tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post6597997165701578600..comments2024-03-02T14:24:03.076-05:00Comments on Natural Born Citizen - A Place to Ask Questions and Get the Right Answers: Obama Cannot Be A “Natural Born Citizen" Under Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875)Mario Apuzzo, Esq. http://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comBlogger131125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-76658120129801133422020-12-07T16:10:39.743-05:002020-12-07T16:10:39.743-05:00You are right again. There is a critical constitu...You are right again. There is a critical constitutional distinction between an Article II "natural born Citizen" and a "Citizen of the United States" under the original and amended Constitution and Acts of Congress. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-14786884677921992082020-12-07T15:59:58.629-05:002020-12-07T15:59:58.629-05:00Is our national problem with the "natural bor...Is our national problem with the "natural born citizen" requirement for President and Vice President, that the Constitution does not define that specific term? If so, how could that be overcome? Though it is obvious to strict constructionalists that the framers of the Constitution had reference to the definition laid out in Vattel's "Law of Nations," those with an opposite agenda insist that "citizen" and "natural born citizen" are one and the same.Driving Interesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17035671948565647971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-71104186220532390562020-12-07T15:54:24.176-05:002020-12-07T15:54:24.176-05:00Driving Interest,
You are correct. Driving Interest, <br /><br />You are correct. Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-57961653064978988172020-12-07T15:49:20.440-05:002020-12-07T15:49:20.440-05:00Neither is Kamala Harris a natural born citizen, a...Neither is Kamala Harris a natural born citizen, as both her parents were immigrants at the time of her birth, and may still be immigrants. Kamala Harris is therefore ineligible to serve as Vice President per Amendment XII of the Constitution, the last sentence being: "But no person Constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice President of the United States."Driving Interesthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17035671948565647971noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-58929305055401553192018-01-18T07:51:41.875-05:002018-01-18T07:51:41.875-05:00NOTE: The Scribd post of the text of the governmen...NOTE: The Scribd post of the text of the government's Amicus Brief in Wong Kim Ark has been DELETED. Shame, as it was an excellent brief. <br /><br />It is my opinion, now, that Wong Kim Ark was the result of the Chinese Benevolent Societies (and the Tong) 'buying' into the U.S. Supreme Court in order to guarantee a supply of Chinese workers, concubines, slaves, and 'soldiers.' For the politics and fortunes supporting the Chinese community relied on more Chinese, and naturally born Chinese sons was just not enough.<br /><br />Chinese, under the Burlingame Treaty and Exclusionary Act, were barred immigration and naturalization. This sounds racist, but the Mormons in Utah (Deseret) were also denied, because of polygamy.<br /><br />The two camps, citizenship by 'soil' or natural inheritance by 'blood' are still at odds. Those ignorant of the law simply city English Common Law principles as foundational, but there is much 18th and 19th Century case law limiting the precedential value of English common law unless specifically codified by the state's Supreme Court, or in statute. <br /><br />In other words, statute and legislation supersedes 'common law,' which is especially true in the case of Uniform Naturalization (immigration and nationality) statute. <br /><br />Immigration Reform, and D.A.C.A., are hot issues now, and the fate of the nation is in the balance. If 'citizenship at birth' to aliens is not revised by congress, then the Republic is over . . . as Emmerich de Vattel declared, 'a Nation must replenish itself with children of its citizens,' and the converse is unfortunately true; that a Nation depletes itself with children of aliens. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03612481168627327711noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-60067521768885362772016-02-29T00:08:52.880-05:002016-02-29T00:08:52.880-05:00Obama was NOT born in Hawaii!Obama was NOT born in Hawaii!Pastor Arthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16731349211927531810noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-75957233635748559272016-01-17T22:04:50.924-05:002016-01-17T22:04:50.924-05:00The case of the missing comma.
