation. Specifically The Venus - 12 U.S. 253 (1814) does not.<br /><br />Further, Minor v. Happersett does not appear to cite Vattel at all, though in this footnote you appear to assert otherwise.HistorianDudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14289504737473412407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-26595699598295286812012-04-03T08:25:50.575-04:002012-04-03T08:25:50.575-04:00Mario, excellent as always! Looking forward to yo...Mario, excellent as always! Looking forward to you again being on America's Web Radio in the very near future as we all continue to strive for the truth! And, rid the country of an "illegal" resident in Our White House.America's Web Radiohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16529649352324567534noreply@blogger.com