In some rendition...The case of the missing comma. <br /><br />In some renditions of this opinion, the same clause is written two different ways.<br /><br />1. These were natives or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners.<br /><br />2. These were natives, or natural-born citizens, as distinguished from aliens or foreigners. <br /><br />In the first instance, it is a defined clause. The author is giving you two different but equal examples, like the phrase "aliens or foreigners" at the end of the sentence. In the second sentence, the author is giving the reader an added description of exactly what he meant by the word "natives", he means, in fact, natural-born citizens, and not natives or natural-born citizens.davidfarrarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03585331099920425614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-57673722845768226762012-03-28T05:17:47.735-04:002012-03-28T05:17:47.735-04:00A number of independent nations have adopted citiz...A number of independent nations have adopted citizenship programs that make it possible for people of high worth to acquire citizenship provided they make a direct contribution to the state, which will, in turn help the development of the country. <br /><br /><a href="http://stkittscitizenshipbyinvestment.blogspot.in/2012/03/feel-joy-of-living-in-land-of-paradise.html" rel="nofollow"><b>St. Kitts citizenship</b></a>kittitianhillhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18097018555947797473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-80021540759916520342011-08-15T09:03:20.256-04:002011-08-15T09:03:20.256-04:00Mr. Apuzzo,
Regarding your remarks to Atticus Fin...Mr. Apuzzo,<br /><br />Regarding your remarks to Atticus Finch:<br /><br /><i>Your analysis is flawed. You fail to recognize that under the Constitution, there are two different types of birthright citizenships.</i><br /><br />it isn't that he fails to recognize it, he REFUSES to recognize it!SaipanAnniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06758496585694256559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-91119956429272846922011-08-09T17:15:06.304-04:002011-08-09T17:15:06.304-04:00Listen to CDR Kerchner (Ret) on the Terry Lakin Ac...Listen to CDR Kerchner (Ret) on the Terry Lakin Action Fund radio show via PodCast at: <a href="http://www.terrylakinactionfund.com/images/stories/audio/tlafaug08.2011-16kbpsva.mp3" rel="nofollow">http://www.terrylakinactionfund.com/images/stories/audio/tlafaug08.2011-16kbpsva.mp3</a><br /><br />Donations to help CDR Kerchner's print media efforts to expose the criminal and usurper Obama can be made at:<br />ProtectOurLiberty.org<br /><a href="http://www.protectourliberty.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.protectourliberty.org</a>cfkerchnerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02941086863044892649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-70572423195958834002011-08-08T22:00:32.425-04:002011-08-08T22:00:32.425-04:00Addition to Bob & juniper55 - Lugar/Obama trip...Addition to Bob & juniper55 - Lugar/Obama trip to Russia<br /><br />Part 2<br />*Cliff Kincaid --New START and<br />"Obama's" Mysterious Trip to Russia<br />http://www.newswithviews.com/Kincaid/cliff434.htm<br /><br />In fact, the trip by Lugar and "Obama" to Russia in 2005 was designed to promote the scandal-ridden "Cooperative Threat Reduction Program" (CTR), also known as the Nunn-Lugar program for its original Senate sponsors. Lugar and "Obama" co-sponsored a follow-up program. (Paragraph 16)*<br /><br />... Lugar one of the leading globalist in the Senate was a mentor for then - Senator "Obama" during controversial three-day visit they made to Russia and Eastern Europe. (Paragraph 1)*<br /><br />Lugar had sought out "Obama" for a spot on the committee shortly "Obama" won his seat in 2004, and their relation was so deep that Lugar came to be considered an informal senior adviser to "Obama" after his election to the Presidency. (Paragraph 22)*<br /><br />@Bob's references posted June 22:<br />During the visit, Russian authorities detained "Obama" and Lugar, threatened to search their plane, and examined their passports. Strangely, an official report from Lugar's office about this trip ignored the incident. (Paragraph 2)*<br /><br />... Lugar and "Obama' were kept in uncomfortably in stuffy room for three hours and allowed out onto adjoining porch area only after they surrendered their passports. (Paragraph 28)* <br /><br />**Russia holds "Obama" for Suspicion of Being a British Spy Back in 2005! Invistigator in Chicago Fingers Obama for being a British Spy As Far Back As 2004.<br /><br />Cloak's exclusive August 2005 story exposing "Obama's" Kenyan birthplace forces "Obama" to sanitize his passport file.<br /><br />Cloak's co-host S. Skolnick prior to 2004 election fingered "Obama" running in Illinois for the US Senate as a British Intel agent born in Kenya. Skolnick as a co-spy watcher unmasked "Obama" on his regular CLOAK program.<br /><br />Today Russian President V. Putin ordered US Senator "Obama", who is also tight with MOSSAD, to be held in custody under suspicion of being a British operative illgeally spying in Russia at off-limits secret facilities. (Paragraph 11)**<br /><br />Spying with Obama, who was locked-up, was US Senator Lugar, pro Bush was detained by Putin but unlike "Obama", quickly released. (Paragraph 12)**<br />(http://www.americanreporter.wordpress.com/2009/09/06<br />(http://www.rightwire.net/2011/04/2005-russia-detains-obama-as-british.html)<br /><br />Links:<br />http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publication/id.6745/pub_detail.asp<br />http://www.scribd.com/doc/12867159/Former-Clinton-Official-Named-asRussian-Dupe<br />http://www.simon/2011/07/29/obama-manchurian-president/<br />http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/171656791<br /><br />Further Links:<br />Rich Kelly: The Nunn-Lugar Act A Wasteful and Dangerous Illusion<br />http://www. cato.org/pubs/fpbriefs/fpb-039.html<br />Gabriel Schoenfield; US Should Repel Nunn-Lugar Cooperative<br />online.wsj/article/SB10000142405297020370660474368524278888240.html<br /><br />FamilySecurityMatters.org<br />Articles:<br />New START is a Non-Starter;<br />New START leads to Bad End;<br />False START;<br />Exclusive: Spies Amongst US - How Many More?;<br />White House Secrecy Over Russian Nuke Negotiations: Why;<br />A Late Look at a Troubling Treaty;<br />Flashpoint: Atomic Affairs - Nervousness Over Nuclear Moves<br /><br />What The Russian Spy Scandal Is Really About? By R. Oliphant<br />http://www.fastertimes.com/russia/2010/07/01<br /><br />One document in the spy case reveals that Moscow had "requested information on the US position with respect to a new Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty, Afghanistan, and Iran's nuclear weapons program." It is said Russian agents were directed to obtain information on[Russia] policy team members," but the names of four "Obama" Administration officials who were targeted in this effort were deleted. (Paragraph 5)*<br />http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publication/id/.6745/pub_detail.aspJohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01094562292565041486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-25559007904437829592011-08-08T20:48:19.037-04:002011-08-08T20:48:19.037-04:00Addition to Bob & juniper55 -
Lugar/Obama tri...Addition to Bob & juniper55 - <br />Lugar/Obama trip to Russia<br /><br />Part 1<br />Suspecting Billionaire Mr. G. Soros of playing the spy game on its own with both he and "O" are apparently on the same score make two spies not one to adore.<br /><br />Lugar is one of the most left-wing Republican Senator on foreign policy issues, advocator of pro-government world. World Federalist Association, endorser of the group for passage on treaty of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the sea. He enthusiastically supported two-pro abortion Supreme Court Justices appointed by "O." Lugar nowadays has carefully manuevered its breathing space away from "O" for he is up for Indiana senatorial election on November 2012.<br /><br />In the company of leftist Lugar, his mentor on foreign affairs, "O's" trip to Russia in 2005 was set to ensure "O's" support for maintaining and even expanding foreign aid to Russia through Cooperative Threat Reduction (CTR)Program. Government Accountability (GAO)reveals that funds to destroy outdated weapons in Russia, instead Moscow was going to replace with high-tech arms and provide salaries for their scientist. CTR program has over $6 billion in funding and un-estimated amount are sneak-in to Moscow weapons upgrade.<br /><br />The counter espionage dramas between Russia and US have guarded patterns that are improbable to decipher for the street guy point of view. There are constant exchanges of information and disinformation to cover-up political agendas.<br /><br />Hoosier Daddy of Washington Monthly is devoted to politics with progressive perspectives.Johttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01094562292565041486noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-25433619008191459342011-07-29T14:43:13.019-04:002011-07-29T14:43:13.019-04:00Atticus finch,
Your analysis is flawed. You fail...Atticus finch, <br /><br />Your analysis is flawed. You fail to recognize that under the Constitution, there are two different types of birthright citizenships. <br /><br />There is no indication in its text or in the history of its debates that the Fourteenth Amendment was intended to or that it did in fact define or amend the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Hence, the Constitution makes a distinction between an Article II "natural born" "Citizen of the United States" and a Fourteenth Amendment "born" "citizen of the United States." The Constitution provides for different birth circumstances for these two different classes of citizens upon whom it bestows birthright citizenship. These are two different types of birthright citizenships. <br /><br />In Article II, the Constitution demands the status of "natural born." In the Fourteenth Amendment, it demands "born" in the United States and "subject to its jurisdiction" at the time of birth. Only a child born in the country to citizen parents can be an Article II "natural born" "Citizen of the United States." Minor v. Happersett (1875). In contradistinction, a child born in the U.S. to one or two alien parents can under the Fourteenth Amendment be a "born" "citizen of the United States." U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark (1989). Assuming he was born in Hawaii to his reported parents, Obama can be the latter, but he cannot be the former. <br /><br />All the cases that you have cited do not contradict my position or otherwise show that I am in error.Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-38864241976191998652011-07-29T14:41:51.082-04:002011-07-29T14:41:51.082-04:00@ atticus
Error promulgates Error which Compounds...@ atticus<br /><br />Error promulgates Error which Compounds geometrically into Lawlessness. That is our 20:20 perspective of Wong Kim Ark.<br /><br />The courts are in error forcing jus solis into the jus sanguinis and jus albinatus precepts that our Naturalization acts, 1790 et seq to 1855.<br /><br />Jus solis was relied upon by the colonies because they were limited in jurisdiction by the monarchy. Once the colonies became states, they had as much power over persons in their jurisdiction as England.<br /><br />If English law was 'followed' by the states, then all of English law was relevant, which only relied on jus soli in a feudal sense; jus sanguinis, or 'citizenship by descent,' is the primary method of British nationality.<br /><br />In addition, under Art I, Sec 8, the courts had no subject matter jurisdiction.<br /><br />You may prefer being a 'subject' to judicial error and fiat, but a free 'citizen' has fractional sovereignty, and can, no, MUST, speak out against incompetent judges.<br /><br />Speaking of which, two gay judges violated Rules of Judicial Conduct in participating in the gay agenda. (Oh, I believe in gay marriage myself . . . a male homosexual can marry a lesbian freely and legally.) Last week in Albuquerque, NM a Bernalillo County District Court judge resigned and faces 'rape' charges for forcing oral sex on a prostitute.<br /><br />Judges MUST be held to higher standards. <br /><br />You can cite Ark, and subsequent error till the cows come home . . . it doesn't erase the 'original sin' which taints our current 'laws.'Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-78814333862826484502011-07-29T14:30:12.419-04:002011-07-29T14:30:12.419-04:00I must take exception to relying on the 14th Amend...I must take exception to relying on the 14th Amendment to define a purely jus solis citizen at birth.<br /><br />Stare Decisis, legislated act, Sec 5 of the 14th Amendment, and clear intent of the authors of the 14th Amendment only created a jus soli citizen when no foreign jurisdiction existed through the parents. <br /><br />J. Gray violated jurisprudence in his holding in Wong Kim Ark, and that decision MUST be overturned when Congress finally has the courage to address illegal immigration.<br /><br />The 'native-born' children benefitting from the 14th Amendment were primarily children of freed slaves. It is also a benefit to children born of alien parents dispossessed of their nation, oppressed aliens granted sanctuary, and foundlings.<br /><br />A minor child of an alien remained alien until the father naturalized; that was clearly the intent and clear language of legislated act.<br /><br />Please make it a practice to disqualify 14th Amendment birthright citizenship as generally accepted as the result of liberal and incompetent Judicial Fiat.<br /><br />Proof of classic liberalism is the fact that the Federal court now forces states to treat children of illegal aliens, of parents unlawfully domiciled in the United States, as citizens.<br /><br />This is as much an attack on U.S. sovereignty as Obama putting Stimulus on Steroids, increasing the Debt:GDP ratio to catastrophic levels . . . both intended to destroy the United States.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-54246843325263354572011-07-29T10:48:30.018-04:002011-07-29T10:48:30.018-04:00paraleaglenm wrote:
"It is clearly common ...paraleaglenm wrote: <br /><br />"It is clearly common knowledge, and intentionally integrated into legislated Act, that the parent's allegiance determined that of the children."<br /><br />Response:<br /><br />Courts have held that alien parents' allegiance is irrelevant regarding the United States citizenship status on their children who were born in the United States.<br /><br />The focus on the allegiance of the parents in determining the citizenship status of the child is misplaced since Blackstone wrote that "Natural allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the king's dominions immediately upon their birth." <br /><br />“[I]t has consistently been held judicially that one born in the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is, from birth, a citizen of the United States; that such citizenship does not depend upon like citizenship of his or her parents, or of either of them (except in the case of the children of ambassadors etc.).<br />United States v. Richmond, 274 F. Supp. 43, 56 (CD Ca 1967). See also<br />Von Schwerdtner v. Piper, 23 F. 2d 862 (D. MD 1928) (child born in the United States to German nationals)<br /><br /><br />A person who is born in the United States, regardless of the citizenship of his parents, becomes an American citizen not by gift of Congress but by force of the Constitution. U.S.C.A., Constitutional Amendment 14, Section 1. In re Gogal, 75 F. Supp. 268, 271 (WD Pa 1947)<br /><br />As such, the allegiance of parents whatever their situation is irrelevant in determining the citizenship status of a child born in the United States. “ At common law, a native is a person born within the jurisdiction and allegiance of a country, irrespective of the allegiance of his parents, except the child of an ambassador. Ex parte Palo, 3 F. 2d 44, 45 (W.D. Wa 1925) <br />(internal citation omitted)atticus finchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10955608106474375955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-54649217234555345442011-07-29T10:41:05.678-04:002011-07-29T10:41:05.678-04:00paraleaglenm wrote:
"As for the natural bor...paraleaglenm wrote: <br /><br />"As for the natural born citizenship status of those born of aliens, the 1790 Act provided an avenue for naturalization of the parents, and thus that of minor children."<br /><br />Response:<br /><br />One minor correction at the end of your sentence. It should read:<br />"the 1790 Act provided an avenue for naturalization of the parents and thus that of FOREIGN BORN minor children." <br /><br />Courts have held that children born in the United States to alien parents are citizens.<br /><br />"CITIZEN CHILDREN have, of course, an absolute right to remain in the United States. The Cerrillos' citizen children were born to Mexican nationals here illegally.<br />Cerrillo-Perez v. INS, 809 F. 2d 1419, 1423 (9th Cir. 1987) (emphasis added)<br /><br />"Petitioners are husband and wife, both aliens. Prior to 1951 both worked as seamen on foreign vessels. In July 1951 the wife lawfully entered the United States as a crew member of a ship in a United States port. Being pregnant, she sought medical advice; subsequently she decided in the interest of her health to stay ashore. A month later, on the next occasion his ship arrived in the United States, her husband joined her; he also failed to leave on the expiration of his limited lawful stay. In November 1951 their child was born; the child is, of course, an AMERICAN CITIZEN BY BIRTH." United States ex rel. Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy, 353 U.S.72, 73(1957)(emphasis added)<br /><br />"Doris C. Oforji appeals from an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirming, without opinion, the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying her application for asylum and withholding of deportation. Oforji argues on appeal that the BIA erred by failing to appropriately weigh and consider the evidence presented; in failing to extend derivative asylum and relief to Oforji on behalf of her UNITED STATES CITIZEN CHILDREN; and in issuing an affirmance without opinion. We affirm."<br />Oforji v. Ashcroft, 354 F. 3d 609, 611 (7th Cir. 2007)(emphasis added)<br /><br />"It is also established under California law that ineligible aliens may arrange gifts of agricultural land to their citizen children." Oyama v. California, 332 US 633, 640 (1948)<br /><br />"We believe it clear that some CITIZEN CHILDREN who are eligible to attend Texas schools live with their illegal alien parents." Doe v. Plyler, 628 F. 2d 448, 460 (5th Cir. 1980), affirmed, 457 U.S. 202 (1982)(emphasis added)<br /><br />Please explain again why a child born in the United States to alien parents is not a citizenatticus finchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10955608106474375955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-7074883775623628032011-07-28T19:02:09.084-04:002011-07-28T19:02:09.084-04:00Atticus finch,
In defining a “natural-born citiz...Atticus finch, <br /><br />In defining a “natural-born citizen” and a “citizen,” the Minor Court did not look to the Fourteenth Amendment but rather to “common-law.” The Court said that under “common-law,” a “natural-born citizen” was a child born in the country to citizen parents. The definition that the Court gave was almost a quote from Vattel at Section 212 of The Law of Nations. <br /><br />Hence, as is evident, Minor's reference to "common-law" in defining a "natural-born citizen" was not and could not be to the English common law which was based on jus soli and made no reference to the citizenship of the child's parents (except for ambassador and invading military parents). We also know that the Court could not have been contemplating the English common law to define a “natural-born citizen” and “citizen,” for it later said that “there had been doubts” whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was a “citizen.” Clearly, under English common law such a child would have been a "natural born subject." Before the passage of the British Nationality Act 1981, jus soli had been the basis of birthright citizenship in the United Kingdom for at least 375 years. Today, a child born in Great Britain must be born to at least one parent who is either a British citizen or “settled in the United Kingdom” in order to be granted British citizenship by birth. So if the Court were referring to English common law to define national citizenship in the United States, it would not have said that "there had been doubts" whether a child born in the United States to alien parents was even a "citizen." <br /><br />Rather, the “common-law” to which the Court referred could only be natural law and the law of nations which became American common law and adopted as part of the “Laws of the United States.” See Constitution, Article III. The historical record shows that the law of nations was adopted by the new Republic as part of its common law. That is why Minor referred to that body of law as the "common-law."Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-42862914034964846642011-07-28T10:48:59.271-04:002011-07-28T10:48:59.271-04:00Proof of the Precedential value of Minor v. Happer...Proof of the Precedential value of Minor v. Happersett as to Original Citizenship, and not only "voting rights" is found in Boyd v. Nebraska.<br />Waite's reference to A2S1C5 and Original Citizenship is cited DIRECTLY to the holding of the case. Since Boyd was a Citizen of Nebraska Territory prior to it's admission to the Union, he was deemed a US Citizen at the time Nebraska was admitted, and thus was a US Citizen, eligible to be governor of Nebraska.<br />Here:<br /><br />"As remarked by Mr. Chief Justice Waite in Minor v. Happersett, 21 Wall. 162, 167: 'Whoever, then, was one of the people of either of these states when the constitution of the United States was adopted, became ipso facto a citizen, – a member of the nation created by its adoption. He was one of the persons associating together to form the nation, and was, consequently, one of its original citizens. As to this there has never been a doubt. Disputes have arisen as to whether or not certain persons or certain classes of persons were part of the people at the time, but never as to their citizenship if they were.'"<br /><br />And the holding of the case:<br /><br />" We are of opinion that James E. Boyd is entitled to claim that, if his father did not complete his naturalization before his son had attained majority, the son cannot be held to have lost the inchoate status he had acquired by the declaration of intention, and to have elected to become the subject of a foreign power, but, on the contrary, that the oaths he took and his action as a citizen entitled him to insist upon the benefit of his father's act, and placed him in the same category as his father would have occupied if he had emigrated to the territory of Nebraska; that, in short, he was within the intent and meaning, effect and operation, of the acts of congress in relation to citizens of the territory, and was made a citizen of the United States and of the state of Nebraska under the organic and enabling acts and the act of admission."<br /><br />When an on point "who is a natural born Citizen" case arrives, Waite's Minor v. Happersett definition of natural born Citizen will be equally as precedential.Mickhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02864660386925998491noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-43875900835029255472011-07-28T09:56:44.904-04:002011-07-28T09:56:44.904-04:00Obama claims to have knowledge of constitutional l...Obama claims to have knowledge of constitutional law - thus he must know about the presidential eligibility requirement to be a natural born citizen. Obama stated on his website that he was a native born citizen and that he was a british citizen. From his statements the conclusion of the most casual observer must be that he is not eligible and he knows it. In the eyes of an old engineer <br />the arguments of Finch who apparently wants Obama to be eligible just do not hold water.<br />old marine Phil Stonephil stonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08798840335706659721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-31330456804647203922011-07-28T03:49:57.505-04:002011-07-28T03:49:57.505-04:00Waite's reliance on common-law and language fa...Waite's reliance on common-law and language familiar to the court determined that children of citizens, in the manner and style of language of Vattel's §§ 212 and 215, were natural born citizens.<br /><br />The citizenship status of those born jus soli of aliens was yet to be determined, and Waite did an analysis of the 1790 Act, et seq through 1855.<br /><br />Therefore, Waite's determination of natural born citizenship was judicial notice, and one of common knowledge. <br /><br />As for the natural born citizenship status of those born of aliens, the 1790 Act provided an avenue for naturalization of the parents, and thus that of minor children. <br /><br />Today, liberals have so misconstrued the law as to give the minor children the power to force municipalities and states to give de facto citizen status to alien parents, merely from children born jus soli. <br /><br />It is clearly common knowledge, and intentionally integrated into legislated Act, that the parent's allegiance determined that of the children.<br /><br />Yes, Madison relied on 'place of birth' under English laws in the Case of Mr. Smith, but that was 10 months prior to passage of the first naturalization act. The jus soli provisions practice for a century of colonial subjection had not yet been superseded by jus sanguinis/albinatus of the 1790 Act . . . better suited to free citizens of a constitutional republic.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-77347135608449701052011-07-28T00:32:37.425-04:002011-07-28T00:32:37.425-04:00In defining a “natural-born citizen” and a “citize...In defining a “natural-born citizen” and a “citizen,” the Minor Court did not look to the Fourteenth Amendment but rather to “common-law.” The Court said that under “common-law,” a “natural-born citizen” was a child born in the country to citizen parents. The definition that the Court gave was almost a quote from Vattel at Section 212 of The Law of Nations. Hence, this “common-law” could only refer to natural law and the law of nations which became part of American common law and adopted as part of the Laws of the United States.” Article III. <br /><br />The Court said that “there had been doubts” whether a child born in the country to alien parents was even a “citizen.” The Court said that it was not necessary to resolve those doubts because based on what was before the Court it could decide the case without doing so. The Court decided the case without resolving those doubts because Minor was born in the country to citizen parents. So, it was not necessary for the court to determine if someone born in the country to alien parents is a “citizen.” Hence, the Court did not have to decide the sub issue of what was a “citizen” because Minor was a “natural born citizen.” <br /><br />It was absolutely necessary for the Court to address and determine Minor’s citizenship status because the Court had to analyze whether the right of suffrage was a right that came automatically with being a “citizen of the United States.” If Minor was not a “citizen,” she could not argue that as a “citizen” she was entitled to the privilege of voting under Article IV, Section 2 and that under the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, Missouri could not abridge that privilege. In other words, being a citizen was a condition precedent to her constitutional privileges argument. <br /><br />Minor convinced the Court that she was not only a “citizen,” but also a “native born” “citizen of the United States” which the Court informed us was equivalent to a “natural-born citizen.” Since the Court did not resolve the legal question of whether one born in the country to alien parents was a “citizen,” the Court had to factually conclude that Minor was born in the country to citizen parents or else the Court could not have declared her a “citizen” and because she was born in the country to “citizen” parents also a “native[] or natural-born citizen[].” The Court would have never reached the question of whether the right to suffrage automatically attached to a “citizen” if it did not first decide that Minor was in fact a “citizen.” <br /><br />The Court showed how the citizens of the states were not all invested with the right of suffrage. Hence, it concluded that the right of suffrage was not “one of the rights that belonged to citizenship,” not an “absolute right[] of citizenship,” and was therefore not one of the necessary privileges of a “citizen of the United States.” The Court, therefore, did not rule that Missouri’s constitution and law which only allowed “male citizens of the United States” to vote was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment’s privileges and immunities clause. The Court did recognize that women probably should have the right to vote, but it said that that was a matter for the legislature to resolve, not the courts. We know that the Nineteenth Amendment eventually granted to women the right to vote. <br /> <br />All this shows that Minor was a precedential U.S. Supreme Court decision on the meaning of a “natural-born citizen” and “citizen.”Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-53192696592325014952011-07-27T23:31:09.940-04:002011-07-27T23:31:09.940-04:00Atticus Finch makes reference to a quote that equa...Atticus Finch makes reference to a quote that equates the subjecthood and allegiance of English-born children of aliens to that of the citizenship and allegiance of US-born children of aliens. This equation is in error.<br /><br />Aliens (aka “aliens in amity”) in England suspended their home country allegiance and owed a temporary allegiance to the English king. They were expected to take, or at least comply with, the Oath of Allegiance, whereby they promised that, while on English soil, they would "bear faith and true allegiance” to the English king. This temporary allegiance was sufficient for their English-born children to be given subjecthood -- they were called denizens and were deemed to be natural-born subjects by statute. But it was the children of English subjects (persons who were under the “actual obedience” of the King) who were natural-born subjects in fact and not by any law.<br /><br />In the US, aliens do not suspend their home country allegiance. They are not expected to take, nor at least comply with, any type of Oath of Allegiance until such time as they become citizens (naturalization). While residing in the US, these aliens do not “bear faith and true allegiance” to the US – their faith and true allegiance remains with their home country. Hence, there is no allegiance on the part of aliens residing in the US which would allow their US-born children to be deemed natural born citizens. It is only the US-born children of American citizens (persons who do bear faith and true allegiance to the US and are under the “actual obedience” of the US) who are natural born citizens – citizens at birth in fact by the laws of nature, and not by any law of man.Texomahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02092015557772704679noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-83457913316511552312011-07-27T21:35:25.341-04:002011-07-27T21:35:25.341-04:00Puzo1 wrote: "Since the Court said there were...Puzo1 wrote: "Since the Court said there were doubts whether a child born in the country to alien parents was even a “citizen,” it had to decide that it was necessary for Minor to have been born to U.S. citizen parents in order for the Court to declare her both a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen.” The Court not deciding the citizenship status of a child born in the U.S. to alien parents only went to whether that child was a “citizen,” not whether that child was a “natural born Citizen.”<br /><br />Response:<br /><br />If of all, The Minor Court didn't even addressed Ms. Minor as a natural born citizen. In fact,<br />the Minor court noted Ms. Minor was a citizen at birth not a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN. <br /><br />As for whether or not a child of an alien parent is a citizen, the Minor Court already conceded that <br />these children were "CITIZENS CHILDREN." <br /><br />Now whether or not these CITIZENS CHLDREN were in fact "natural born citizens" the Minor Court very clearly stated "[f]or the purposes of this case it is not necessary to solve these doubts [citizens children born without reference to citizenship of their parents].” Id at 168.<br /><br />As such, since the Minor court on its own admission declared that it wasn't necessary to address the natural born citizenship status of these CITZENS CHILDREN then the Minor court's language regarding natural born citizen is dicta. <br /><br />In other words, the Minor court stated that children of citizen parents were natural born citizen but as to citizens children of alien parents that question would have to be addressed by another court.atticus finchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10955608106474375955noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7466841558189356289.post-46692350934382366692011-07-27T17:22:18.758-04:002011-07-27T17:22:18.758-04:00Atticus finch,
The Minor Court was compelled to ...Atticus finch, <br /><br />The Minor Court was compelled to address the question of Minor's citizenship status given that Minor argued that as a citizen she was entitled to the privilege of voting under Article IV, Section 2 and that under the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, Missouri could not abridge her privilege of voting. Hence, since the Court had to address the citizenship issue and analyzed that issue thoroughly, its definition of a "natural born Citizen" is central to the Court's decision and binding precedent on later courts. Additionally, Wong Kim Ark cited and quoted Minor for that same exact definition. So Minor’s definition of citizenship was also cited with approval by a subsequent U.S. Supreme Court decision. <br /><br />Since the Court said there were doubts whether a child born in the country to alien parents was even a “citizen,” it had to decide that it was necessary for Minor to have been born to U.S. citizen parents in order for the Court to declare her both a “natural born Citizen” and a “citizen.” The Court not deciding the citizenship status of a child born in the U.S. to alien parents only went to whether that child was a “citizen,” not whether that child was a “natural born Citizen.”Mario Apuzzo, Esq. https://www.blogger.com/profile/12200858207095622181noreply@blogger.com